For preview only. Get it at

Science and Islam

Ratings: 7.29/10 from 68 users.

Science and IslamPhysicist Jim Al-Khalili travels through Syria, Iran, Tunisia and Spain to tell the story of the great leap in scientific knowledge that took place in the Islamic world between the 8th and 14th centuries.

Its legacy is tangible, with terms like algebra, algorithm and alkali all being Arabic in origin and at the very heart of modern science – there would be no modern mathematics or physics without algebra, no computers without algorithms and no chemistry without alkalis.

For Baghdad-born Al-Khalili this is also a personal journey and on his travels he uncovers a diverse and outward-looking culture, fascinated by learning and obsessed with science.

From the great mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, who did much to establish the mathematical tradition we now know as algebra, to Ibn Sina, a pioneer of early medicine whose Canon of Medicine was still in use as recently as the 19th century, he pieces together a remarkable story of the often-overlooked achievements of the early medieval Islamic scientists.

More great documentaries

212 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Zydo

    anybody seen this? comment plz

  2. rainin

    this is an amazing film, a must see

  3. Peegee

    An enlightening film about the history of a region that most westerners know too little about.

  4. Resab

    No Wonder!

    The Prophet Muhammad said, “Any word of wisdom is the stray of the believer, who has the better right to it wherever it may be found.”

    And numerous Quranic injunctions exhorting believers to explore nature, meditate on creation and reason about god!

  5. santa

    While Europe for almost 1000yrs lived a nightmarish existence in Dark Ages, destroyed all their classical scientific and cultural heritage, burning women and books, Islamic world preserved that knowledge and expended it further. Today Islamic world is perceived as savage, barbaric by most of the ordinary western people, but to be fer Islamic world saved the (west) world by preserving and transferring all the classical heritage back to the western world in the time of Renaissance.

  6. Joseph

    Muslims like present the Quran and Islam compatible with science. it is not!

  7. Mo'

    Just goes to show what was happening in the civilised world while Europeans were still throwing rocks at the sun.

  8. Joseph

    HA the Muslim world is living in the dark ages in the 21 century.

  9. Rachel

    Joseph, do not throw rocks again, you know what I told you.

    Peace :)

  10. Joseph

    i am only stating what can be seen and known about the Islamic world. The Muslim world needs to seriously work in the the area of education. Why promote 6th century Arab culture??
    People want to be free and not chained to some archaic system of belief.

  11. Ben

    Joseph , why are you insisting on the fact that Islam is the problem ?
    people are free to choose the system of belif they want to choose and this documentary proves that although "chained " to this religion ( adopting your words ) they suceeded in doing what other civilizations are still using untill now ;)

    and concerning you comment "HA the Muslim world is living in the dark ages in the 21 century" it's a stupid comment because the muslims could've said the same thing at the 12th century !!
    well I think you're missing the point of such documentaries : it's not an issue if you're a muslim , jewish , christian or atheist , the important thing is how you interact with you surrounding environment !

  12. San

    science and religion cannot mix,because they contradict with each other in so many ways.So this little debate or argument has no meaning.....
    whatever those Islamic scientist had discovered in ancient time is totally out of necessity not because of they were Muslim's.all the scientist's of the world were born with a religion but it is not there religion that is making them to discover thing's,it the great human curiosity is responsible for that.
    as this documentary clearly stated that the medieval Islamic scientists had discovered lots of the things,I think they should be credited for great work,the religion ISLAM is no way responsible for their success.

  13. mnti

    I am watching this doc, I have to say it's a revolution compared to other docs vis à vis the number of misinformation
    but never the less, even if I haven't finishied it yet there are already some ones for exemple when he speaks about epilepsy in a book named "attib Annabaoui" (and I own one copy) :
    first of all, this quotation is not from the Prophet MUHAMMED S.A.W. but from the author of the book (may GOD have mercy on his soul)
    second, if you read this chapter (after the intro) it's divided on two: epilepsy and possession. And just one ligne before he (the doc presenter) begins his quotation, it is mentionned (the meaning) that saying that this type of convulsions can only be due to epilepsy is wrong, but rather only one part of these diseases can be classified as a type of epilepsy. In fact the author blames the Grecks; they only considered epilepsy because for them(the greecks) this desease affect the "apparent godly part, which is located in the brain"
    And exorcysme is only indicated for possession, but conserning epilepsy it is even mentionned that it can be due to a brain located blood clot but the author conclude finally
    that ALLAH knows best; because except the confirmed authentic Prophetic Hadiths, the rest of remarcks in this book are from normal muslims medical research.
    And if you don't believe in jinns, demons...and what ever you don't see this doesn't mean that they don't exist, think about lymphocytes, virus...!

  14. mnti

    excuse me for the bad english cause it's not my language.

  15. lisa

    being a student of history, i must admit that under the muslim caliphate governing structure it wasnt just the sciences that prospered, but the people of the world in general saw peace. I think if the muslims got there way about a 21th centery caliphate, then there could be some much needed peace again.

  16. Ren

    I implore you to actually visit the Muslim world. Or in what I believe you are referring to: The Arab World.
    Nothing about Dubai is 6th century, Cairo has almost all modern convinces, so does Jeddah, Amman, Damascus, Marrakesh, Bahrain, Istanbul, Tunis, Beirut, Doha, Kuwait, and many more. Modern Hospitals, Starbucks, boardwalks, skyscrapers, neon lights, movie theaters, nice cars, new fashions and so forth.

    What I do believe you are referring to is poverty. Which exists on many levels in the Muslim world as well as the Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist world. If you want to blame poverty on religion that's your prerogative. But please do not discount the effects of colonialism, war and dictatorships. None of which you're average citizen chooses of freely. None of which mothers or fathers want for their children.

    To you it is abstract and worth laughing at. But for others, like me, it is not and I urge to to reconsider mocking a large and varied group of people.
    Glass houses and all.

  17. Syly1212

    At about the 9:50 time it says Muhammad founded Islam. Actually Islam was revealed to him by God through through the angel Jibr?l(Gabriel).

    Muhammad is no more the founder of Islam, then Jesus is the founder of Christianity.

  18. Jade

    The Koran and the Hadith speak of seven earths, seven heavens, the sun setting into a pool of murky water, that sperm comes from the ribcage, that comets are missiles thrown by Allah at demons, the the earth is flat, the the earth is an ostrich's riddled with scientific inaccuracies. So much so that proponents of this proposterous idea that Islam is compatible with modern day science need to be both imaginitive and inventive when trying to defend this claim. What results is 60 minutes of the most absurd propaganda and interpretive gymnastics (glaring omissions too) that it's on the verge of comedy. If it wasn't so sad.

  19. Mahmoud

    @jade :- if u did read Quran which i suppose that u didn't , u would know that what u r talking about is nonsense , read Quran well then u will know . And Allah says that Muslims shall not argue with people who doen't want to learn ! do u realy wanna learn ? or r u repeating words u heard or readed before ????????????

  20. Ali Sina

    Muslims are LIARS when they claim that Muslims invented Algebra. Algebra was developed by Babylonians 4000 years ago BEFORE ISLAM EVER EXISTED and further developed and improved by Indians later.
    Beware of their "Taqiyya" (islamic instructions to deceive infidels for the cause of their religion).

  21. steven

    Ali Sina u r ignorant muslim aint sayin they invented algebra buh they simplified it and made it much easier to understand

  22. Wawa

    Oh here we go again with the misconsception that "Dark Ages" means cultural downfall, destruction etc. sorry to dissapoint you but "Dark Age" simply means that there are few sources of information from that period of time. Actually to little to interpret what went on back then. It's well known to scientists today that it's simply wrong to say that the dark ages where a time of cultural downfall.
    It's just NOT.

  23. Epicurean_Logic

    @Ali Sina and Stephen.

    Baylonians and Egyptians fisrt used algebra in a geometric (picture) form as you mention. It was used to answer questions involving land measurement and this is the earliest use of algebra that we know about. Please consider that it was very basic.

    The Greek Euclid in book 2 of his timeless classic 'the Elements' expanded on geometric algebra in more 'mathematical way' involving written proof and using previously known facts to justify later facts... The Islamic invention of symbolic algebra came later, and it's a much easier and practical way to work with than using geometic reasoning alone.

    Early arab/islam had the benefit of the greatest source material available (the elements, Diophantus, Archimides, etc) and what is less widely known is that they consisted of many ancient sects like the Sabians who were descended from the Babylonian star worshippers, for this reason they produced many excellent astronomers and mathematicians.

  24. ahmed

    Amazing. most people think religion and science are incompatible. but that's just because they have the wrong religion. islam is the truth alhamdulillah.

  25. Cyrus

    This documentary is flatly a joke and a distortion of historical facts! Avicenna and Alkharazmi were both Persian not Arabs. I’m yet to see if this guy can actually produce the name of an Arabic scientist. The only reason why the names of these two great Persian scientists are included in documents like this is because they were forced to write their works in Arabic given the fact that Persia had been invaded and ruled by barbaric Arabs. Arabs never contributed anything to science nor medicine; period.

    If anything, I’d say, they made the already flourishing science and technology in the Persian Empire suffer huge losses by burning the libraries as the decedents of Mohammad had no idea what books were and they thought they were sources of evil and anti-Islam. I am sick of people distorting the truth and taking credit for things they didn’t achieve as a collective culture; it’s just unbelievable! Islam is a sexist political religion that has never shown any kind of respect for science or technology and human being s in general.

    As a Persian, I am truly sad that my beautiful country, Persia, was invaded by a bunch of savages and that they ignited the decline of the Persian Empire. If the purpose of this guy by making this documentary is to portray Islam as a tolerant, civilized, and science-loving religion, then he has failed miserably as the true nature of Islam is seen and felt everyday by the people forced to live by this parasite called Islam.

    I think he should consider traveling to Saudi Arabia where Islam originated from, and tell the world why women are still not allowed to drive in that backward country! I think that would make a very interesting documentary! By the way, the only contribution of Arabs to the field of algebra can be described by one equation: two women = one man!

  26. Jordi

    Yeah , your name sounds very Persian !!

    "Avicenna and Alkharazmi were both Persian not Arabs" that's true, but the most important thing they were Muslims ! Islam is not a religion for Arabs it is a religion for everybody, our Prophet said that "there is no difference between an Arab and an Ajam (not an Arab), the only thing that counts is the good they do"
    The documentary's name is Science and Islam, not Arabs and Islam!!! And just for the record : Ahmad Zewail , Farouk el Baz , Jaber Ibn Hayan ..etc are all Muslim Arabs so before saying nonsens , try to use a concept we call "thinking".

    I quote you "the decedents of Mohammad had no idea what books were and they thought they were sources of evil and anti-Islam", you still saying nonsense and still talking like an ignorant, the first word of the Quran says "read" explained as "learn", our Prophet said " ask for knowledge form the day you're born till the day you die "... so before repeating some Propaganda judgment l, try to find out the truth at least !!!

    Besides you say you're Persian, as far as I know 99% of the Persians are Muslims, so I don't understand your attack on the Islam and on our Prophet .

    By the way, I don't mind critics, but you can discuss about the philosophy of Islam, its social impact nowadays or even the behavior of Muslims around the world, then we can discuss, because the discussion there would be constructive, but repeating some sentences without even taking the time to read a little bit about Islam, only shows that you don't even have the dignity of being heard .

  27. Cyrus

    Yes, I am Persian and my name is Persian as well! First of all, you've obviously got your stats wrong as 99% of Persians are not Muslim; get your facts straight before opening your arab pie hole! Secondly, don't say 'our' prophet because I'd take dump on his face and his religion right now, and as far as I am concerned I have nothing to do with him and I know millions of other Persians who share the same view as me; I think I know what my country is all about better than you do. I hate Islam, Arabs, and everything they brought to my beautiful country, Iran. You backward cowards. Right now, because of your prophet and his religion of a dump, an innocent woman is on the brink of being stoned to death! You call that civilization? Yeah, in your Arabic dream. Go ride your camel and leave us the hell alone!

  28. Nikk

    As far as I remember Iranians had a popular Islamic revolution from the bottom up...supported by students and average folks alike. That sounds like a pretty popular mandate in the cause of an Islamic state to me. I would agree that I think the government there is far too violent and fundamentalist and I think recent popular protests and unrest show that the Iranian people agree BUT I think it would be ignorant of me to say that they want to DESTROY the islamic state but rather just want a little more basic freedom than rigged elections and government control of media and telecommunications and so on.

    I think it's very important to have an open mind about this sort of discussion. Simply because of the fact that at that time Europe was in a dark age which, contrary to what someone said above, doesn't mean that there were no sources of information. It refers to the fact that Germanic tribes, who had immense hatred and animosity for anything Roman (and rightly so), invaded the borders of the Roman empire and sacked pretty much every major city and destroyed and lost thousands of years of knowledge that could've benefited their immediate descendants. It refers to war, rampant disease and general loss of culture.

    As an example, there was a basilica in Florence that was something like 90% built in the late middle ages (I'm sorry I can't recall its name; POSSIBLY Il Duomo?) but the local clergy wanted a dome on top of it which architect after architect failed to even get close to constructing on paper. So it took Medici patronage of Brunillesci, I believe, who was one of the first Renaissance ANYTHINGS to find and become infatuated with ancient Roman and Greek manuscripts and thus he figured out how and was able to complete the dome during the dawn of the Renaissance in Florence.

    Kinda got off on a tangent there but my point is that there have been dark ages suffered by every culture on the face of the Earth at different times and I think the underlying principle is that it can happen to anybody, has happened, will continue to happen and IS happening right now. I would agree with the person above who talked about the modernity of cities like Dubai and Marakesh and that's probably the only thing that keeps me from claiming that Islam is in a TOTAL dark age but I would say that the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy in ANY country live well and in the 21st century they're all concentrated in urban centers. It's my personal belief that a society can and must be judged by how the least fortunate of their brethren and how the majority of their population live and are treated and I think in that respect the Muslim world, but more so their political and religious leaders, have a long way to go.

    I HAVE read a little bit of the Koran, not as much as I would like to say I've read but I am remedying that, and one thing that struck me that was stressed was the principles that you are living in abject sin and degradation if you are a Muslim who mistreats his own brothers. As I would say of most Islamic regimes and leaders of the Muslim world. I think if the people and the Imams brought these principles to light and accused their leaders openly and with the staunchest conviction they would find that their leaders will call out the dogs of war before redress the grievances of their people and in such a case is there no other course of action but to topple the reign of the wicked? US backed dictatorship or no, the people's power couldn't be stopped in that instance.

    Peace to all men and freedom upon ALL nations.

  29. DarkVamp

    Jade, I'm a Muslim and this is the first I'm hearing about a Ostrich Nest world...more research perhaps?

  30. sufihasan

    oh boy,comments hare r well educational and all facts based. i think we should all leve colleges,mosques, churchs,and other sourse of learning and follow ur comments. amazing.

    and now i should move to real comment,
    well documentry is well made, some detail history about the previous scintest and their contribution, i give this doc 8 out of 10.

  31. Simon

    I think that a few people have gone off of subject in their comments here. The entire point of this documentary, as well as an exhibition that is being held in the Science Museum in London about Islamic scientific advances, is that it is to help people better understand that not all the Islamic world is backwards like certain governments and media would want us to believe.

    @Nikk, if your interested in the Medici then watch the documentaries Medici Godfathers of the Renaissance, which shows us the moment Europe was climbing out the Dark Ages. You are also right, as well as others that there were advances in Eurpoe during this time, the main one was the advances in building, because there were many churches that were being built during this time. However a lot of advances were halted by religion, as the churches held a lot of power at that time, and sadly that is what is happening in some, NOT ALL, of the arabic world.

    Religion, unfortunately, has more cons than pros in my eyes. Just like capitalism, communism, and many other aspects of the world. What we have are great ideas, but they are all corrupted by the people who gain power through them. What should have been a documentary about how Islam was involed in some of the greatest scientific advances in the world, we end up seeing some people damning the religion. Instead of trying to educate some of the people here about the Islamic world, which I admit to not know enough of, people would rather rant and complain about other religions. That I find to be very sad.

  32. A.S.

    @ Cyrus: It is sad that you have so much hatred towards Islam and Muslims. Although you and many others may have this hatred, just know that people will continue to accept Islam, with or without your negativity. I alone have seen dozens of people accept Islam in my lifetime and I am only in my 20s. People from many different backgrounds, with no one forcing them. From celebrities (ie. Cat Stevens - British) to our current scholars (ie. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf - American, Dr. TJ Winter @ Cambridge University - British) to rappers (ie. Napolean & Loon - African American) to leaders (ie. Malcolm X), wherever you look people come to Islam. They opened their eyes/minds and God helped them see the light. I hope that one day you open your eyes and that God helps you see the light as well. And even if you are not guided to the truth, then I hope your children or their children accept Islam. God bless.

  33. Sargon

    Science and Islam !!! its sounds like a stupid movie. we are in 2010 and they still punish their women by throw stones at them, they still believe that Christians and Jews are their enemies.

  34. Ron Erickson

    This appears to be a 4 hour series offered by BBC-Four
    the current listing is the first of 4 parts; and the contentual facts and historical accuracy is confirmed by multiple other sources.
    I like the approach to science as history - and the context into which the present must be reviewed and evaluated.
    While London was a small village with disease as the welcome end of life - Islamic Spain had Hospitals, running water, public sanitation (sewer systems) and the advent collection of knowledge leading to the European Renaissance some 300 years later.
    So, pack up your misconceptions and help me find parts 2-4 of this amazing series.

  35. Kuw-eighty


    haha, what the hell is making you mad I have no idea.. its maybe persians didnt get a prophet? maybe persians didnt create a religion? Im guessing that's why from your racist and biased comments, you're taking it too seriously here man .. nobody is talking about a specific race, its a RELIGION. Don't blame the Arabs for invading your land and spreading Islam .. seriously. Don't blame the Arabs for making Persians speak arabic, write arabic and name themselves arabic. Dude chill, you're as smart as we are .. happy now? hehe .. now watch this doc. and see for yourself why Science and Islam are totally compatible.

  36. Reason

    I love it when someone uses the term "open your eyes" in referring to converting to religion. To accept and place faith in religion and god you must close your eyes to the truth and place yourself in a state of ignorance.Only then will God's light shine through will you be "saved".

    I reiterate what a few people have stated here, Science and Religion have no place together. Science is the unbiased pursuit of truth,knowledge and fact. Religion is the interpretation of archaic texts,written by man(after a messy oral tradition) and used by the ruling elite to subdue and control the less educated and masses. Sorry but I see NO correlation and I hope that one day YOU open your eyes.

  37. willy

    fantastic Film
    fantastic Jim Al Khalili
    and it's of 3 parts

  38. Cyrus


    Your comment is a real proof of how uneducated and barbaric you arabs are!Persians had persian prophets, namely, Zoroaster and Mithra! So, I suggest you get of your fat ass and perhaps educate yourself before opening your arab mouth! I do happen to know how hard it is for you to grasp the concept of exercising that tiny brain of yours! Just give it a shot against all odds!

  39. Cyrus


    I totally agree with you, brother! You put it beautifully! live long and prosper! We need more people like you to help save the human race from the evil of organized religions and specifically the descendent's of that metal case, Mohammad. Sadly, we still live in the dark ages. People still kiss the Pope's hands as if he is some s*** better than them and they still wear no condoms because they like passing on their diseases around because the guy sitting in the Vatican said so and gave them his blessing from God. Poor God, if only he knew what crimes are committed in his name!

  40. Reason

    @ Kuw-eighty

    Hmm what is making the Persians mad? Maybe the fact that the Arabs and the Islamic religion came into Iran and turned it from a powerful empire into a despicable,oppressive regime which is still running itself like it's Mohammed's time. How what happened last year can still happen in a nation with such a legacy and educated youth is beyond my comprehension, f@#$ religion. Poison of the mind.


    Its up to us to make a change. We need to challenge these archaic ideologies and get people to start THINKING about their choices. "If it ain't broken don't fix it", well the world is broken, VERY broken. We gave religion a few thousand years to fix it, it didn't f!@#$%& work. Lets move on.

  41. Avidseeker

    Chillax. Don't pretend Persians are a peaceful happy folk who only ever spread peace and love..
    The Persian empire controlled and conquered almost the entire known world in its day.(especially the mediterranean and arab peninsula/middle east)
    So what if arabs invaded you and gave you their religion? Persians did the same to their ancestors. To lots of people's ancestors. Infact chances are pretty high u carry the genes of your Arab conquerers within you, much like Spanish and Portuguese have Moorish blood. So dont end up like Hitler who carried the genes of the people he hated the whole time and never knew it lol.
    Human beings are all the same... We conquer, we kill and replace cultures of the conquered with our own.
    All this documentary showed me is HUMAN achievements. Geniuses exist in every race, religion and nationality, and that genius will shine regardless, as long as its given opportunity.
    So everybody shut up about Arab this and Islam that.. The point is ALL HUMANS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.

    Does anyone really believe Einstein would've been less capable of working out Relativity Theory if he believed in Allah? Or Jesus? Or if his brain was contained in an Arab body? Or an Icelandic one?

  42. Nicholas Rion

    A.) I know very little about religion and (B.) I know even less about Science. If this documentary gets people interested in both subjects then it is their responsibility to learn more. I am glad to see this type of debate and discussion going on. In a future world where we can all live in peace and respect the first thing we have to do is talk or email each other. We will never all agree about either A.) Religion or (B.) Science. NEVER!! No two Shi'ite's, Sunni's, Christian's, Jew's , Hindu's, Buddhist's, Atheist's, Scientologist's, or scientists, historians, philosophers etc.-- for that matter--categorically agree on anything.....The trick is not killing each other over the disagreement.....ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE

  43. Karen

    God is love. How come everybody misses this point no matter what their religion? The Quaran is beautiful and poetic teaching but why isn't this grace and compassion reflected in people. Shame about Tibet, one of the only nations to even come close. If I remember correctly Zoroastrianism is a precursor to Christianity and held the same values.

    Science is the discovering of God.

    A lot of knowledge was lost when the Library of Alexandria was burnt down. Kudos to Islam for being open to every ones knowledge without bias. Many people today are trying to compile such knowledge, hence the inception of the internet.

  44. IslamRose

    I seriously cannot wait to watch this Documentary!!!!! (Pointless comment, I know)

    Some interesting comments too!

    Everyone! Be and keep it nice. :)


  45. Ryan

    The concept of ilm, or knowledge means that God wants us to be knowledgeable and intelligent, to discover his creation and figure out how it all works.

    This is a very important idea and is the reason the Islamic civilization was so much more advanced than Western civilization for quite a long time. For those who say religion is incompatible with science, you're wrong.

    Science tells us how, religion tells us why. Simple as that. They can go hand in hand if you let them.

  46. ManOfTruth

    Science flourished despite Islam, not because of it. In fact the first codified grammar of Arabic was written by a Persian. The Arabs were unlettered, Mohammed (may his name and memory be obliterated) himself was completely illiterate, in addition to being cruel, cunning and ruthless. So the much vaunted Islamic renaissance was in fact a renaissance of the Persian (Zoroastrian) converts to Islam during the Persianized Abbasiad Caliphate. During the first four caliphs Abba (Abu) Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (the last three who were murdered by other Muslims in cold blood) and the Ummayad caliphate at Damascus, there was no such thing as the Islamic Renaissance, it was the Persian North African and Egyptian converts who had a pre-Islamic legacy of being civilized, which they carried forward after being converted to Islam. In fact Islam tried to smother their pre-Islamic legacy of culture and civilization, and so it was only after the initial flush of Islamic savagery had passed over, that the newly converted people could after a generation or so pick up the threads of a civilized life. The Islamic Renaissance happened not due to Islam, but in spite of Islam. The Islamic Renaissance was not a triumph of Islam, but a triumph of the human spirit over Islam.

  47. ManOfTruth

    "This is a very important idea and is the reason the Islamic civilization was so much more advanced than Western civilization for quite a long time"

    Bwhahahahahaha no. Why is the ONLY regions that were relatively advanced after Islamic conquest were those that were relatively advanced PRIOR to Islamic conquest?

    Islam is desperately in search of counterarguments to the squalid condition of its culture and distorting history is no obstacle.

  48. IslamRose

    Wow! MashAllaah! I enjoyed this Documentary, Hope to watch it again inshAllaah. I think Jim Al-Khalili did a good Job mashAllaah.

    Thanks Vlatko for The Documentary.

    Tc All.

  49. Arash

    Hi every body
    This documentary is full of lie
    "Abu Ali Sina" and "Alkharazmi" are persian NOT aRaB.
    pls study more history and then say anymore.

  50. Vlatko

    Ok thanks @Asad. I've embedded them.

  51. shazilkhan

    Great work

  52. Sam Baktashi

    You know, the degree of racial mixing is so high that no one can claim they are 100% something.

    One is human at most. The documentary is talking about Islamic science by under Islamic realm, mostly by Islamic scientists. Although there are also numerous Jewish and Christian scientists that contributed to the movement under Islamic rule too.

    And yea maybe Sina is persian, but that doesn't render the documentary as a lie.

  53. kiraak miabhai

    lol, your ignorance makes me smile.

  54. christian jean

    so what, cavemen invented the wheel and discovered fire. that does not mean i want to live with them. that does not mean i owe them credit because i have a sports car. piss off....

  55. rushin2

    Only humans will think of a difference. Only God will ever unite them...

    "I made you of different Tribes, so you may Know One Another."

    One God is good enough foundation.

    How can someone give peace a chance when one doesn't have Faith?

    Now on the subject of the discussion - Great documentary!!!

  56. ThemanCool

    Don't forget to tell Edison to piss off too, you can't be serous. You don't know anything about Islam, I am sure.

  57. ThemanCool

    It never meant "Arabic scientist " It meant Muslim scientist there were Muslim in Arab, in Persia , now even in the great United States of America.

  58. indusporus

    This video reminds me of how all my friends boast about India and hinduism as the greatest country and religion because of the invention of zero and how mathematics is nothing without zero. How Indians have done surgical operations long before anyone and how without that knowledge modern medicine is almost impossible.

  59. Guest

    Yeah Yeah. Islam is the most cruel thing ever happen to europeans / westeners these days. :D

  60. Ray Vellest

    We're living in a global village, so it's great to learn more about how other cultures — in opposition to Europeans — have collaborated to the world as we know it. Great documentary, must watch for anyone interested in science!

  61. Ned Jibreen

    This Cyrus guy is mad at Iran and putting it all out on Islam. Take your persian pride and shove it where the sun doesn't shine you hypocritical sheeple.

    You cry about how you're a victim of Islam while you use the same degradatory values you claim Islam has towards other people.

    Iran has no Islam, Iran has nothing but a mislead Shia sect created by the Yazdegerd. You come from the great persian ancestry of sun worship, who use to sacrifice innocent people. This is exactly like how you prey against innocent people who have enjoyed watching this documentary.

    You exposed your true self with these hate comments. Now let people enjoy the insightful documentary and keep your drama to yourself.

  62. Pete1776

    Islam's decline was its own fault. Under the influence of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Islam rejected Aristotle and science. At the same time, Europe, under the influence of St. Thomas Aquinas rediscovered and accepted Aristotle and science.

  63. abdelhadi assayih

    "Europe, under the influence of St. Thomas Aquinas rediscovered and accepted Aristotle and science."
    you mean under the influence Ibn Rushd / St averroes :)

  64. Gaya008

    Hi guys. This is a beautiful piece. I think we should appreciate this well-researched work not call ourselves or culture(s) names. How can I get my hands on "The gene code" and "Unlocking the code", all BBC four science documentries by Dr Adam Rutherford? It was last aired in the UK in April 2011. Any link(s) will be much appreciated.

  65. Denise Papadopoulos

    The Islamic civilizations were advanced BEFORE they were Islamic. I think ppl here are pissed because, and lets be real for a sec, Islam or rather its fanatics continue to place credit and tweek history wherever it makes Islam look good. It was the Muslims that discovered 'this' and the Muslims that proved 'that'. Islam says 'this' is scientifically true, and if you don't believe me 'go look it up'........... and then of course some twat googles a bit of scientific fact (that existed prior to Islam) and finds out its true, and figures Islam is the truth! And we have another convert.

  66. msnam

    Well-said. It seems you are very well aware of the history. Burning of the of "Library of Ctesiphon" in Persia by Arab Muslim during Umar rule is one of the indicator of an attempt to cleanse pre-Islamic cultures and knowledge.
    Even now, you can barely see any Muslim country that lets an unbiased biology course being taught in schools. They are so terrified of Evolution and Darwin theory and can't stand it or any other belief that might enlighten people in different way.

  67. g mail

    the Arabs were the ones who translated these Greek texts from ancient antiquity to latin and other languages for the west to use to get their asses out of the dark ages. get Ur sources right noob

  68. Pete1776

    So, what happened to the Arabs since the 13th century? Why have their only contributions since then been suicide bombers and IEDs?

  69. Pete1776

    No, I meant St. Thomas who reconciled Christianity with Aristotle.

  70. Gohar Harutyunyan

    Zoroastrianity is a dualistic religion... not monotheistic

  71. Hafiz Zohaib Hassan

    A nice effort by Mr Jim... may he be rewarded for this,,,,,,, ameen

  72. AbdelZ

    You're absolutely right about that , buddy .

    He's one of the first modern muslim scientists ever to prove that even modern science itself was the natural legetimate daughter of islam , that Copernicus was fundamentally influenced by the work of muslim scientists ....& much more .

    It's a pity that the west has been committing a huge cover -up in relation to muslim scientific & other fundamental contributions that allowed the west to pave the way for modernity & beyond .

    Muslims that had helped medieval Europe out of dark age , muslims that had fundamentally influenced the protestaant reformation even , & much more or as had said an honest western Orientalist ( note that western Orientalists are rarely honest or fair haha ) , something like the following :

    '" There is no single aspect of western development progress or wealth that cannot be traced back to fundamantal islamic influences "

    Even modern civilization would not have been possible without islam & muslims .

    Even evolution itself was discovered by muslims for the first time ever , centuries before Darwin was even born, not to mention psychology before the time of freud ..........

    Humanity has yet to rediscover how islam was / is & will be the best thing that has ever happened to humanity .

    That islam had helped Europe out of dark age & will always be there to help the west & others out of their future & current dark ages .

    See how post-modernism had sent all those "universality , truth , objectivity " claims of modernity to Alice's wonderland .

    how post-modernism had proved that objectivity does not exist , not even at the level of exact sciences, let alone elsewhere .

    Post _modernism that does flirt with nihillism , ironically enough .

    Post-modernism as the logical conclusion of modernism : meaning : western thought would only lead to nihillism at the end of the line .

    Reminds me of John Locke & David Hume & how the first never seemed to be bothered by logical inconsistencies as long as his so-called empirism would lead to some pragmatic results , while the second was brave enough to push Locke's rational thought to the limit paving the way for the bankrupcy of rational thought at that time which had made it possible that irrationalism had found its way back to philosophy at the hands of Shopenhauer , Nietzsche, Rousseau...

  73. jj

    you dont know what your talking about,your clearlt predudice

  74. AbdelZ

    Tell me about it ...........

  75. AbdelZ

    History must be rewritten

  76. Rachel Johnson

    Yes, we all know how the Quran is full of science, and Islam started all forms of scientific discoveries. It is hard to think any Greek man ever did anything, when we know that Islam has inspired so much, sure most of it is made with blood, but you can't write in ink can you?

  77. Rachel Johnson

    I would watch this but it is self pleasuring on camera in the name of Islam. So I am not going to sit here and not try to laugh through the whole film. Someone wants to rewrite history, but the ink is dry. Islam created a lot of things, fear terror, pain, suffering, hate, criminalization of other religions, bigotry. But Math and science were not two of them.

  78. Syed M. Agha

    what a bigoted person Rachel Johnson is

  79. notobigots

    It seems some people always have their 'hatred of Islam shades' on all the time. So very sadly, there will never see the good things in Islam. And no matter what the truth is, there will always be against it.
    Good thing is their hatred does not change history nor does it change how beautiful islam is(if it is followed the way it should be followed).

  80. belizean

    Who cares whether they were Arab or Persian....I mean, could you imagine trying to do algabra with Roman Numerals?

    We should also give credit to the Bizantines, who saved the ancient classics until they were conquered by the Muslims.

  81. 58TROJAN23

    How does one reconcile this with modern Arab-Islamism??!?

  82. Hernan Toro

    Mmm... from XIV century on Islam has produced nothing at all. It looks like Greece, sleeping in a long dead past.

  83. jt1981

    so sad, you feel the need to degrade others whose beliefs differ from your own. Religion is a personal venture and I wish we could all allow each other the freedoms to believe or not. One day perhaps, you will let go youre staunch republican ideals, and embrace the possibility that there is more than one way to live. History is a fact, and it is recorded, try as you might you cannot erase non European influences on our modern society. Stop being a bigot. Peace.

  84. Thien Warder

    the Hindu/Arabic numerals comes out mostly of archaic Hinduism in the Vedas valley though,, so I don't think the origin has much to do with Islamism.

  85. Mustafa El-askary

    Please ppl don't get confused, Not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs, So what's wrong if Bukhari or Sina were Persian Muslims ?? Though i'm not sure that they were Persian !!

  86. Danny Fox

    Really?! Science and islam? Thats like comparing apples and oranges. I might have to watch just for the lols.

  87. Arnab Banerjee

    algebra is not an islamic invention. we the hindus know it before islam. we call it beej ganit. we hindus know alkali too before islam. we call it khar. medicine is such a thing that every race on earth knows. we hindus also know it. we hindus know algebra, alkali and medicines long before islam because hinduism existed long before islam.

    moreover, if you read sharia, you will find that in the very begining, islam forbed use of science, philosophy or anything that creats doubt. so no relation between islam and science.

    thank you very much.

  88. Ahmed Smilee

    Dare any of you speak bad about islam in public places where muslims are present, oh well you can't, you f--kin cowards!

  89. Epicurus

    why? will they react in violence? wow....very civil way to behave.

  90. Achems_Razor

    Are you doing threats Mr Ahmed Smilee? A lot of suicide bombers in the news right now, is that what you meant?

  91. Mafijur

    It's NOT TRUE, what you have written above Mr Bengali. Islam existed since Adam and Eve (Hawa) through Abraham, Isa (Jesus) and later Muhammed Peace be upon all prophets. Islam also means submission to one and only God. Quran mentioned it is full of wisdom with sign of science and science. Yes Hindu / Sikh people also contributed to maths like concept of Zero, but Not necessarilly as Muslim scientists. Islam always always emphasised on read and learn and use of science.

  92. FarazAbdullah

    Proof of Allah through the theory of Probability: In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

    A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

    Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

    At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

    The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

    Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.

    The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

  93. over the edge

    @Faraz Abdullah
    ok i will play your game. "assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time" first off can you show me where the koran states these things. please note that i mean these exact things not an interpretation of some vague and ambiguous line. interpreting something after the fact proves nothing other than confirmation bias. second please show me where your examples are the only two options, third please understand that (as i am prepared to show) these things were known before the koran was written. the moon and the fact that is reflected light was known in ancient greece long before the koran (Anaxagoras lived from about 500 BC - 428 BC he is credited with discovering this). everything is made of water? no every living thing contains water they are not made from it and i find it funny that your example contains oxygen and hydrogen as options that is what water is made of. to keep this short i would like to point out that these things are copied and pasted without giving credit to the original author which in my book makes you dishonest and not worthy of respect.

  94. over the edge

    @Faraz Abdullah
    i knew that i had this debate before. on Zeitgeist Refuted page 2 (as of this post) the exact post was made and thoroughly gutted by myself and others. so refuted in fact the poster (Mohammed Safwan) deleted his account and left. unless you are him reincarnated? please read his posts and the refutation. it should save us both a lot of time

  95. FarazAbdullah

    Well brother. At least I didn't copied and pasted it just like that. I
    obtained it from the authentic source. The actual source from where I got
    it is Islamic Research Foundation based in India and the author is Dr.
    Zakir Naik who should be credited. You can check it on their website IRF
    dot net. Click on Faqs and then click on Atheism.

    I would rather believe in the book that hasn't change in 1400 years
    than on the history that has so many versions. Just because some people
    credit anaxagoras for discovering it doesn't prove it true. Please if you
    could prove it from ancient records that Anaxagoras discovered it and
    prove it that those records haven't changed over time, not just because people credit him. Some people also credit Gallellio. Solid proofs please, not just claims.

    Qur'an mentions it in Surah Al Furqan, Chapter # 25, verse no. 61 "Blessed is HE Who has made in the heaven mansions of stars and has placed therein a Lamp producing light and a moon that reflects light."

    The arabic word used in the Qur'an is "Munir" which means reflected light or borrowed light. There is a difference in the words "Noor" and "Munir". The following dictionaries affirm that "munir" means borrowed light:

    1) Lisan Al-Arab Dictionary
    2) Al Muheed Dictionary
    3) Al Muajam Al Waseet Dictionary
    4) Al Mawrid Dictionary Arabic-English Section
    5) Arabic-English dictionary the Hans Wher dictionary

    "i find it funny that your example contains oxygen and hydrogen as options
    that is what water is made of." Now thats where you say lol. It seems that
    you don't have even the slightest knowledge of probability theory. Bro,
    hydrogen and oxygen are mentioned because there is a chance, a
    probability, that they will be chosen as a guess. When I say that chances
    of getting a "six" when you roll a dice are 1/6. According to you, I
    should not include the "six" in those chances. That means, according to
    you the chances of getting a "six" when rolling a dice are 1/5. that is
    what you mean when you say that oxygen and hydrogen should not be included
    in the options. who knew at that time that water is made out of hydrogen
    and oxygen? .. That is plain stupidity.

    As for what you said about having a debate with Mohammad Safwan and I should view that debate. Maybe I will. But, before that, you should check out the debate that Dr. Zakir Naik had at the oxford university. Type "historic oxford debate zakir naik" and you will bring you the link. The debate in Oxford University , I think, is more worthy of time and more credible than the debate that you had with some Tom, Dick or Harry on some website. This will save you alot of time In sha' Allah. Peace.

  96. over the edge

    first off admitting plagiarism after you have been caught doesn't excuse you from the despicable and dishonest fact that you did. next Anaxagoras existence and theories are confirmable from multiple sources including those who imprisoned him in order to silence him. your example of things that life can be made from is wrong. i didn't think i had to go into detail as this seems obvious but i guess i have to "stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold,cement, concrete, etc" are ridiculous and anybody looking around even 1400 years ago know that life is not formed from these things you also used wood as in your example guess what many living things ARE made of wood. also the quran contradicts itself here are just a few examples 32:7 "Who perfected everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay." or 30:20 "Among His Signs in this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered " or 23:12 " We created man from a product of wet earth" and so on. so was it water,dust wet earth or clay ? talk about hedging your bets. selective reading is the best way to look foolish. and in closing why is it that you make a claim (stolen claim and no i will not let that go) and i get asked for proof of my rebuttal? no sir you made the origional claim the onus is on you to prove these things correct and that they aere not previously known. a common tactic that i have willfully stepped into to try to show the fallacy of your claims but now i pass the burden back to where it belongs

  97. FarazAbdullah

    Sir Francis Drake in 1597 "proved" that earth is spherical by sailing the ship around the earth. Qur'an tells us 1400 years ago in Surah Naziat, Chapter 79, Verse # 30: "And thereafter, we have made the earth egg shaped".

    The arabic word used here is "Dahaha", which is derived from the word "Duhiya" which means egg shaped. Not only does it mean egg-shaped, it refers specifically to the shape of ostrich egg. Ostrich egg is slightly less oval than the egg of hen. (translated by, Ali Unal, Rashad Khalifah, Syed Vickar Ahamed, QXP Shabbir Ahmed). You may refer to the following sources:

    Mohit Dictionary (By al-Firuzabadi):
    "The egg of the ostrich `in the sand.''

    Lisan Arab Lexicon:
    "Expanded it to an ostrich egg."

    The Qur'an and the Orientalists, Pg.75:
    "Now, the very first expression in the series, dahaha, is noticeably distinctive and different in genre from the rest. Watt, following many other previous translators, renders it as "spread out". But the exact and correct meaning of the term, keeping in view its root, rather provides a very positive Qur'anic evidence in support of the spherical shape of the earth. For daha means to "shape like an egg", its noun being dahiyah, which the Arabs still use to mean an egg."

    If you think those are vague interpretations than you have no idea how language works.

    "We made from water every living thing." [Chapter 21, verse 30]

    Seriously, are you living in stone age dude? .....You are saying that human body only contains water and is not made of water. Our muscles are made up of 70 % water and only 22% fat. Allah SWT is talking about the body when it is made. When a human baby is born, its body is 78% water. you still say human body only "contains" water? Can muscles be made without water?.... of course saying that body is made of water doen't mean water has to be in solid form. Water in solid form is ice. You obviously need something to contain it. A body is not complete without water. And did Allah say that he made the body "only" with water? Get your sources right please!

  98. FarazAbdullah

    @over the edge
    Recently we came to know that earth was a result of the big bang. The scientests say that initially the universe was one primary nebula. Then there was a secondary seperation, the big bang, which gave rise to galaxies, stars, planets, the sun. This has been mentioned in the Qur'an 1400 hundred years back. In the same verse [21:30] Allah says "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them "... do you not see?

    The scientests believed that the sun revolves, but does not rotate about its own axis. But, just a few decades ago, this mistake was corrected. Today scientests have come to know that the sun rotates, and takes about 25 days to complete one rotation. This has been incorporated in most of the schools throughout the world. Even though the science was wrong until few decades earlier, Qur'an already told it 1400 years earlier in chapter 21, verse 23: "It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course."

    It is recently that we have come to know that plants also have sexes. Qur'an speaks about it 1400 years ago:

    "He has sent water from the sky to produce various pairs of plants." [20:53]

    It even speaks about the sexes of fruits:

    "He made a pair of every fruit.." [13:3]

    Today science tells us that it is the mountains that prevent the earth from shaking. Qur'an speaks about it 1400 years ago. Allah says in the Qur'an, chapter 78, verse # 6-7 that have we not made the mountains as pegs?

    The Qur'an speaks about the embryologycal stages of human being in great detail in Chapter # 23 verse # 12-14 that we made human being from minute sperm, then into a leach like substance, then into a lump, then made it into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh. When these verse were showed in the early part of 1980s to Dr Keith Moore, who at that time was considered the highest authority in the field of embryology, he said the desription of the Qur'an is far more superior then what the modern embryology describes today, and he immediately accepted Islam.

    I can go on and on speaking about the scientific facts described in the Qur'an. If I ask you that who could have mentioned all this knowledge in the Qur'an 1400 years ago? The only answer is the creator. And we muslims believe that creater is Allah SWT.

    I hope this knowledge is enough for a logical mind to prove that Qur'an is the word of God.

  99. FarazAbdullah

    @over the edge
    You are again showing that you come from stoneage. Do you know what are the elements of sand? Silicon and Oxygen! And they are both found in the human body. Silicon is a major ion in osteogenic cells, which are the bone-forming cells in young, uncalcified bone. Oxygen is in abundance as majority of the body is made of water. Did Allah anywhere say that he created man "only" from water? No He didn't. Then how can you prove there is a contradiction? Clay is made with the combination of water and sand. Allah says that he has made the man from sand and water. Where is the contradiction? It is you who is a victim of selective reading. You believe what you want to believe. That is the reason why you can't see such simple facts and you are unable to use your mind.

    You said,"stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold,cement, concrete, etc" are ridiculous". Now let us analyze your claim in the light of science.

    Science today tells us that human body contains Aluminium (between 50 to 150 gm). You mean the science is ridiculous to say that human body contains Aluminium?. The adult body contains between 1.4 and 2.1mg of copper. Science is ridiculous to say that? If the body contains these substances then for someone making a guess, there are probabilities that the body can also contain gold, steel etc. etc. By looking at the bones of human body, 1400 years ago anyone could have said that bones are made of stone, or cement or any other solid material. As I said before, You don't even have the slightest of knowledge about probability theory.

    I asked you to prove that anaxagoras made that discovery from "ancient sources that have not changed over time", but you couldn't. You are only making claims, you don't have any proofs.

    I already said that I did copy it from IRF website. IRF is one of the most leading institution of Islamic research. Most of what I study comes from that institute. I shared it because I agreed with it, and I shared it because I think I can defend it. Whether you call it plagiarism or whatever. I am here to defend that theory.

  100. over the edge

    again you provide no proof for your claims. now you try to say that these things are in the human body but your original dismissed them as things other than water that could make up the human body. yes the burden of proof lies with you. you stated that this information "which was unknown at that time." and i questioned that assertion (of which i can provide many other sources) these sources are documented and while can not logically be the first they all predate the koran. so first prove Anaxagoras did not think this and then i will one by one provide the many other sources for you to disprove. that is how a logical debate works. you made the claim i pointed out faults. you tried to play word games but still do not provide proof that the koran was the first source of these ideas therefore you have not proved your claim. nice try but i will not take a thief (look up plagiarist that is what you are) on their word. you are relying on a 1400 year old book and i am in the stone age lol

  101. FarazAbdullah

    Actually, I am not the one making claims, it is you my dear. I only provided the proofs what the Qur'an says. You weren't able to refute even a single one.

    lol... where did I say Qur'an was the first one to say moon is a reflected light? Where did I say people couldn't have guessed it? I only said that chances of guessing that moon has a reflected light are 1/2. Even if Anaxagoras did say that, it would have been a guess only. Qur'an is not the word of God only for this verse. Qur'an is the word of God for all the proofs that I gave you, not just this one.

    I never said Qur'an was the first one. You are the one to claim Anaxagoras suggested that moon has a reflected light. So the burden of proof lies on you dear. I never cliamed Qur'an was the first one, but, you claimed Anaxagoras suggested it. So, Prove it from the right sources.

    But, I can still prove one thing. There is no proof Muhammad S.A.W. took it from Anaxagoras (if he ever actually suggested it :p). Because if he would have taken it from anaxagoras, then he would have taken everything. Anaxagoras made so many unscientific claims including:

    a) The moon had mountains and he believed it was inhabited
    b) Heavenly bodies are masses of stone torn from the earth and ignited by rapid rotation
    c) he thought earth is flat.

    (Burnet J. (1892) Early Greek Philosophy A. & C. Black, London)

    If Qur'an would have adopted all that information from Anaxagoras or any other greek philosopher, then there would have been so many scientific mistakes in the Qur'an. But, as I proved, Qur'an does not make any unscientific claims.

    Now here is what you need to prove. Quote the exact words used by anaxagoras or any other greek scientist who existed before the Qur'an was revealed.

    Yes I am a theif. Come and arrest me! lol :D

    Yes Qur'an is 1400 years old, but, it has stood the test of time. And it will stand the test of time In sha' Allah.

  102. over the edge

    this is getting silly you stated "all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time" you claimed this was not known THAT IS YOUR CLAIM. or are you now denying this? you also stated "chances of guessing that moon has a reflected light are 1/2" no they are not. the odds are only that if the answer is unknown but is was known. are you claiming Anaxagoras did not say this? then why was he imprisoned for it? are you claiming historians are lying? the only reason we have many of these ancient teaching is because the Islamic nations saved them and translated them instead of allowing the crusades to destroy them. are you denying the great accomplishments of your cultural history? we got this information from Islamic scholars are you accusing them of lying? or how about Jing Fang who stated in his writings "The moon and the planets are Yin; they have shape but no light. This they receive only when the sun illuminates them. The former masters regarded the sun as round like a crossbow bullet, and they thought the moon had the nature of a mirror. Some of them recognized the moon as a ball too. Those parts of the moon which the sun illuminates look bright, those parts which it does not, remain dark.". do you still reject that these things were known? i find it funny that you accept the things Anaxagoras got wrong but not what he got right. and to state "Qur'an does not make any unscientific claims. " really? anything supernatural (god) is unscientific so at face value it does make unscientific claims science does not agree on the six day creation, or that the earth was once completely covered with water or sura18:86 "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water" . or are you going to dismiss these as well? you are wrong sir and when i show you you either dismiss/deny evidence,twist and distort what i have said or change what you have stated. but seeing that your post started out with a lie i shouldn't be surprised if it ends with one. my goal was never to change your mind as i have learned that requires more than i am willing to give. but i did achieve my goal of exposing the falsehood of your claims to anyone who looks at these posts reasonably and that is good enough for me

  103. FarazAbdullah

    Hahahaha.. "anything super natural is unscientific". Such a fool. Science today is not eliminiting God, it is only eliminating the models of God. All the scientific information given in the Qur'an proves it is the word of God and He is Allah alimight. If science does not agree with six days creation, science does not deny it either. Allah made days and nights. Who knows what was the length of those days. It was a day in the view of Allah, for us it may be a whole phase. Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Who could have mentioned all this information correctly? The answer is : The Creator

    You only see one side of the picture. If some scientists deny the existence of God, that does not mean that all the scientists do. Alber Einstien said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein". And what about keith moore who was considered as the authority in his field and who accepted Islam after reading the description embryological stages of a child?

    The words you quoted are not my words. My words were "assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time."... I still say it was unknown at that time, it could have only been "guessed". As I said chances were 1/2 or many more. Even If anaxagoras or anyone else would have guessed it, no one ever proved it. And if he proved it, then why according to you he was put in prison? you don't understand the difference between guessing and knowing do you? lol

    Again you did not provide any evidence. You did not prove that anaxagoras said moon has a "reflected light". You did not show that anaxagoras proved it in any way. You are just making claims.

    And you quoted the verse out of context. In chapter 18 Allah is not talking about himself. He is talking about a man named "Zulqarnain". Here are the verses:

    And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, "I will recite to you about him a report." Indeed We established him upon the earth, and We gave him to everything a way. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people. Allah said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or else adopt among them [a way of] goodness."

    It is not me who is twisting words, it is you. You are the one quoting things out of context. And that proves you just believe what you want to believe. You see what you want to see. Just claims, no proofs and no common sense.

  104. over the edge

    again you made the claim back it up. you are right science does not eliminate god and there are and have been religious scientists.but science is the study to find natural explanations for natural phenomena and god is supernatural and therefore not part of science. secondly what scientists believe is not what science believes. on the subject of Einstein you are wrong again and i will quote him Einstein 24 March 1954:
    " It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"
    your attempt at an explanation for the six days is also devoid of proof only more conjecture, and what about the earth covered with water and the sun setting into a spring of murky water? and finally (and i do mean finally i will not post further until proof is provided) you still haven't proved your origonal claim without which your entire initial (plagiarized) rant falls apart "all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time""

  105. FarazAbdullah

    Einstien On whether he considered himself religious: "Yes, you could call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion." He said he didn't believe in a "personal God". That is becuase he found many scientific mistakes in the bible and the jewish religion. He never commented on Islam.

    Einstien On whether he considered himself an atheist: "I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God."

    Einstien On the nature of God: "That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

    Einstien On how religion motivates scientific inquiry: "The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research."
    On whether science and religion are at odds: "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

    Einstien On how he feels about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally: "There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

    Einstien On how he regards atheists: "The fanatical atheists...are creatures who cannot her the music of the spheres. I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."

    "sun setting into a spring of murky water?". Read agian, you are still quoting it out of context. And you quoted the verse out of context. In chapter 18 Allah is not talking about himself. He is talking about a man named "Zulqarnain". Here are the verses:

    And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, "I will recite to you about him a report." Indeed We established him upon the earth, and We gave him to everything a way. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people. Allah said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or else adopt among them [a way of] goodness.".

    You still didn't provide prove for a single one of your claims. You just have a habit of twisting things. Finally you won't comment. This is because you have realized I am not Muhammad Safwan. This time you are the one who needs to run away I guess. lol

  106. over the edge

    i am giving up because you refuse to provide proof for your original claim. you make false claims about Einstein and assume when he said god he wasn't referring to allah again without proof. you laugh when i say that "anything super natural is unscientific" but don't understand that i am right. your confirmation bias and complete lack of knowledge of science and when discoveries were made is astounding. changing of what you said when i prove you wrong. want examples? you first say "mentions every living thing is made of water" and use examples of other things living things could be made of instead. but when i point out the koran claims man was made of other things you say yes man can be made of those too but some of the elements in your list of alternatives are also found in the human body. so what of the 1/10000 chance then?when you state "all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time"" when i give examples you dismiss them or ignore them then state "where did I say Qur'an was the first one to say moon is a reflected light" but you did they were unknown. they weren't "guesses" Anaxagoras used eclipses and the phases of the moon to cone to a conclusion and if he guessed it right why can't the koran? thats two of your three examples but how about i address the third you state "At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat" but "Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:

    Every portion of the Earth tends toward the center until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9–21)
    Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
    The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31–298a10)" (source wiki). not a guess but backed by observation. so there is your three claims in your first post contradicted by evidence. do you claim that these evidences are false or that your initial claim was wrong? please don't go off topic just answer the question

  107. FarazAbdullah

    [Allah] will say, "How long did you remain on earth in number of years?" They will say, "We remained a day or part of a day; ask those who enumerate." He will say, "You stayed not but a little - if only you had known. [23:112-114]

    The life in this world is not even equal to a part of a day of the life hereafter according to the Qur'an. This also indicates that the days Allah is talking about is not equal to the days we know.

    Even if Allah created this world in the six days that we know of. you are saying that God cannot create the world in six days. Then what is your definition of God?

    If I am holding a Cell phone and I am claiming that this is pen, you will immediately deny it because you know the definition of pen. If you are denying God then what is your definition of God?

    Again I am not assuming he was not referring to Allah. He himself mentioned the names of Bible, Jesus and the Jewish religion.

    Every living thing is made of water. I already proved that. you said Allah says man is made of clay. I proved to you that elements of clay are found in the human body. Clay is made from the combination of sand and water. You think that is a contradiction. And that just makes you look stupid.

    My purpose is not to prove that aristotle or anaxagoras are wrong. It was you who claimed they are right. My purpose is to prove that the Qur'an is not wrong anywhere. It is not me who is going off the topic, you are intentionally trying to get me off the topic by quoting things out of context. Now read carefully.

    Even, If few people guessed it right, people still believed the earth as flat. It wasn't until 1597 that it was actually proved and people started to believe in it. I never claimed Anaxagoras or Aristotle couldn't have guessed, whether it was a guess backed up by observation. But, the people you are mentioning here also made very stupid and silly claims. If Qur'an had adopted any of the information from these people then there would have been many unscientific facts in Islam, and so far you haven't been able to prove wrong any of the numerous facts that I have mentioned.

    You may say that maybe Aristotle and Muhammad S.A.W. were genious men to say that earth is round. But, the Qur'an specifically mentions that earth is the shape of ostrich egg. No human could have guessed or observed that 1400 years ago. You may say Muhammad S.A.W. was a genious man to say moon has a reflected light. What about the other numerous facts? What about the facts that human body contains the elements of sand and water (that makes clay) in abundance? Who could have proved or even guessed that in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago? What about the sexes of fruits and plants? What about the embyriological stages of the child inside the womb about which even keith moore accepted that these couldn't have been guessed 1400 years back ? Who could have guessed the that sun rotates in its own axes 1400 years ago when even the science was wrong uptil a few decades earlier? What about the separation from the earth and heaven? What about that mountains have been made as pegs? I have given you reference for all these facts in the Qur'an, you can check them. You haven't been able to refute any one of them, and you will never be able to. Do you not see the truth oh unbeliever? Do you think these are all guesses? (these are just a few I have mentioned)

    Brother I Advise you to read and understand the Qur'an from beginning till end and don't quote things out of context. And don't forget to watch the historic oxford union debate by Zakir Naik. That will be beneficial for you in this world and the world here after In sha' Allah. May Allah guide you and me to the right path. Aameen.

  108. over the edge

    off topic again. so i will be short you said "all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time" i showed it was known before. so here is my question (please yes or no) are you denying these things were known before?

  109. FarazAbdullah

    Again, You never showed "all" the information that is mentioned in the Qur'an and that which I mentioned here was known before. Read my previous comment again. I think you are not reading my comments or maybe you are afraid to face the truth. You never showed that it was known that earth is egg shaped. You never showed that it was known before that human body contains the elements of clay.

    To be more specific, I gave you atleast 10 scientific facts mentioned in the Quran. you weren't able to prove that "all" these 10 facts were known before. You were only stuck with the claim that Anaxagoras is credited with guessing that moon has reflected light.

    Thats it, I will give you 1 out of 10 and that too without proof. Yeah! you the man.. lol :D

  110. over the edge

    nice try. you said the word "all" as in "all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time" i did show some of it was known at the time. to be clear if " some " of it was previously known "all" of it cannot be unknown. don't you see this? again that was your initial claim . and if that claim is flawed everything stemming from that is fruit from the poisonous tree. so to repeat again (and i will keep repeating this) are you denying these things were known before? "

  111. FarazAbdullah

    tut tut tut.. again making claims, no proofs. I will again say, those were only guesses, no proofs. You haven't been able to provide any proofs.

    Yeah everything stemming from a tree is poisonous. Since anaxagoras believed that earth is flat then how can I believe that he made that discovery because that comes from the same tree?. That again makes you look stupid. Nice try playing with words.

    I will again say, those were only guesses becaues you haven't been able to present a single evidence. You haven't been able to proof if they even guessed it. trying to refute 1 out of 10 and that too without proof, not a single statement by anaxagoras.. just claims... well then keep repeating you claims, come on boy lol :D

  112. FarazAbdullah

    You have been quoting me wrong all the time. Lets analyze my statement. "assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time"

    "A person" what is meant by that "a person". did I talk about the whole mankind? Could it be possible that "a person" had guessed "all the information". Is it possible for "a person", single person to have guessed "all the information". You are just picking up one thing and assuming that it is "all the information".

    Don't try to put words in someone else's mouth. Qouting me as you like. Nice try but, that just again makes you look stupid. :D

  113. over the edge

    i did provide proof you ignored and dismissed it. i provided the proof of the methods Anaxagoras used. a direct quote from Aristotle including his methods used to back it up, a direct quote from Jing Fang including some of the reasons why he thought this. are you calling these lies? historians find these things credible are you calling them fools? you are avoiding the question i have asked many times. "are you denying these things were known before? "are you denying these things were known before? "

  114. Vlatko


    1. Don't call people fools, or that they're coming from the stone age. I thought your religion teaches you better than that.

    2. The claims that the Quran contains scientific miracles started to came to light only recently. For 1400 years Muslims never thought of the Quran as a book of scientific information and certainly did not find scientific miracles in it. To be precise the whole "scientific miracles" thing in the Quran started in 1968.

    3. Those "scientific verses" in the Quran are nothing miraculous, nor special. They're just vague interpretation of natural phenomena, employing the understanding and knowledge available at those times. Many civilizations have it, many scriptures have it, many early philosophers did that.

    4. Non-prophetic humans had made similarly prescient "predictions." Therefore the Quran can't claim to be prophetic if its ideas come from a previous nondivine source (or if someone else could clearly come up with the same idea without divine help).

    5. Epicurus predicted at least 22 of today's modern scientific laws and theories. The Quran doesn't come anywhere near such a long list of dead-on predictions. Epicurus declared all of these facts in far less ambiguous terms than anything purportedly prescient in the Koran. So the conclusion must be that mere human reason is better than divine inspiration at predicting the truth about the world. Epicurus beats Mohammed.

    6. All of the "predictions" in the Quran are already mentioned long ago before Mohammed. We can discuss them each one of them, one by one, if you want.

  115. over the edge

    wow that was the biggest stretch i have personally seen anybody make as far as i can recall. lets examine the context of your" a person" statement

    "Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct."

    the statements still claims the information was unknown at the time and it was either a guess or divine intervention that this information was included in the Koran. i showed that this information was not only known but backed up by evidence thus adding a third possibility. if the author of the Koran had this information and i have the same evidence that you do that he didn't (none) then the basis for your claim falls apart the need for "guesses" or divine intervention goes away . also if you remove the statement "all the information" then you ask is it possible that some of the information is "guesses" the answer is yes

  116. FarazAbdullah

    1. Yes I accept that. Yes our religion teaches us better things. All Praises to Allah. May Allah forgive me, but there are reasons which I have identified for which I called him that. I will from using such word again In sha' Allah.

    2. The thing is that Qur'an has stood the test of time. When it was revealed, it was the age of miracles, Qur'an is considered as the miracles of miracles. Then came the age of poetry, and no one can deny that Qur'an is the best piece of Arabic literature. Now, this is the age of science, Qur'an is facing the age of science.

    3. Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

    Besides just claiming that those are vague interpretations doesn't prove it. I have quoted the exact translation and words. If you have any evidence against it then please share it with us.

    4. Well, Qur'an does not only talk about Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. We, Muslims believe in Jesus, Abraham, Solomon, Adam and all the other prophets mentioned in the Qur'an. We only believe Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. is the last messenger. So, many mistakes have been found in the bible (you may refer to the talk between Zakir Naik and William Campbell). We believe that has been changed over time by their followers. But, the Qur'an has remaind unchanged.

    5. Qur'an does not talks about theories, it only talks about facts. Theories may contain many faults, so we are only discussing facts, not theories.

    6. yes we can discuss them one by one In sha' Allah. But, I won't reply till the day after tomorrow. I have my exam tomorrow and the day after that. Till then you can refer to facts that i mentioned. And its 1 A.M. Finally it seems like you are some normal person to talk to. Peace.

  117. over the edge

    well said as usual. my patience was getting thin . maybe you will have better results getting through than i have

  118. over the edge

    i will ask nicely. it is a sore spot with me . please stop the plagiarism your #3 (i haven't checked them all) i noticed as someone else s work. i do get offended when this happens. somebody weather they are right or wrong put effort into these statements and it is dishonest to not give them credit.

  119. FarazAbdullah

    Again its my teacher Zakir Naik and you can find it from the same address which I gave you earlier . Don't you remember, I am a theif, arrest me. :D

  120. Vlatko


    1. OK. Fair enough.

    2. You say: Now, this is the age of science, Qur'an is facing the age of science.

    But the age of science was also way before 1968. The whole 20th century is the age of science if you will. Science does not begin after 70s. For example embryology goes back to Aristotle (4th century BC), then Galen (2th century AC) but the first solid breakthrough was made by William Harvey in 1651. Don't you wonder why the theologians waited until 1970s to claim that Quran speaks about Embryology.

    3. You say: Besides just claiming that those are vague interpretations doesn't prove it..

    If you look at them honestly they're indeed vague. They don't provide clear, cut, undoubtful information which in fact by definition is vague. For example: "The Day when We shall ROLL UP THE HEAVENS as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise (binding) upon Us. Lo! We are to perform it." This supposedly describes the ending of the universe.

    4. I think you didn't understand what I was trying to convey at this point. I was saying that non-prophetic people (example Epicurus) made thousands of stunning "armchair" predictions, which says that man can reason way better than a religious book. Therefore it becomes very difficult for the Quran to claim that the "scientific signs" in it are divine inspired.

    5. Another misunderstanding at this point. When I say theory I mean theory in the scientific sense. Like the Rain Cycles, The Atom, The Molecule, The Law of Inertia, etc. which were all predicted by Epicurus .

    6. OK fair enough.

  121. over the edge

    i have come to the conclusion that no matter what i say or provide you will ignore or dismiss it. if that sounds rude i apologize (and yes some of my responses have been rude). but you have dug your heels in so deep that you will not even agree that plagiarism is wrong and you were wrong to do it. so i feel that any further discussion is a waste of both of our time. we have both put forward arguments for all to see and judge for themselves and as i stated before i never intended to change your mind only to try to provide a counter argument for others so your claims didn't go unchallenged. yes i will leave this time and if you wish to claim it as a victory then so be it.

  122. FarazAbdullah

    2. Actually, the vesrses mentioned in the Qur'an about the embryological stages are very clear in their words, I will bring it up In sha' Allah. But, no one could have mentioned those stages in the deserts of Arab 1400 years ago. I wonder why Mr. Keith Moore never wondered what you are saying. He, even said at that time that he would've not been able to make his discovery if he was shown the Qur'anic verses 30 years back, because of the limited technology. No wonder why theologians were asleep.

    3. Again as I said I am not going to prove Qur'an as the word of God using science as the yard stick. Only Allah knows how this universe will end and when it will end. The God who parted all the heavenly bodies from the nebula, can surely destroy it as he wishes to. We will only try to discuss the facts that have already been proved. Only after seeing the judgement day one will be able to decide, if it's vague or not.

    And, Don't forget that Qur'an is presented in a poetic fashion. Allah almigty says in the Qur'an that this book is a guidance for those who think and understand. What seems vague may start to make some sense after giving it a little bit of thought.

    I will recommend you to listen to recitation of Surah Rahman (in the voice of Mishary Al Afasy) just to get a taste of the poetic nature of the miraculous book.

    4. Here is what I will do. I will present clear translations of the verses of the Qur'an with the exact references In sha' Allah. And you should exactly quote whatever whoever said and wherever and whenever he said it, if you can. That would be fair I think.

    5. Ok, I understand.

    Some of the information mentioned in the Qur'an may have been known or guessed by someone. But, you should note that these people also made some very silly mistakes. For example, as per my knowledge, Anaxagoras believed the earth was flat, even if he mentioned that moon has a reflected light.

    Since they made so many mistakes, and no mistake has been found in the Qur'an, it is not right to say that man's ability of reasoning is much more powerful than this religious book. What amazes me is that Muhammad S.A.W. adopted all the correct scientific claims from the greeks and left all that was unscientific and didn't make any mistakes. What a coincidence.

    None of the facts mentioned in the Qur'an have been proved wrong, and it is not possible for a single being to make all the guesses, provided the limited scientific knowledge they had 1400 years ago, especially in arab and considering the fact that Muhammad was an illetrate. The arab culture became advanced in astronomy after 2-3 centuries of the revealation of Qur'an. No, evidence has been found that Muhammad S.A.W. ever made any such observations. And there is no evidence of greek culture found in the arab culture.

    English isn't my native language, so please excuse me. It really takes alot of effort for me to right this much. That is one of the reasons why I sometimes just copy the text without giving it my own final touch.

    My purpose is not to prove that Qur'an is a scientific book, but it is compatible with science.

    I will In sha' Allah present the arguments, believing that I am right, and at the same time not eliminitating the possibility that I might be wrong. I will present my arguments with the limited knowledge of the glorious Qur'an, I have. And you may present your arguments with the vast knowledge of science that you have. I will take my time to deliver my response and you may take yours. So let us begin.

  123. FarazAbdullah

    In the name of Allah, the most gracious, and the most merciful.

    Let us start with botany first.

    As per my knowledge, previously humans did not know that plants too have genders, male and female. Even unisexual plants have distinctive male or female characteristics.

    I don’t know much about this field but, as per my knowledge Carolus Linnaeus (1735 and 1753) proposed a system of classification of flowering plants based on plant structures (source Wiki)

    Consider the following verses:

    “‘And has sent Down water from the sky.’ With it have We
    produced Diverse pairs of plants Each separate from the others.” [Al-
    Qur’aan 20:53]

    “And fruit Of every kind He made In pairs, two and two.” [Al-Qur’aan

    Fruit is the end product of reproduction of the superior plants. The stage preceding fruit is the flower, which has male and female organs (stamens and ovules). Once pollen has been carried to the flower, they bear fruit, which in turn matures and frees its seed. All fruits therefore imply the existence of male and female organs; a fact that is mentioned in the Qur’aan. In certain species, fruit can come from non-fertilized flowers (parthenocarpic fruit) e.g. bananas, certain types of pineapple, fig, orange, vine, etc. They also have definite sexual characteristics. (source: IRF)

    These are exact translations. In the above mentioned verses, the words “Azwaja” and “Zawjain” are used. The word “Azwaja” means pair or a couple in Arabic and “Azwaj” more specifically means spouse and can be used for both male and females. You may like to carry out a little exercise which I tried. Type the word “Azwaja” (in Arabic text) and translate it in to English using Google Translate.

    Qur'an doesn't only talk about the sexes of plants, but also about the sexes of fruits. Now, this really amazes me. It is not possible for a human to make such observations 1400 years ago, especially in the dry barren deserts of Arab. The word "Arab" itself means deserts and waste barren land well-nigh waterless and treeless.

    Furthermore, the glorious Qur’an says:

    “And of everything We have created pairs.” [Al-Qur’aan 51:49]

    This refers to things other than plants, animals humans or other species. It may also be referring to a phenomenon like electricity in which the atoms consist of negatively – and positively – charged electrons and protons.

    “Glory to Allah, Who created In pairs all things that The earth produces, as well as Their own (human) kind And (other) things of which They have no knowledge.” [Al-Qur’aan 36:36]

  124. Vlatko


    In your whole comment you've just repeated what you've been saying all the time. There's nothing new I could respond. Further more you've avoided the argument about Epicurus who beats Muhammad with his " dead-on predictions" by far and why this "phenomenon" of claiming scientific signs in the Quran is only 40 years old. Science is way older than that. Why no one was doing that in the 19th and the very beginning of the 20th century. Or even earlier?

    You say: "My purpose is not to prove that Qur'an is a scientific book, but it is compatible with science."

    That is fair. I can make a book compatible with science NOW given the fact that I have limited scientific knowledge. I can write about quantum mechanics in a "poetic way" and someone, 100 years later, can brag that I was "onto something." Do you see where that's going.

    Muslim scholars' works were heavily based and built up on the translations of Greco-Roman, Persian and Indian texts. Those were commented, redacted and developed substantially by Islamic intellectuals, who also built upon Persian and Indian mathematical systems, astronomy, algebra, trigonometry and medicine. No doubt they also made many valid genuine discoveries.

  125. Vlatko


    Talmud: My children, everything that I created in the Universe is in pairs. (Deut. R. II. 31)

    See it's just good old copy/paste. This was a common concept that existed among the Jews and other groups prior to Islam; hence the Quranic statement is not miracolous but merely a reference to the knowledge that existed in Muhammad’s time and prior to Islam.

    Plus: Anaxagoras and Empedokles claimed that plants are moved by desire, and assert that they have perception and feel pleasure and pain... Empedokles thought that sex had been mixed in them.

    Even if Muhammad didn't use any of the previous available scientific sources, to arrive to his conclusions, that doesn't mean his conclusions were divine inspired. Further more they're not something unbelievable. Remember the ordinary human Epicurus beats Muhammad. And his predictions are not poetic, which means vague.

  126. FarazAbdullah

    Talmud: My children, everything that I created in the Universe is in pairs. (Deut. R. II. 31)

    Firstly, We Muslims, as I already said, believe that christian and Jewish religious scriptures are also word of God.

    Secondly, you cannot say that it's just old copy/paste, you cannot believe in Talmud or Bible. Because Christian and jewish texts have so many editions and versions as they have gone through so many amendments. It is very much possible that it may have been adopted from Qur'an, which has remaind unchanged. Even if it has not been copied from Qur'an, there is no problem, because we believe those books were also word of God.

    Even if Empedocles only had a "vague suspicioun" (that’s what I read) that plants have sexes, Qur'an goes one step further and asserts that even fruits have sexes.

    You are aboslutely right. Qur'an is not divine just becuase of this single conclusion. Nevertheless, this conlcusion has been proved to be true and there is so much more. Poetic does not mean vague to me, it means it requires thought and the language and poetry of Qur'an is very clear and simple. And It is not shakespares’s poetry, it is written by God and is very clear. And it is like that because it was the age of poetry when Qur'an was revealed and Muhammad's (P.B.U.H.) enemies were considered to be highly skilled in this subject. It was a miracle that such a master piece suddenly started coming out from a man's mouth, at the age of 40, who was completely illetrate and didn't even know how to read.

    You claimed “Epicurus beats Muhammad”. Let’s see.

    Muhammad, who didn’t even know how to read, talks on:


    Epicurus in the intellectual environment of Greece makes predictions in:


    Brother, At least do justice….

    Epicurus held that the elementary constituents of nature are undifferentiated matter, in the form of discrete, solid and indivisible particles (“atoms”) below the threshold of perception, plus empty space. “The theory of Atomism” was in particular proposed by Greek philosopher, Democritus about 23 centuries ago, but his theory faced criticism from Aristotle.

    Arabs too used to believe the same that atoms cannot be split further. The word for atom in Arabic is “dharrah”. Again I typed atom on Google Translate, just to make sure. But, in 20th century, scientists discovered that even the
    atom can be split further.

    Let me show you how Qur’an goes one step further. Fourteen centuries ago this
    concept would have appeared unusual even to an Arab. For him the dharrah
    was the limit beyond which one could not go. The following Qur’aanic verse however, refuses to acknowledge this limit. Consider the following verse:

    “The Unbelievers say, ‘Never to us will come The Hour’: say, ‘Nay! But most surely, By my Lord, it will come Upon you – by Him Who knows the unseen – From Whom is not hidden The least little atom In the Heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less Than that, or greater, but Is in the Record Perspicuous.’”
    [Al-Qur’aan 34:3]

    This verse refers to the Omniscience of God, His knowledge of all things, hidden or apparent. It then goes further and says that God is aware of everything, including what is smaller or bigger than the atom. Thus the verse clearly shows that it is possible for something smaller than the atom to exist, a fact discovered only recently by modern science.

    Similar message is given in verse 10:61

    And Allah knows best.

  127. Vlatko


    The grip of religion is quite strong. It is quite clear that religion based on imaginary beings and vague ancient scriptures aimed at early tribesmen had to find efficient ways to cope in today's' scientific and technological age. That is the answer of my question, why this phenomenon was non existent before 1968, which you didn't answer.

    I perfectly understand where you coming from, and as I've said in my previous comment, whatever evidence or argument presented to you, you'll find a way to enforce your confirmation bias. It has to be done. Your family says so, your teachers say so, your society says so, your culture says so.

    The links I gave you were just incentive. There are many more plain wrong things in the Quran, regarding "science." You just have to employ a little bit of skepticism and research. Hint: seven heavens.

    Quran quotes the early philosophers and their postulates, of which some ideas were fairly correct and others plainly wrong; just a pity that the Qur’an fails to differentiate between these.

    The Epicurus argument was also just an incentive. Of course you didn't ask yourself how is it possible an ordinary human being to be able to make such a stunning armchair scientific predictions (which are not only from the domain of physics btw), way before the appearance of the Muhammad and the Quran. And Epicurus was not alone. Hundreds of other people,before and after him, made hundreds and hundreds of other predictions. All that work without divine intervention.

    Doesn't that make the Quran's "divine scientific poetry" look like a childish copy/paste game?

  128. Vlatko


    Are yo sure you're neutral. You don't look neutral from here. The websites... as if some 12 year kid was playing with HTML... wait today 12 year old kids are indeed good with HTML. Never mind. They're authentic as they can be.

    Did you read the last 20 comments here. Probably not. Now read them, in fact read this whole thread, and the other threads about the Quran and Science. Then read more about the same issue on the web but from an angle opposite from your viewpoint. Damn I forgot... you're neutral.

    Now 7 heavens, they could be... dimensions... yes... because we think we have 8 dimensions... no 11... or 12 as of now. That's right... that should be right... right. Good, that's enough for an argument.

  129. Khalid

    actually i have read almost over the entire websites about this fact in quRAN.Did you really visit the sites for if you did tell me how could they be wrong.Moreover i want facts i said facts and i approve them as they were approved before.If you visited the site of quran and light speed you can never say that it was written by 12 year old.However you can apply the calculations yourself to see it.
    By the analysis of what is written i see strong emotions and ofcourse it could be impossible for you to judge something by that.

  130. Vlatko


    There was one comment of yours caught as spam. The same as the previous one but with few sentences more, which caught my attention.

    Here they are:

    You've said: "We divide science into many branches to make it easy for us there is no sure number of how many branches or sub branches of science are there."

    Are you serious with this? Is there any need to continue this conversation? You claim this and at the same time you said you've read and understood everything in those childish websites. I mean come on.


    21.30 . Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one connected entity, then We separated them from each other, and We made every living thing out of water? Will they not then believe?"

    I'm sorry but... ROFL. Ah you know how to make a good laugh.

    Now I'm not a professional quackery debunker, but this is so easy. Our Sun is a 2nd generation star, which means our Solar System is a direct remnant from a supernovae, not the Big Bang. The Big Bang gave the initial impulse needed for the creation of the universe. Heavy elements (heavier than iron) are produced in supernovae, which in turn are needed for making heavy planets. Therefore the Earth and the heavens were not fused together in a sense you're implying.

  131. Khalid

    You must look it from here that the verse says that they were joined together and then separated.Is there any alternative?There must be single point of origin of universe.Big bang maybe initiated but that occured also as a point of separation.Seriously what's the spasm.And i am serious about the branches of science.No one is sure.Go to a doctor or a scientist he will tell you that knowledge is increasing and so is our will to divide it.Say no to that.And other thing i am new here.I don't even know if my comment is recieved by you.

  132. FarazAbdullah

    "why this phenomenon was non existent before 1968"... Just because people didn't try to see Qur'an in the light of science, doesn't mean it wasn't there. What do you think? Scholars in 1968 suddenly just changed the language of the Qur'an all over the world and no old version was left? This goes beyond reasoning. Is that possible in this age? Qur'an isn't a word of mouth that it can be changed like that. Just because it was highlighted in 1968, i.e. if you are right, how can you say it wasn't there before?

    Sir William Muir who was one of the staunchiest critics of Islam said about two hundred years ago "there is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve (now fourteen) centuries with so pure a text." He was a christian. And You think Qur'an was suddenly changed in 1968?

    “That the best of Arab witnesses have never succeeded in producing anything equal to the merits in the Qur’aan... to compose such revelations at will, was beyond the power of the most expert literary artist.”
    (Encyclopedia Britannica)

    “The Qur’aan could not be the work of an uneducated man unless he had the help of the Almighty”.
    (Dr. Laura Vaglieri, an italian orientalist, a Pioneer of arabic and Islamic studies )

    "There are many more plain wrong things in the Quran, regarding "science.""... I advise you to listen to the talk between Zakir Naik and William Campbell. He pointed out 30 scientific errors in the Qur'an and all were refuted by Dr. Zakir. Then Dr. Zakir pointed out 38 scientific errors in the Bible and he could not answer any one of them. William Campbell was the best christianity could produce.

    "seven heavens"... there can be so many explanations for this one. You are just making assumptions here, when we agreed to talk on the facts only. The Qur’aan also has its own Law of Interpreting its verses. No other Scripture has such a Law written in it to understand the verses!

    “He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it, which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. And non knows its interpretation save Allah, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We believe in it, is all from our lord...." [3:7]

    I have read your comment and I think you are just repeating the same things again which I already replied to.

    I went through the links you gave me, you ought to go through the links I gave you. You just gave me link to a biased article about a debate some unknown people had, it shows only one side of the picture. You can actaully watch the video of the debate which i mentioned, it shows both sides of the picture. Take that as a request from your brother.

  133. FarazAbdullah

    You don't care about William Campbell because he is a religious person. Actually the debate was not religious at all. The debate was on the topic that whether the Qur'an and Science are compatible or incompatible. I mentioned it because you cared about science.

    You just read an article written by those who hate him. He is actually one of the most repsected figures in Islamic world. He is hated because he is completely against sects and against worshiping those who are dead. You actually picked up the article from a hindu's website, and hindus are completely against him. Don't you think the article is biased? you just read an article and you decided he is a crackpot? What if I write an article in favor of him? ..... Only those who think they can directly contact Muhammad S.A.W. even though he is dead, hate him and Shias hate him.

    "There are 72 sects in Islam": Actually this notion comes from the Hadith in which Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. in which he predicted that there will be 73 sects and only one will go to heaven, those which are on the right path.

    Prophet S.A.W. predicted sects, he never ordered us to make a sect. In fact in one hadith, when he was asked that what should a Muslim do if there is no group or Imam. Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. said:

    “Then keep away from all those sects even if you have to bite upon the root of a tree, until death overtakes you and you are in that state.”

    He ordered us to call ourselves with only one name i.e. Muslims. Only those who follow the Qur'an and the authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. will go to heaven and that is what Zakir Naik says. Don't you think that is the right Criteria for Muslims?

    It really makes me sad to see so many sects. But, when I advise others to follow Islam, I advise the so called Muslims to come back to the Qur'an and the authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W.

    No he does not belong to the Wahabi sect. Actually in his talk "Unity in the Muslim Ummah", he talked for at least 25 minutes against calling yourself a salafi or a wahabi and pointed out many mistakes in that sect.

    About Osama. He never said he supported him. In one of the videos, he only said that he cannot comment on him because even the BBC uses the word "suspect" with his name, then how can he comment on him?

    Again I said, It was always there, maybe no one brought it to light. It is simple translation.

    [The answer is simple. This "scientific stuff"in the Quran is a new age hogwash.] ... You never read the topics I mentioned in the book. You said you are not religoius at all, but you sound extremly religious from here. Athiesm itself has converted into a religion, they think universe is God as it created itself.

  134. Vlatko


    The debate with Campbell was titled: "The Qur'an and the Bible: In the Light of Science", which means two religious zealots arguing which scripture contains more nonsense. That has nothing to do with science.

    Yes I've read an article about Zakir, written by those who hate him. But that was just another incentive for you. As I've said prior to reading that article, long time ago I've watched parts of the debate and many of the Zakir's videos. Back then I formed the opinion that he's crackpot.

    Now besides the article, what else do we have on Zakir:

    1. He was banned from entering UK and Canada,
    2.In his own country he's strongly opposed by Khushwant Singh, Yoginder Sikand, Khaled Ahmed, Torkel Brekke, Praveen Swami, etc.,
    3. He supports banning the construction of non-Muslim houses of worship in Muslim lands,
    4. He thinks that the evolution is only a hypothesis, and an unproven conjecture at best,
    5. In 2007 Peace Conference, he provoked anger between members of the Shia and Sunni communities,
    6. In Australia he argued that only Islam gave women true equality. He said the more "revealing Western dress" makes women more susceptible to rape.
    7. He would not criticise bin Laden because he had not met him and did not know him personally. He also added that, "If bin Laden is fighting enemies of Islam, I am for him," and that "If he is terrorizing the terrorist, if he is terrorizing America – the terrorist, biggest terrorist – I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist.

    Having the above in mind let me correct myself. Zakir is not a crackpot, he is a hate-monger, lunatic, and fundamentalist religious zealot.

    By only mentioning him, you managed to lose that little credibility you had.

    I stated nowhere that I'm an atheist. I may be agnostic. What do you say?

  135. Khalid

    Here's a simple fact that Zakir Naik might be a great scholar according to some muslims but he is not accepted by all.The fact is that muslims are divided in many sections.We count them to four.ACCORDING TO HOLY PROPHET we would be divided among more than 60 or 70 when the day of judgment would be very near.SO even in the four groups zakir had to follow one group and so he faced criticism from the other groups.Now i don't support him.I saw his one lecture and personally he according to me i could be wrong not following the principles of islam in teaching.For he was a bit harsh.We in quran are told to argue on the way that is the best.Now let's come to darwin's theory.It's a theory not a law.Second there are many alternates to it.I myself made one and of course one day i will publish it.THird i dont think that it is more than science fiction i mean come on isn't this childish.According to darwin human and apes had simillar origin then why aren't we able to understand there language and why aren't they smart.The answer according to darwin's theory is mutation but we did not find a single ape which showed brain mutation.We rather have started to understand the languages of elephants.Now also i would like to CHALLENGE you that you find one thing in quran which is not according to scientific law and i will declare you winner.
    Yes islam gve true equality to women if you read quran however muslims don't follow it anymore only few do.Most of them are muslims by name.So you should not blame islam on the name of muslims you read history and you will find many great leaders of islam like no other.You also say about bi bang that why didn't muslims say about big ban long before because the concept given in quran simply says that heavens and earth were joined we separated them.Now according to big bang big ball was there in which every universe was present.with explosion it expanded.Now according to big bang it was rapid however according to some it was slow expansion.Now also about evolution islamm clearly says about clay and muddy water as the origin of life and scientific experiments suggest something about clay being able to support the material leading to origin of life you will find on google.

  136. Vlatko


    Good for you, that you're not supporting Zakir.

    It is really very hard to have a meaningful conversation with you when you say things such as this: "I myself made one (theory of evolution) and of course one day i will publish it." or "human and apes had simillar origin then why aren't we able to understand there language and why aren't they smart."

    The answer for all of your worries is simple: EDUCATION. Get one very soon.

  137. FarazAbdullah

    I mentioned the debate so that you can refer to the scientific mistakes in the Qur’an as claimed by William Campbell, and reply to him by Zakir Naik, so that it may clear your misconceptions about Islam. You may leave the part about the mistakes in the Bible.

    1. If someone is banned from entering Uk or Canada, he loses credibility? He was banned temporarily in the Uk, but now he is not, because he proved his credibility.

    2. So what if he is opposed by them? And what do you know about those who oppose him? He is not opposed by Shri Shri ravi Shankar and had a peaceful debate with him… he is supported by Devanand Saraswati, they both are great hindu leaders. Those are the two I have seen, there are others as well. And he is supported by thousands of Hindus who agree to his views.

    3. No he doesn’t.

    4. I believe that too, and so do many other human beings. [watch?v=9kyO_xucT6c&feature=relmfu]. He himself is a doctor.

    5. You never listened to his response given in reply to that issue. He only gave a view, under the light of fatwas given by sunni scholars. His opinion was taken peacefully in India, until an email went from Pakistan. It’s not his fault if some people are bigots. He gave his view under the light Qur’an and authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. and no one was able to refute it, and so they got angry.

    6. I too am stricktly against the western woman dress, and I think it’s immodest. That’s just my opinion and so is his. I think it is unsecure for women, and they lose control over their own sexuality. That’s the reason why every 32 seconds a rape takes place in America According to National Crime Victimization Survey Bureau of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice) in the year 1996 and these are only the reported cases , while it is negligible in Muslim countries where hijab is mandatory.

    7. Just because US govt. believes him to be a terrorist, then so should the whole world? I don’t know about him, but, yes America is the biggest terrorist. I am not the one saying that. There are documentaries by westerners showing how thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed just for the sake of oil. And everyone knows 9/11 was an inside job [watch?v=CggDIABauPk&feature=related].

    He didn’t say “Every Muslim should be a terrorist”. He said that every muslim should be a terrorist who invokes terror in the heart of the culprits, In the right context, just like a policeman terrorizes the theif. That’s what he said. [watch?v=tSf5BFJbeZo]

    And even if he said that “every muslim should a terrorist”, how come he is allowed in the UK? He was even invited to the Historical Oxford Union Debate in which he talks on Islam and terrorism?

    Just by picking up things from different biased articles, you have lost your credibility.

    Whatever you are, but you sound extremely religious bro. xD

  138. Vlatko


    1. I'm not your bro.
    2. It is futile to continue this convo, because of the bias you have. You're undermining the work of thousands of scientists around the globe (working and proving the evolution right) in exchange of one religious zealot, or your belief system.
    3. As I've previously said, whatever arguments presented to you you'll vigorously fight. Simply it is impossible and probably not fair to ask from someone to throw away everything he posses (religion, culture, family etc).
    4. Having said that I'm finishing this conversation.

  139. Khalid

    You think that muslims do not have education.First you must understand that i have knowledge and education in my field and i simply challenge you to prove the facts given in quran wrong.I have been since a very long time being debating against my muslim fellows about the facts like muslims laid first foundation of science I say practical science.Then i have been debating on other facts as well.However our debate will simply end when you prove one scientific
    fact given in quran wrong.That is my challenge to you.About evolution
    you must think broadly and probably improve your knowledge about these.It's not a law.Nor does Islam neglects it.According to some people few sentences of quran give sense that everything other than human evolved.Most people only know the fact that darwin said man arrived from ape.But his mere postulates predict it for every living thing.Now simple thing is THIS MOST IMPORTANT DONT SPEED READ.THAT scientists say that in old ages there was ice age or probably very hot world before that.Now premitive beings the scientist say belonged to kingdom monera.None of the organisms can survive in less than - 5 degrees only fungi can.How could primitive and least developed do it in less that -90 degrees even.They say mutation was the did mutation occur.Due to radiations.Now those prokaryotic organisms who can not in anyway withstand the radiateions lived in that envioronment in which not a single advanced eukaryotic organism survived doesn't make sense for afterwards radiation could pass which meant no further mutation rather death(human beings suffer from genetic mutation due to radiations which cause cancer then radiations could demolish the entire prokkaryotic group in few seconds).Any other possible way of mutation is under investiation probably here comes less known lamarckism which is this that we evolved and developed what we used then how could prokaryotic organism construct it's complex groupical metabolism YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN .Dont get blinded.I ask for law not theory.The mere theory of darwin is fiction which might be close to reality but not complete reality.My religion gives it's sense to some extent.Here's a quranic verse
    The Quran describes that Allah "made from water every living thing" (21:30). Another verse describes how "Allah has created every animal from water. Of them are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills, for truly Allah has power over all things" (24:45). These verses support the scientific theory that life began in the Earth's oceans.
    But in verse he said animals not humans.Deal with it.DARWIN'S theory says that for every creature not only about human being to that my religion says that it might be true for animals but not for humans for humans are special biological name homo sapiens.YOU THINK THAT A SCIENTISTS DOES NOT CONSIDER RELIGION FOR MAKING THEORIES THEN LET ME TELL YOU THAT FOLLOWING ARE THE WAYS OF MAKING THEORIES

  140. FarazAbdullah


    Zakir Naik is not a scholar but, he mostly relies on the works of scholars, but he does not do taqleed. And the work he himself has done is also remarkable. The two sources a Muslim should follow are the Qur'an and the authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W., and that is what he preaches. ZAKIR NAIK DOES NOT FOLLOW ANY ONE OF THE 4 GREAT IMAMS. You can listen to his lecture "Unity in the Muslim Ummah", in which he talks about the history of the Imams. The whole lecture is interesting, but, you can watch the first 20 minutes and then then the history of the Imams start at 52nd minute. Yeah some people may find him harsh but, the work done by him for promoting peace between different religions is remarkable. And he has done alot of work to clear misconceptions about Islam. Thousands of Muslims and Hindus in India sit together to listen to his talks. And that too in the city of Mumbai, where it is very hard to speak the truth, In the middle of so many extremist organizations. That proves that he is peaceful, thats the reason why he survives in such a place. To some people he is harsh, but, I have seen many people turning to Islam, live in his talks. People say he is harsh, but the largest gathering he has faced is about 1 million people. He is a human being and every human has some short comings. People should try to listen to his message, rather than forming opinions on his personality.

  141. FarazAbdullah

    1. Oky! I was just trying to be nice there, because I realized my religion taught me better things.

    2. In the link I gave you, he mentions many noble prize winners who are completely against this fictional theory. According to Professor Pierre P. Grasse, who was an eminent zoologist who served as the "Chair of Evolution" at the prestigious Sorbonne in Paris until a few decades ago. There are hundreds of scientists who speak agianst Darwin's theory. Sir Albert Georgie, (19) who got the Nobel Prize for inventing the vitamin C, (20) he wrote the book, "The Crazy Ape and Man" against Darwin's theory. Even Fred Hoyle spkoke against this theory.

    Charles Darwin himself said there were missing links. You believe it to be a fact, just because your school taught it as good as fact. Qur'an is not against this theory, but, why should I believe it when there is no proof? That's the reason why I said we will only talk on scientific facts. Today there are researches showing that human beings have been created from just one pair. That's what the Qur'an says, but its just theory, so I won't qoute it here.

    3. You haven't been able to produce a single proof against any of the scientific facts in the Qur'an. you are only trying to prove it wrong on theoretical grounds, when we agreed to talk on proven facts. I mentioned the topics and gave you a link, but you never read it. You never watched the videos I gave links to. You prefered relying on biased articles, you prefered relying only on one side of the picture, without even looking at the other side.

    4. I didn't want to end this conversation until you prove any one of the facts in the Qur'an is wrong. But, as you wish.

  142. FarazAbdullah

    And please don't get me wrong as Zakir's advocate. You may find some 20 year old videos showing him quoting some of the facts wrongly, when he started his carrier. Anyhow, our discussion was targeted at Science and Qur'an, not at Zakir Naik.
    May Allah guide you to the right path. Aameen

  143. Salman Al Belushi

    why are you trying soo hard to disprove Islam as a religion? what is your need to do so?
    and theses guys are asking you to disprove the writings in the holy Qur'an you haven't done so yet all you have done is take the texts and interpret it in your own views to suit your point that you want to make?
    you have lack of faith and belief. and you have an obsession in trying to be Right which leaves you to be a very insecure person and especially about your own beliefs . you prob don't believe in God. If your so smart and a expert in not believing in god please show me your proof.

  144. CHE

    The burden of proof is on you...not on him....and I have not even read his/her comment. If i claimed that the creator was an orange unicorn floating in the universe which gallops backwards....would you believe it..??? would the burden of proof not fall on me..??? When a claim is has to be proven.....unless of course, you chosse to have blind faith.

  145. Khalid

    It's true what you say about proof.For we can never give you that.However you can find it for it is always clear to those who have faith.First let me take you here.I have studied THE WILL TO BELIEVE HUMAN IMMORTALLITY BY WILLIAM JAMES AN EMINENT PSYCHIATRIST.He presents a number of ideas and one that got my attention was this that he says that truth is better lost than found.According to him if we know the truth than it will demolish everything on which we believe.That is the condition of people of faith according to him but when I came to analyze muslims and their faith i learned that their faith is truly different.According to it one must try to do anything to get true knowledge which is knowledge of any religion for according to our believe any religion will take us finally to Islam and if you do that then god will take you to the path to paradise.And that is why muslims don't fear anyone when they go to europe and preach their religion and do debates.
    You see you will never get proof for what god you believe in but by finding errors and by creating will that one day you will go on the right path or find true faith you will reach the truth.You see everyone in world fears the truth but muslims don't they just want anyone to prove them wrong and no one could.You can have thousands of perspectives to look at things but one perspective is right.That perspective is made by looking at something as a whole.An atheist has a rather more illogical believe.Believing in his belief is like believing that you throw a thousand dices and every dice turns up to show nuber six.YOU simply stop to live for you could become neolithic.

  146. robertallen1

    "It's true what you say about proof. For we can never give you that." That little quote says everything about you and those of your wilfully ignorant ilk. You expect people to cast aside all intellectual discrimination and accept the existence of a being whom no one knows anything about, especially you, and whose existence cannot be proved in any way, shape or form. You expect people to jettison their intelligence, reason and knowledge and accept the boeotian ejaculations of an uneducated homunculus such as you who regards faith (and the ignorance which comes with it) as the highest virtue instead of the deadliest vice that mankind has ever come up with. You're as pathetic on this string as you were on all the others on which you have posted.

  147. FarazAbdullah

    Khalid said "You can have thousands of perspectives to look at things but one perspective is right.That perspective is made by looking at something as a whole." And robertallen1, you just did what your kind always does. You ignored the whole picture and just cherry picked a single statement so you can say what your prejudiced mind makes you say. His existence has been proven in many ways, He is not limited by a shape or a form. Coming into existence of this very universe out of nothing, without a cause, without any reason is sufficient proof of his existence, for those who believe in the truth.

  148. robertallen1

    "Coming into existence of this very universe out of nothing, without a cause, without any reason is sufficient proof of his existence, for those who believe in the truth." Setting aside the ignorance of basic physics, astronomy and cosmology, what an egregious example of a cyclical argument--"for those who believe in the truth."

    But you're right. I'm prejudiced (biased is more like it) in favor of hard evidence and against the fairy tales, superstitions and specious reasoning of you and those of your clades. It is a leap of faith to believe that you have a brain to think with.

  149. FarazAbdullah

    I respect your views Robert. Stephen Hawkings argues in his book "The Grand Design" that universe came into existence out of nothing, all by itself. I agree with the first part that it came out of nothing, but not all by itself without a cause. What evidence do you have that something that doesn't exist, can have the capability to create itself out of nothing, without a cause? Being a student of accounting, I find it hard to understand these concepts or maybe I get them wrong. You have a better idea of basic physics, astronomy and cosmology, I will be glad to hear from you if I am wrong some where. Tell me how can nothing make something? For a better understanding of what I am trying to say, you can take a look at a discussion I had with brother Sam (really nice guy he is :) on The Big Bang by jim al khalili.

  150. robertallen1

    Don't try that tactic. If you say that there's a "creator," it's up to you to prove its existence, not for me to disprove it--and please don't bring out that tired, debunked Kalam cosmological argument revealing a basic ignorance of physics and cosmology. Within an indeterministic quatum vacuum, particles causelessly come into existence and die off. What about radioactive decay, the poster child of causelessness--what causes atoms to break apart?

    Also in "The Grand Design," Drs. Hawkings and Mlodinow successfully demonstrate that the laws of physics are all that is needed to cause "The Big Bang," not some supervening "force." In short, your creator is no more than a security blanket for your unsupported philosophy of cause and effect which like all philosophies never proved anything.

  151. FarazAbdullah

    I just have to provide the proof and you have to debunk it if you are unwilling to accept it. Quantum fluctuations is not even a theory, its still in hypothetical stage. And quantum fluctuations take place within the universe, then the universe itself is the cause. Just because you don't know the cause of something, doesn't mean there is no cause. You didn't know the cause of ever increasing rate of expansion of universe, you named it Dark Energy. But, when you couldn't find the cause of quantum fluctuations, you said there is no cause. Why this bias?

    Stephen Hawkings does successfully demonstrate that unieverse came from nothing. But, he fails to eliminate the idea of a creator.

    There are two questions that come to my mind:

    Could stuff have always been here?
    Could everything have popped here out of nothing, all by itself (I mean can nothing explode :D)?

    Both are impossible. Everything we know has a beginning and something making itself pop out of nothing all by itself, when it did not yet exist. So, both of these need a "causeless cause" which is logically impossible, but it is also a necessity for any kind of existence. But, one of the above two has happend as we are sitting here. Then only someone who himself is not dependent on a cause, time, space, origin or anything else would have caused the origin of this unieverse.

  152. robertallen1

    Wrong. Quantum fluctuations is one of the basics of quantum physics and attributing the universe as a cause just because they take place there is as idiotic as stating that I drive my car inside the United States, therefore the United States is the cause. It's more accurate to state that something has no cause than to try to support your procrustean notion of cause and effect at all costs by fancying into existence a something or other to give it one. I hope that this explains what you term the "bias."

    And speaking of causes, have you ever heard of "vacuum decay?" How about looking it up before stating that scientists have no idea as to the cause of the ever-increasing expansion of the universe. Once again, your creator is no more than a stop-gap.

    Dr. Hawkings does not fail to eliminate the idea of a creator, except perhaps in your superstitious mind. He demonstrates that the laws of physics are enough to explain how the universe came into existence rendering your chimera of a supreme being adscititious.

    In short, it's you who fail to prove the existence of a supreme being, as evidenced by the inane leap of logic in your last paragraph, a lame attempt to justify your tinker toy cosmology with its tinker toy deity. When you have to resort to philosophy (as opposed to science) to prove the existence of a higher being, you've failed miserably.

  153. FarazAbdullah

    A thought provoking argument but, I am sorry to say It is very wrong to compare united states with this universe. United states came from something and it shares the laws of that something. But, this universe came from nothing (if stephen hawking is right) and nothing does not have laws, so the universe "created" its own laws. I am saying Quantum physics is a part of this universe because universe came from nothing. If you are saying that its not just a part of this universe, then are you suggesting that quantum physics is a part of nothing? The laws of Quantum mechanics created themselves? Where did the Quantum fluctuations take place before the unieverse, if this universe came from nothing? I mean can you explain how you can imagine driving that car outside the earth or any other surface? Quantum fluctuations are events that take place in the presence of the universe and cannot occur in its absence. In order for there to be a quantum fluctuation in the first place, a universe must first exist. Many believe they do require time and space as a prerequisite to fluctuate.

    Stephen Hawking does fail and yes you are right, it is accurate to say there is no cause because thats where God comes in to play. Something that does not have a cause has to be caused by someone who Himself is not dependent on a cause, time, space, origin or whatever :)

    You are just playing with words there and not countering my arguments. You are just making a hypothesis sound like its a fact, you just seem to me like Hawking's fanboy. Please try to keep it plain and simple, to the point. And please try to keep your language simple :)

  154. robertallen1

    You're the one who made the asinine statement that because quantum fluctuations exist in the universe, the universe created them, an assertion which you attempt to support with a paragraph of irrelevancies. Also, where do you get the idea that "nothing" has no laws? From your philosophy?

    Dr. Hawking was not out to prove the existence or non-existence of a supreme being, but rather to demonstrate that the laws of physics are all that is necessary to explain how the universe came into existence. For some reason, this is not good enough for you driven by the need to attach something supernatural in whatever procrustean manner to support your simplistic concept of cause and effect to which you are inextricably married.

    "Something that does not have a cause has to be caused by someone who himself is not dependent on a cause, time, space, origin or whatever." Where is your hard evidence of this? In your anfractuous philosophy? Talk about a hypothesis sounding like fact! In short, you have not met your burden of proving the existence of a supreme being in any scientific manner and hence in none at all.

  155. Achems_Razor

    If you are trying to talk of quantum mechanics at least have a little knowledge of such.

    Absorb all this info. and then talk to us.

  156. FarazAbdullah

    It was nice talking to you robert.. peace :)

  157. FarazAbdullah

    Assalam walaikum. I do accept the fact that I have little knowledge of this subject, but I try to understand things. "I think" my arguments are quite logical. Is there any possibility that you can answer to them in simple, understandable, logical manner? Coming into existence of this universe from nothing "all by itself", without a cause? Something creating itself without any help, when it does not yet exist? Where did quantum fluctuations take place before universe when there was nothing? I could have gotten the scientists wrong, I am trying to understand and I am willing to remove my confusion. I will read the link you gave me in sha' Allah, but it will take time. Actually, despite being a student of accounting, I read and tried to understand "The Grand Design" because you mentioned it in a comment on The Big Bang by Jim al khalili :)

  158. robertallen1

    Your arguments can't be logical if you know nothing about the subject.

  159. FarazAbdullah

    not nothing, I said little :) .... and my friend, no amount of knowledge can be useful if you don't have common sense :)

  160. robertallen1

    So-called "common sense" has nothing to do with science.

  161. FarazAbdullah

    it has.. if you take the literal meaning, good sense and sound judgement has to do with everything :)

  162. robertallen1

    What literal meaning? And what nonsense Science is concerned only with the observable (hard evidence) and the drawing of conclusions thereon, whether they be intuitive or counterintuitive. That must be why you have no understanding of quantum physics. Well, Achem provided you with a fine article. Let's see if you will read it and learn from those who know a lot more about the subject than you with your "common sense."

  163. robertallen1

    I'll bet you five American dollars to 7.5 Canadian dollars that he won't read it--but I will.

  164. FarazAbdullah

    What? How can you draw conclusions based on hard evidence unless you have a common sense (its literal meaning is good sense and sound judgement)? How do you know its hard evidence unless you have common sense? lol :D

  165. FarazAbdullah

    That tells alot about you robert... :)

  166. Achems_Razor

    Will not bet, but am sure he will read it, even most of the blue highlighted. He says he did read "the grand design" by Hawking that I suggested. Wiki is good but the best read I found is all Brian Greene books, made for both layman and scientist. Also Julian Barbour "end of time" made for both layman and scientist.

  167. FarazAbdullah

    Thanks AZ. I am lucky to find "The Grand Design" here in Pakistan, its hard to find books here. Amazon and thebookdesitory don't ship here. And don't have a credit card either ... most convenient source of knowledge for me is the internet.

  168. robertallen1

    No, the term has no literal meaning. Hard evidence is evidence from the natural world and nothing else. It does not take much (except perhaps in your case) to recognize this evidence. Common sense has nothing to do with it. I bet you still haven't read the article suggested by Achem.

  169. robertallen1

    It says more about you and your wilful ignorance. Have you read the article yet? Probably not.

  170. robertallen1

    If he has read "The Grand Design," he probably didn't understand it which is not surprising considering his attempts to put a religious spin on everything. I admit not having read anything by Messrs. Greene or Barbour, but I will check them out. Thanks for the suggestion.

  171. FarazAbdullah

    LOL :D never mind... Peace :)

  172. robertallen1

    Watched Dr. Greene's videos on quantum mechanics and string theory. Did not like them as they were jagged and went too quickly. One thought did not flow from another. The connection between transistors and quantum mechanics was stressed but never explained--and I really wanted to learn about it. The documentary on string theory seemed more an exercise in speed speaking as opposed to actual communication. The connection between strings and the real world was not clearly explained--and again, I wanted to learn about it. But I haven't given up. Which of Dr. Greene's books do you suggest I begin with?

  173. robertallen1

    Thanks a lot. I will take your suggestion and start off with "Fabric of the Cosmos." Thanks also for providing me with the address of Dr. Greene's website. I'm thinking of writing to him with my thoughts on the two documentaries.

    By the way, can you give me a quick rundown on the relationship between transistors and quantum mechanics--just a sentence or two or three?

  174. over the edge

    to answer your question from the other thread (off topic already deleted once also don't want to go on tangent there as i am awaiting answer and wish not to distract) i have watched them and enjoyed them. my grasp on such subjects is not anything beyond a basic level so any review needs that disclaimer. i feel Achems is way more educated in such matters and better able to give advise or reviews

  175. robertallen1

    Now this is clear--but so much was left out of the documentary that it became a mishmash--and all this could have been presented within the 50-some-minute running time, just by eliminating all the adscititious footage. Once again, I thank you.

  176. iqbal

    When the Muslim divided knowledge between Deen and Duniya . They marched backward. Any knowledge which satisfies Almighty is deen. Knowledge is like a tree, in which roots,trunk,branches,leaves,flowers and fruits are there. Every part of the tree is important. Like that every branch of knowledge is important and it should be used to satisfy Almighty and for the well being of humanity.

  177. Awais Naimat

    i agree with you but it do'nt mean that you interfair in the univers . unfortunatly you can get all the nessary knowledge of all the things

  178. Awais Naimat

    just think about the physicist of yours . you can be realize that there is some one great who make it some special power whose the one ALLAH ..... muslim is known by there way of passing duniya in every type of society...

  179. robertallen1

    Why don't you try writing intelligibly?

  180. markzmen02

    the man probably is trying to write well. I am assuming that he knows atleast two languages, and English is not his first. you must give him credit for trying. How many languages do you write and speak? so, give him some space.

  181. robertallen1

    Nonsense. There are a number of posters on this site writing in English as a second language and they do fine.

    If you're going to write English (or any other language), write it competently or don't write it at all.

  182. Erin Edlow

    The "western" world does need to acknowledge the contributions of all non-white contributers to no coincidenece that only white guys are praised...i remember learning about our use of the arabic numeric system and modern medicine in junior college, but my professor didn't spend much time on it...but I always thought it was interesting because it showed me how biased white europeans were and how biased the western world is today...very interesting film though

  183. markzmen02

    definitely a well thought out, well presented, and well spoken documentary. Jim Al-Khalili has done a fine job.

  184. Hollis Evon Ramsey

    "... the story of the great leap in scientific knowledge that took place in the Islamic world between the 8th and 14th centuries" -- what happened to the muslim scientists (too bad women weren't welcome; consider such women as Marie Curie and Rosalind Franklin, e.g.)? they were so incredibly brilliant, i had tears in my eyes for what could have been, if only ...

  185. Abdul TheBarber

    for your info some of the relatives of mohammed were scientists them self, for example jafar al sadiq , aljazri whom was way ahead of his time in mechanical engneering and physics, banu mosa brothers ,alkindi whom till this day medicine tools that he designed are still in use , all these scientist i mentioned are not persian as a matter of fact they are tribal arabs ,most of the persians just ripped off and translated books from india

  186. Habib Sultan

    There is no man in history more merciful then the Prophet Muhammad. The is no man who was or is better to his then the Prophet Muhammad. There was never a better father then the Prophet Muhammad. He never raised his voice to a woman or child. I grew up Jewish and had to learn this on my own. Read his biography. Learn about his manners. PEACE

  187. mjusiqtube

    No - he never raised his voice, maybe - but he raised his dick to fu** a 9 year old girl. That's not appropriate manner dear Habib Sultan. Peace.

  188. Sonia Khan

    I guess in your opinion there is no room for learning. The greatest people are those that have patience and accept the mistakes of others. Instead of judging them. Those who judge others without validity are truly the most flawed themselves. In the real world their is room to practice and learn and make mistakes.

  189. robertallen1

    Congratulations. You've said absolutely nothing.

  190. Mike Keller

    Religion.... the great downfall of humanity.

  191. tom horn

    At his own hand killed 700 or so jews at Banna karaza. He had a old woman rent in two between two camels. A poet killed that wrote about him. He was alot of things a robber thief, liar,killer If he was such a great moral man such a fine example why did he do such things?? He got what he deserved poisoned by a jewish woman. Hitler thought he was a good man .Can you be sure he was a real human being with any feelings at all?

  192. tom horn

    The (Arabic numbers) came from India The Arabs distroyed Persia, Egypt and most places they went. Most of the places the west think of as Arabic are not such as Syria, Egypt ,Lebanon If you look at what Arabs gave us its very little if anything at all. The Jews gave and keep on giving more than any other group.

  193. tom horn

    How is that? Can you prove it? Non religion is a religion in itself

  194. FarazAbdullah

    Vlatko Assalamwalaikum my brother in humanity, peace be upon you.

    I just wanted to clear one thing. This is what I wanted to say earlier but, maybe I wasn't able to explain it correctly. I might have given you the wrong impression that Qur'an is poetry, but I didn't use the word poetry. I said it's poetic. I was just trying to say that it rhymes when you listen to it or read it in arabic which doesn't necessarily mean its poetry or its vague. Its clear and easy to read and understand, if you want to understand.

    'It is not the word of a poet; little it is ye believe! Nor is it the word of a soothsayer: little admonition it is ye receive. (This is) a message sent down from the Lord of the worlds' (Al-Qur'an 69: 41-43).

    "It is well known amongst Muslim and Non-Muslim scholars that the Qur’anic discourse cannot be described as any of the known forms of Arabic speech; namely Poetry and Prose"

    I am not replying with the intent of starting an argument with you again. I am just saying this out of the fear of Allah SWT that I may have not presented His revelation correctly. May Allah guide you. aameen summa aameen. Assalam walaikum.

  195. Dan Ro

    unfortunately for you, you are wrong. Muslims did contribute to the re-discovery of the Greek Classics and to Science, Math, Medicine, etc. There have also been great contributions, and some not so great. by Jews. But it is clear that Muslims helped awaken the west, which was suffering from the dark ages at the time Muslims built their empires. We can criticize the Muslim world for other things, but we must also give them credit were credit is due.

  196. AUSSIE

    He didn't fu** a 9 year old girl.

    He married her to save her life...Marriage was only loop-hole available to save this young girls life. Get a grip.

  197. walterbyrd

    I think algebra pre-dates Islam by centuries.

  198. Walker Rowe

    This is a good documentary and true. But the narrator says Islamic where he should say Arabic. The Arabs to Euclids Elements and translated them to Arabic. This has nothing to do with the religion of Islam.

  199. Walker Rowe

    The Arabs in the 9th century translated Euclid's Elements to Greeks thus saving geometry. The Arabs then invented algebra. But this had nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is a mischaracterization to attribute any of this to Islam. It was Arab scholars who did this work.

  200. dumbworld

    Nope that's an oxymoron. Non religion is just existing without reason or orders from a higher power. It's accepting your irrelevance but also your uniqueness in an ever expanding universe. Saying atheism is a religion is an oxymoron and also makes you sound like a m*ron.

  201. Jon

    The dark ages happen to suppress Christianity also. Fact is the dark ages ignored earlier Greek and Roman culture which were rediscovered during the Renaissance. Maybe the author of this documentary must separate religion and politics from science or math since really, they are mutually exclusive subjects.

  202. walterbyrd

    1) Algebra predates Islam by centuries.

    2) "Arab" does not mean "Muslim"

    3) Today Islam seems intent on going back to the bronze ago. Nice job destroying all those irreplaceable antiquities.

  203. Abdullah

    You're wrong.

    Islam predates Prophet Muhammad and even Jesus. It goes back to the time of Moses, Abraham, Noah, and even before to the origin of man, peace be upon them.

    Regarding education, the first university was started by a Muslim woman. Also, in the time we are in now, there are many Muslim doctors and astronauts.

  204. Ahmed Zaher

    He married her at the age of 6 and consummated the marriage at the age of nine when she hit puberty.

    This is confirmed by the hadith.
    Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:

    Narrated 'Aisha:

    that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

  205. Ahmed Zaher

    That is simply not true. If you actually studied Islam you would know that.

  206. Amol

    "Muslims in Arabia merely translated and copy-pasted scientific works of Greco-Roman, Persian and Indian texts in the fields of mathematical systems, astronomy, algebra, trigonometry and medicine....And then they are trying to credit Kuran for it by pointing to some vague blind sentences from it." ...Even before I have felt the need to hammer on this Fact of Religious Fanaticism, it's already been mentioned here in the forum. ...And that's the logical end of that particular discussion here.

    So all those individuals trying to ridiculously wrap up Science with Islamic coating, it's a blind conspiracy by you all and so is this stupid documentary. You all really need to read "The Grand Design" by Hawkings.

    ...And please ....Try NOT to mention a fanatic religious zealot like Zakir Naik and Hindus in India in the same sentence. That's as stupid a statement as it can get and you loose your credibility by mentioning both in the same breath. Individuals like Naik are a Burden on Earth.

  207. persian

    arabs are killing themselvs to steal scientific achivments by iranians during early centuries of islam in their own name, and the sad thing is that the westeners ignore and fuel it.

  208. Karl

    In these reviews, the is much talk of science, proof and written evidence in books. Let me tell you all that science will never disprove religion. Nor will science ever prove religion. There is no dispute between Science and Religion. Religion is a Dogma, while Science is a Method. Two entirely different things. Neither has any relation to the other. Neither either disputes or condemns the other. Science is not something you believe in, it is something that you use. Religion (as told to you by someone) is something that you believe in. That is the reason that science will never disprove religion.

  209. Yousaf

    All those people who are talking against Islam . They must read Islamic books on Education for truth . Then decide them self no other religion give importance to education then islam. And also they know that Islam will be the largest Religion in the world accourding to your own media. I invite you to listen Dr . Zakir Naik speeches if you are looking for the truth .

  210. muhammadtherapist

    Firstly, Muslim empires in the past believed in centralising knowledge rather than disseminating it en masse. Centres of learning, such as Baghdad and Cordoba, had their houses of knowledge in which scientists would work, preserving and developing on, primarily, Hellenistic knowledge. There was no printing press, and even when it did arrive it was rejected, thus such knowledge was largely reserved for an elite audience. When centres of learning were conquered and destroyed, as Baghdad was in 1256 by the Mongols, most of the knowledge was lost too.

    Secondly, the religious authorities of the time were largely opposed to ideas being put forward by scientists and other rationalist thinkers such as Ibn Rushd, and before him, Ibn Sina. They felt threatened by non-theological attempts to ascertain truths and Muslim leaders often sided with the religious authorities for political reasons.

    Thirdly, literalist and dogmatic strands of Islamic theology have been aggressively promoted all around the Muslim world over the past few decades or ever since huge oil deposits were discovered in the Arabian Gulf. The Saudi state, in an attempt at cultural imperialism, has done its best to mainstream Wahabi thinking in Muslim communities everywhere. The result: a retardation and stagnation of thinking in parts of the world that were already very stagnant.

    Most conservative Muslims today feel threatened by the idea of evolution, especially since the evidence for it is over-whelming and an increasing number of believers are starting to accept it. History illustrates that this doesn't have to be the case. Evolution is not a modern western construct. Like most great ideas, it has been developed over hundreds of years by many great thinkers, from Aristotle all the way to Dawkins.

    Most importantly of all, the theory of evolution today, especially with the advances in our understanding of DNA, is fact.

  211. sal

    Misleading tittle science & Islam . Documentary was about science in middle east nothing to do with religion ! It seem west forgets national identity of people with Islamic faith . Science In Middle East not Science & Islam .

  212. Iraklis (or maby an Arab called Al Irakledese?)

    at 07:05...: Al Euklidese is'nt some arab scholar, as the creator of the documentary clames, but the known greek mathematisian Eucledes
    laughable cheep propaganda! -how can you clame such a stupid thing, that it must be some unknown Arab, just because in font of the name you find the werb "Al"
    plus, you clame to be a scientist... no you are just a counterfeiter of History!

Leave a comment / review: