Archive for the 'atheism' Category



“Religion is the cause of all wars.”

“Religion is the cause of all wars” is an often repeated phrase and is the subject of this article. The people who assert this are of course secular anti-religious people. This idea therefore comes from a wider viewpoint which considers religion as something inherently irrational. I discussed this a while earlier in a previous article where I said the following:

“This in a very simplified form is the way many atheistic or secular people view religion. Something almost hallucinatory and delusional. For them all that exists is the tangible, the material, that which we can see and touch. I will call this position “Materialism” or “Naturalism”. Some people just grow up with an inherit disposition to rejecting anything beyond the material (5 senses) world and some of these people become scientists and carry this prejudice into the field of science.”

Religion therefore is something irrational in the minds of such people, and thus any belief or action which emanates from religion is itself irrational. Believers are in a state of delusion and thus their actions are likewise deluded. However the inconsistency with this opinion is that often they view violence for secular purposes as being perfectly justifiable and “more rational”. I will come back to this later, however first let’s look at the statement “religion is the cause of all wars” in more detail.

There have been countless wars in history and we cannot look at them all to see if they were based on religion but however we can look at major wars, or major powers which engaged in a lot of war.

The British Empire.

The British Empire is the biggest empire the world has ever seen, unrivalled by any other in terms of sheer size and also in terms of the many parts of the world it covered. The world today is still seeing the legacy of this huge empire in many ways, from the dominance of the English language, to the administrative systems it left behind in countries such as India with its population of over 1 billion people. The British Empire did not conquer territory for the sake of religion but for economic and political reasons.

The American war of independence where the 13 colonies of what is now America fought the British government was not about religion but about what the settlers in America viewed as being able to govern themselves as they wished to. One of the key phrases of the independence movement was “no taxation without representation”. 

The British did not conquer India, the “jewel in their crown”, for religious reasons but for economic ones. One of the most bloody parts of British rule in India has been described by British writer George Monbiot.

“In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Niño drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England” [1]

This policy resulted in the deaths of millions of people but had nothing to do with religion, but just sheer human greed.

Another major war during the British Empire was the Boer war, noticeable, since that is the first time concentration camps were created.

Boer guerilla fighters. The Boers were white settlers in Africa of Dutch origin who fought the British.

The Boer war was about a variety of different things including about control of valuable territory which contained valuable mineral resources.

The British Empire was not a Christian fundamentalist empire and never sought to forcibly impose Christianity, so its wars in Africa, the Carribean, America, Asia and Australia had nothing to do with religion but to do with conquering new land, economic reasons and geo-politics.

The Mongols

The British Empire was the biggest empire in history and the Mongol Empire came second. However it is the biggest contiguous land Empire stretching from the yellow sea in China to eastern Europe.

The Mongols were bloody and brutal and massacred whole cities. They sacked the capital of the Abbasid Empire, Baghdad in 1256 destroying huge numbers of books on many different subjects thus causing the world to be deprived of valuable works from an Arab civilization which not only transmitted the works of ancient Greece to Europe but had many great intellectual, engineering and literary accomplishments of its own. Centuries after the Mongol conquest, Iraq was still recovering ecologically due to the destruction they had bought.

The Mongols were a nomadic people who loved war and conquest and fought not for religion but to extend their power.

Alexander and Rome.

Alexander of Macedonia, often called “the Great” is also one of history’s great warriors. His conquest of a huge territory comprising many lands of different races, languages and cultures was not inspired by religion but by the desire to conquer to realize personal greatness. Many of the rulers of the ancient period conquered, merely for the sake of conquering. The greater the territory they controlled and the more people, the greater they themselves were. This was a case of territorial and personal self-aggrandizment often driven by a masculine need to increase the personal glory of a certain ruler, to show his virility. A ruler in some cultures of the ancient past who was not a warrior, was not a true man and in some cases was seen as a weakling not fit to rule.

Actor starring as Alexander.

Whereas Alexander conquered south-west Asia and Egypt, the Romans conquered Europe and the mediterranean. They have left a huge impact on western civilization and their Empire lasted for centuries. They did not conquer their Italian neighbours the Etruscans, or their rivals the Carthiginians and conquer France, Spain, England and other countries due to religion but once again for political and economic reasons. When the Romans conquered Carthage, which was then their rival for supremacy of the mediterranean, they burnt every single house and building in the city and killed and enslaved all its people, this was not done since they felt that their gods would told them to, but to prevent Carthage from once again ever being a threat to the Roman domination in the Mediterranean.

If we look at the wars of the ancient past, and also of the past millenia we can see that wars were not carried out primarily for religious reasons whether it was the native American Indian tribes that fought each other prior to the arrival of Europeans, or the Ming, Tang and other dynasties of China, or wars carried out by the Bantu-speaking kingdoms of Africa.

Let us now look at some more recent examples of war.

The first and second world war.

These wars took place due to tensions between the major European powers. Religion was not the reason, but the interests of different nation-states. When the Japanese bombed pearl Harbour they did not do so because of Shintoism but since they saw the US as a threat. When the US dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they did not do so because they thought the bible taught them to do so.

The atom bomb being dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.

The superpower conflict that followed the defeat of Nazi Germany, between the US and USSR, called “The Cold War” was not about religion either but about two competing secular ideologies, capitalism and communism. One way the cold war manifested itself was in the Vietnam war.

The Vietnam War.

This war saw a communist North Vietnam seeking to take control of the whole of the country with western powers such as the US opposed to it. It has become embedded in the collective psyche here in the west and especially in the US since it happened during the 1960s that great period of cultural change. Many young people who may not have been that politicized went out on the streets rallied to action by what they felt was an unjust and pointless war which was causing many young Americans to die, as well as the suffering of the Vietnamese. In this war agent orange which has horrific results such as deformities to newly born babies was used.  Laos and Cambodia were also bombed during this war.

“From 1964 to 1973, the U.S. dropped more than two million tons of ordnance over Laos during 580,000 bombing missions – equal to a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes, 24-hours a day, for 9 years.” [2]

One of the key men responsible for this appalling savagery was war criminal Henry Kissinger. Kissinger never ordered such bombings due to any religious belief but out of a desire to thwart communism.

War criminal, Henry Kissinger.

Communists also murdered many people through out the world including in Stalin’s USSR which also saw things such as mass deportation of whole ethnic groups and the creation of gulags in Siberia, as well as the 1 million Cambodians killed by the atheist Khymer rouge.

Children who were victims of the Khmer rouge communists. Estimates of the number of people killed by the Khmer Rouge range from 850,000 to 2 million.

Even those conflicts which are ostensibly based on religion are often in reality about different things. There are of course conflicts which have been caused due to religion, abuse of religion and so forth. However they do not compare to the amount of wars and lives lost due to secular reasons. The biggest example is of course the greatest bloodbath that humanity has ever witnessed, the second world war, which saw the death of over 50 million people. The Nazi party was not a religious organization, and nor were any of its major enemies such as the US, UK or the Soviet Union, religion-based states, Nazism is a race-based ideology believing in the superiority of the Nordic race.

The world since time immemorial has seen countless wars in every part of the world. However wars are just one form of human conflict and violence. Violence can manifest itself in the form of a man abusing his wife, or football fans fighting each other. At such a level no one argues that it is caused by religion. Divorces do not occur due to religion but because two people cannot live with each other. This maybe a myriad of different reasons, such is the case when two nations or states cannot resolve their differences and resort to war. The phrase “religion is the cause of all wars” is clearly false as can be seen by any objective study of war.

The irony is that the same type of people who say this false claim are also sometimes the same ones who regurgitate what Karl Marx said about religion, that is “religion is the opium of the masses”. There is a huge contradiction here.

1. “Religion is the cause of all wars” – it causes people to rise up and fight.

2. “Religion is the opium of the masses” – it causes people to sit down and be quiet.

As we can say they are contradictory.

Marx said his famous phrase in a certain context. The vast majority of people in Europe at the time were peasants, or in Russia, serfs were they basically slaves to a landowning elite. The Church did not call for the restructuring of this social system but legitimized and perpetuated it. It called for obedience to the monarch or the status quo and said that hardship in this world would be compensated by happiness in the next. This statement of Marx’s came from a certain reality which existed. However this labelling of religion as causing people to be violent on the one hand, and then labelling it to be the cause of people to be submissive and quiet on the other is a reflection of the inherent prejudice against religion held by certain people. This prejudice is so strong that they utter commonly regurgitated phrases such as “religion is the cause of all wars” in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.

There is a certain annoyance that people believe in anything beyond the material, at some times even an anger at such “irrational” beliefs. People believing in the existence of things beyond the material world are “stupid”, and in a form of insanity. Thus the supposedly rational and intellectually superior atheist or agnostic due to his hatred of religion say it is the cause of all wars, ignoring the fact that Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Alexander, Hitler, Stalin Kissinger never killed due to religion but for secular reasons.

We can point to religious extremists who wage war in the name of religion. Their existence is undeniable.

However the reason why people kill, whether it be on a personal level or on a collective level is primarily nothing to do with belief in the divine.

Columbine killers, who massacred individuals.

Hitler, who massacred whole nations.

The belief in a creator, the belief in the divine, and that the world is not merely confined to the material, pensensory (5 senses) world does not automatically cause one to be violent or to wage war. Religions such as Islam or Christianity as much as some may claim to the opposite with misuse of certain verses out of context do not call for killing for no reason. The desire to vilify religion as something malevolent by those who merely belief in the material, that which is tangible  is fruitless as belief in the creator and in the soul and in the hereafter will always exist. Religion can not be potrayed as a wholly malevolent phenomenon when it has been the cause of much good in the world, be it from those who restrain themselves from doing things they wouldn’t normally do, causing racial barriers to come down for the sake of a trans-racial brotherhood, those who go out and help others inspired by a message of abandoning greed and personal self-fulfillment and changing the lives of others.


– Faatih.




Why do many scientists disbelieve in God?

Why do many scientists and others disbelieve in God?

 Scientists are held in respect by society, the average layman consciously or unconsciously believes that the world we live in now with all its material and technological achievements and the relatively comfortable life we live now is as a result of these people. He has a trust and respect for these people. However many lay people mistakenly think that all scientists are atheists, when in fact many if not most believe in the existence of God, something many have concluded through scientific study.


The question now is why do many including scientists disbelieve in God and not only that, why are they so dismissive of belief in the divine as opposed to accepting it as a legitimate stance?


Materialism, naturalism.


Many people irrespective of their background, religion of their society, education through out the world believe that the only thing exists is what we can see and observe. For them something which we cannot see, touch, feel, smell or taste does not exist. From their viewpoint if they were sitting in a room with another person and there was nothing there besides two chairs, a table, the carpet, a window and the two people themselves, that is all that exists. If one of these two people said “There is another being in this room, one whom you cannot see” then they would dismiss this as absurd, and something hallucinatory. I have used this example since this is something which we could all relate to including theists and which would probably cause religious people themselves to be sceptical or dismissive of the person saying there was a third invisible person in the room.


This in a very simplified form is the way many atheistic or secular people view religion. Something almost hallucinatory and delusional. For them all that exists is the tangible, the material, that which we can see and touch. I will call this position “Materialism” or “Naturalism”. Some people just grow up with an inherit disposition to rejecting anything beyond the material (5 senses) world and some of these people become scientists and carry this prejudice into the field of science.


Science is in reality a method. It is to discover more about reality through an organized, systematic and empirical manner. As such science which is conducted by limited, human beings with the limited resources at their disposal is itself limited and cannot study that which is beyond the 5 senses, the tangible, material world.


Atheists contend that not believing in God is philosophically or logically the default position and the onus of proof lies with theists. However upon closer inspection this is not actually correct even according to the principles of logic and philosophy.


Let me quote an academic from New Zealand.


“Dr. Cooke is correct in noting that the theist who makes a positive claim regarding God’s existence is obliged to give reasons in support of that contention. This, however, does not mean that atheism is the default position unless sound arguments for theism exist, since atheism too is a positive claim about the nature of reality. “Atheism,” writes Jeaneane Fowler, “is clearly naturalism versus supernaturalism.”[5] And so, it is, as Madalyn Murray O’Hair explains, “based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists.”[6] This is quite a remarkable claim! Since theist and atheist make positive claims about the nature of reality (unlike the agnostic who suspends judgement), the burden of proof is on them both to substantiate their respective positions of supernaturalism and naturalism.

It is important to bear in mind the central point of contention between Dr. Cooke and myself. As William Rowe observes, “[p]erhaps the best way to understand the struggle between atheism and theism is to note theism’s insistence on an agent explanation of various natural phenomena, including the existence of the universe.”[7] In my opening argument, I sketched out considerations that give us plausible reasons for thinking that God exists, such as the origins of the universe, its fine-tuning, etc. That is, these facts about the universe only find a plausible account through agent explanation (i.e. the existence of God). Dr. Cooke denies all of this. He thinks, presumably, that there is a perfectly fine naturalistic account–a “Grand Story” (as Craig and Moreland call it)–that will explain the facts of the universe and our existence in it.”


Thus both theism and atheism are positions on how the world came into existence and atheism is not the default position. From a scientific and logical viewpoint then, the objective scientist should not assert either of these positions to be true (he can personally believe or favour one, but not to publicly assert it to laypeople as correct). However many atheist scientists  have a prejudice, i.e. a pre-formed opinion on something against theism and thus “intelligent design”. This has even led to the loss of objectivity in the way they conduct science. Principles and ideas which they would normally not accept, are used by them in their quest to disprove the existence of God at any costs. What the mainstream media do not tell the public is that there is at the very least difference in the scientific community about the existence of an intelligent creator i.e. God, and what is also not known is many atheist scientists too have their own agenda, based on their own ideology and wish to try to twist science to proving them right. Examples have been given on other articles here on this site.

Whether the supreme, all-knowing entity that we call God exists is something which has been covered in other articles. However let us go back to the original example in this article about the two people in the room with just two chairs, a carpet and a window. There are other things in this world that exist between the 5 senses. Even man’s 5 senses are limited. We cannot with our naked eye see ultraviolet light properly. Are there things beyond the 5 senses?

Telepathy and intuition: Cambridge scientist Dr Rupert Sheldrake has stated through scientific study that telepathy exists. All of us in our own personal lives have thought or spoken of someone and then almost miraculously they contacted us there and then. Also it is widely known the sort of mental connection that many twins have, also the maternal connection between a mother and her child. Females have a stronger sense of intuition (since the right side of their brain, the part which deals with that is bigger) than men. How many females have had a gut feeling, a sense of intuition and were correct?




Dr Rupert Sheldrake of Cambridge University.


This sort of phenomena which does not fall within any of the 5 sense and is beyond them has thus been labelled “extra-sensory perception”, many of us call it 6th sense, intuition and so forth.

Dreams: Many of us have had dreams that have come true. Neither does this fall into the 5 senses. I will coin an adjective for that relating to the 5 senses and call it “pensensory”, pen being the Roman prefix denoting 5 as in the word “pentagon”.

Telekinesis: Dr Daryl J Bem of Cornell University published an article which spoke of experiments indicating the existence of telekinesis. It can be read here:


The doctor also made some interesting comments about the subjective nature of scientific “proof” in that article, as certain sceptics and atheists are very resistant to any scientific research which challenges their pre-formed ideas and dogma.

One can also read


I would call those things which are not perceived or explained by our 5 senses as “extra-material” (outside the material, tangible) or “supernatural”.


There are other things which can also be pointed to. The world that we exist in is not just composed of those things which we limited human beings can see with our 5 senses. The human being is not merely a collection of meat, bones, nerve wires and organs all clumped together whose distant ancestors were algae, fish and amphibians and who lives on this earth for no purpose, and who will die and whose very consciousness will cease to exist and disappear into a void of nothingness.




 Amphibian, many evolutionists believe that humans evolved from algae to fish to amphibians.


 The human being is so much more than that. He feels pain, he feels anger, despair and a so many other things in the vast spectra of human emotions. Throughout human civilization there has been continuous testimony of that beyond the material, of that beyond the pensensory world. The human experience is a vast one encompassing many things. To deny things such as intuition, the telepathic bond that a mother may have with her child and so many other things is to deny part of the human experience. Writers, poets and others in addressing our emotions, our imagination addressed something far beyond the material. The human being has a soul. He appreciates beauty in all its forms be it aesthetic, literary, and so forth.


 Art admirers in a gallery.

His appreciation of beauty is not a superficial one purely formed by his environment and other external factors, but comes from deeper, internal factors, it is at times a sense of awe and wonder when he encounters something truly impressive, immense and breathtaking. Not only are his nerve wires touched but so is his emotional, his spiritual side. The human being is not a robot composed of meat, bones and skin he is something special, and part of a universe which itself something truly special, something amazing and which continuously astounds scientists with its sheer complexity, intricacy and sophistication. He sees, smells, hears, tastes, touches but so also does he think, dream, ponder, revere. He is composed of both his body and his soul, the material and the extra-material.


To deny this is to deny an aspect of humanity and to never be able to completely appreciate the human experience, to live it fully and to make the most of it.


– Faatih


Scientists and the Quran.

Reprinted from another source:

The following are some comments of scientists[1]  on the scientific miracles in the Holy Quran.  All of these comments have been taken from the videotape entitled This is the Truth.  In this videotape, you can see and hear the scientists while they are giving the following comments.  (To view the RealPlayer video of a comment, click on the link at the end of that comment.  For a copy of this videotape, please visit this page.)

1)    Dr. T. V. N. Persaud is Professor of Anatomy, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, and Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.  There, he was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy for 16 years.  He is well-known in his field.  He is the author or editor of 22 textbooks and has published over 181 scientific papers.  In 1991, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists.  When he was asked about the scientific miracles in the Quran which he has researched, he stated the following:

“The way it was explained to me is that Muhammad was a very ordinary man.  He could not read, didn’t know [how] to write. In fact, he was an illiterate.  And we’re talking about twelve [actually about fourteen] hundred years ago.  You have someone illiterate making profound pronouncements and statements and that are amazingly accurate about scientific nature.  And I personally can’t see how this could be a mere chance.  There are too many accuracies and, like Dr. Moore, I have no difficulty in my mind that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which led him to these statements.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

Professor Persaud has included some Quranic verses and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, in some of his books.  He has also presented these verses and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad at several conferences.

2)    Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson is the Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Professor of Molecular and Human Genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.  Formerly, he was Professor of Ob-Gyn and the Chairman of the Department of Ob-Gyn at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.  He was also the President of the American Fertility Society.  He has received many awards, including the Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology Public Recognition Award in 1992.  Professor Simpson studied the following two sayings of the Prophet Muhammad:

“In every one of you, all components of your creation are collected together in your mother’s womb by forty days…”[2]

“If forty-two nights have passed over the embryo, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it and creates its hearing, vision, skin, flesh, and bones….”[3]

He studied these two sayings of the Prophet Muhammad extensively, noting that the first forty days constitute a clearly distinguishable stage of embryo-genesis.  He was particularly impressed by the absolute precision and accuracy of those sayings of the Prophet Muhammad.  Then, during one conference, he gave the following opinion:

“So that the two hadeeths (the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) that have been noted provide us with a specific time table for the main embryological development before forty days.  Again, the point has been made, I think, repeatedly by other speakers this morning: these hadeeths could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available [at] the time of their writing . . . . It follows, I think, that not only there is no conflict between genetics and religion but, in fact, religion can guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches, that there exist statements in the Quran shown centuries later to be valid, which support knowledge in the Quran having been derived from God.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

Dr Simpson, now at Florida

3)    Dr. E. Marshall Johnson is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Developmental Biology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.  There, for 22 years he was Professor of Anatomy, the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy, and the Director of the Daniel Baugh Institute.  He was also the President of the Teratology Society.  He has authored more than 200 publications.  In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Johnson said in the presentation of his research paper:

“Summary: The Quran describes not only the development of external form, but emphasizes also the internal stages, the stages inside the embryo, of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

Also he said: “As a scientist, I can only deal with things which I can specifically see.  I can understand embryology and developmental biology.  I can understand the words that are translated to me from the Quran.  As I gave the example before, if I were to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I knew today and describing things, I could not describe the things which were described.  I see no evidence for the fact to refute the concept that this individual, Muhammad, had to be developing this information from some place.  So I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write.”[4]  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

4)    Dr. William W. Hay is a well-known marine scientist.  He is Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.  He was formerly the Dean of the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.  After a discussion with Professor Hay about the Quran’s mention of recently discovered facts on seas, he said:

“I find it very interesting that this sort of information is in the ancient scriptures of the Holy Quran, and I have no way of knowing where they would come from, but I think it is extremely interesting that they are there and that this work is going on to discover it, the meaning of some of the passages.”  And when he was asked about the source of the Quran, he replied: “Well, I would think it must be the divine being.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

5)    Dr. Gerald C. Goeringer is Course Director and Associate Professor of Medical Embryology at the Department of Cell Biology, School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.  During the Eighth Saudi Medical Conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Professor Goeringer stated the following in the presentation of his research paper:

“In a relatively few aayahs (Quranic verses) is contained a rather comprehensive description of human development from the time of commingling of the gametes through organogenesis.  No such distinct and complete record of human development, such as classification, terminology, and description, existed previously.  In most, if not all, instances, this description antedates by many centuries the recording of the various stages of human embryonic and fetal development recorded in the traditional scientific literature.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

6)    Dr. Yoshihide Kozai is Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan, and was the Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.  He said:

“I am very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in [the] Quran, and for us the modern astronomers have been studying very small pieces of the universe.  We’ve concentrated our efforts for understanding of [a] very small part.  Because by using telescopes, we can see only very few parts [of] the sky without thinking [about the] whole universe.  So, by reading [the] Quran and by answering to the questions, I think I can find my future way for investigation of the universe.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

7)    Professor Tejatat Tejasen is the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.  Previously, he was the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the same university.  During the Eighth Saudi Medical Conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Professor Tejasen stood up and said:

“During the last three years, I became interested in the Quran . . . . From my study and what I have learned from this conference, I believe that everything that has been recorded in the Quran fourteen hundred years ago must be the truth, that can be proved by the scientific means.  Since the Prophet Muhammad could neither read nor write, Muhammad must be a messenger who relayed this truth, which was revealed to him as an enlightenment by the one who is eligible [as the] creator.  This creator must be God.  Therefore, I think this is the time to say La ilaha illa Allah, there is no god to worship except Allah (God), Muhammadur rasoolu Allah, Muhammad is Messenger (Prophet) of Allah (God).  Lastly, I must congratulate for the excellent and highly successful arrangement for this conference . . . . I have gained not only from the scientific point of view and religious point of view but also the great chance of meeting many well-known scientists and making many new friends among the participants.  The most precious thing of all that I have gained by coming to this place is La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasoolu Allah, and to have become a Muslim.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment)

After all these examples we have seen about the scientific miracles in the Holy Quran and all these scientists’ comments on this, let us ask ourselves these questions:

·        Could it be a coincidence that all this recently discovered scientific information from different fields was mentioned in the Quran, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago?

·        Could this Quran have been authored by Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, or by any other human being?

The only possible answer is that this Quran must be the literal word of God, revealed by Him.


[1] Note: The occupations of all the scientists mentioned in this web site were last updated in 1997.

[2] Narrated in Saheeh Muslim #2643, and Saheeh Al-Bukhari #3208.

Note: What is between these special brackets {…} in this guide is a translation of what the Prophet Muhammad, may God praise him, said.  Also note that this symbol # used in the footnotes, indicates the number of the hadeeth.  A hadeeth is a reliably transmitted report by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of.

[3] Narrated in Saheeh Muslim #2645.

[4] The Prophet Muhammad, may God praise him, was illiterate.  He could not read nor write, but he dictated the Quran to his Companions and commanded some of them to write it down

* * * * * *

This is one example of the scientific miracles of the Quran.

In the Holy Quran, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:

“We created man from an extract of clay.  Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed.  Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)…” (Quran 23:12-14)


Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot.

In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two[1]  as we can see in figure 1.  Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.[2]

Figure 1: Drawings illustrating the similarities in appearance between a leech and a human embryo at the alaqah stage. (Leech drawing from Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 37, modified from Integrated Principles of Zoology, Hickman and others.  Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73.)


The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.”  This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.

Figure 2: We can see in this diagram the suspension of an embryo during the alaqah stage in the womb (uterus) of the mother. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 66.)


Figure 3: In this photomicrograph, we can see the suspension of an embryo (marked B) during the alaqah stage (about 15 days old) in the womb of the mother.  The actual size of the embryo is about 0.6 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore, 3rd ed., p. 66, from Histology, Leeson and Leeson.)


The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.”  We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot.  This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage[3]  (see figure 4).  Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.[4]  Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.



Figure 4: Diagram of the primitive cardiovascular system in an embryo during the alaqah stage.  The external appearance of the embryo and its sacs is similar to that of a blood clot, due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo. (The Developing Human, Moore, 5th ed., p. 65.)


So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage.

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage.  The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.”  If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance.  This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.”[5] (see figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5: Photograph of an embryo at the mudghah stage (28 days old).  The embryo at this stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance, because the somites at the back of the embryo somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance.  The actual size of the embryo is 4 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 82, from Professor Hideo Nishimura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.)


Figure 6: When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.

A)        Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage.  We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)

B)        Photograph of a piece of gum that has been chewed.


How could Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time?  Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad).  They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract.[6]

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore[7]  is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages.  This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person.  Dr. Keith Moore is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.  There, he was Associate Dean of Basic Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and for 8 years was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy.  In 1984, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists.  He has directed many international associations, such as the Canadian and American Association of Anatomists and the Council of the Union of Biological Sciences.

In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said: “It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quran about human development.  It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later.  This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.”[8] (To view the RealPlayer video of this comment click here).

Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question: “Does this mean that you believe that the Quran is the word of God?”  He replied: “I find no difficulty in accepting this.”[9]

During one conference, Professor Moore stated: “….Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah (what Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said, did, or approved of).  The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge.  The intensive studies of the Quran and hadeeth (reliably transmitted reports by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of) in the last four years have revealed a system for classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D.  Although Aristotle, the founder of the science of embryology, realized that chick embryos developed in stages from his studies of hen’s eggs in the fourth century B.C., he did not give any details about these stages.  As far as it is known from the history of embryology, little was known about the staging and classification of human embryos until the twentieth century.  For this reason, the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century.  The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God.  He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.”[10] (View the RealPlayer video of this comment).


[1] The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 8.

[2] Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 36.

[3] Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, pp. 37-38.

[4] The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 65.

[5] The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 8.

[6] The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 9.

[7] Note: The occupations of all the scientists mentioned in this web site were last updated in 1997.

[8] The reference for this saying is This is the Truth (videotape).  For a copy of this videotape, please visit

[9] This is the Truth (videotape).

[10] This is the Truth (videotape).  For a copy, see footnote no. 9.

Religion and scientists.

Written by another author, may he be rewarded for his effort.

The attributes of the universe which have hitherto been discovered by science point to the existence of God.  Science leads us to the conclusion that the universe has a Creator and this Creator is perfect in might, wisdom and knowledge.  It is religion that shows us the way in knowing God.  It is therefore possible to say that science is a method we use to better see and investigate the realities addressed by religion.  Nevertheless, today, some of the scientists who step forth in the name of science take an entirely different stand.  In their view, scientific discoveries do not imply the creation of God.  They have, on the contrary, projected an atheistic understanding of science by saying that it is not possible to reach God through scientific data: they claim that science and religion are two clashing notions.

As a matter of fact, this atheistic understanding of science is quite recent.  Until a few centuries ago, science and religion were never thought to clash with each other, and science was accepted as a method of proving the existence of God.  The so-called atheistic understanding of science flourished only after the materialist and positivist philosophies swept through the world of science in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Particularly after Charles Darwin postulated the theory of evolution in 1859, circles holding a materialistic world view started to ideologically defend this theory, which they looked upon as an alternative to religion.  The theory of evolution argued that the universe was not created by a creator but came into being by chance.  As a result, it was asserted that religion was in conflict with science.  The British researchers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln said on this issue:

“For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not separate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subservient to it. … But the science of Darwin’s time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and establishing itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning.  As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them.” (Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, “The Messianic Legacy”, Gorgi Books, London: 1991, p. 177-178.)

As we stated before, the so-called split between science and religion was totally ideological.  Some scientists, who earnestly believed in materialism, conditioned themselves to prove that the universe had no creator and they devised various theories in this context.  The theory of evolution was the most famous and the most important of them.  In the field of astronomy as well certain theories were developed such as the “steady-state theory” or the “chaos theory”.  However, all of these theories that denied creation were demolished by science itself, as we have clearly shown in other articles.

Today, scientists who still keep to these theories and insist on denying all things religious, are dogmatic and bigoted people, who have conditioned themselves not to believe in God.  The famous English zoologist and evolutionist D.M.S. Watson confesses to this dogmatism as he explains why he and his colleagues accept the theory of evolution: “If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation”, Nature, no. 124, p. 233)

What Watson means by “special creation” is God’s creation.  As acknowledged, this scientist finds this “unacceptable”.  But why does he?  Is it because science says so?  Actually it does not.  On the contrary, science proves the truth of creation.  The only reason why Watson looks upon this fact as unacceptable is because he has conditioned himself to deny the existence of God.  All other evolutionists take the same stand.

Evolutionists rely not on science but on materialist philosophy and they distort science to make it agree with this philosophy.  A geneticist, and an outspoken evolutionist from Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, confesses to this truth:

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Richard Levontin, The Demon-Haunted World, The New York Review of Books, January, 9, 1997, p. 28)

On the other hand, today, just as in history, there are, as opposed to this dogmatic materialist group, scientists who confirm God’s existence, and regard science as a way of knowing Him.  Some trends developing in the USA such as “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design” prove by scientific evidence that all living things were created by God.


This shows us that science and religion are not conflicting sources of information, but that, on the contrary, science is a method that verifies the absolute truths provided by religion.  The clash between religion and science can only hold true for certain religions that incorporate some superstitious elements as well as divine sources.  However, this is certainly out of the question for Islam, which relies only on the pure revelation of God.  Moreover, Islam particularly advocates scientific enquiry, and announces that probing the universe is a method to explore the creation of God.  The following verse of the Quran addresses this issue:

“Do they not look at the sky above them?  How We have built it and adorned it, and there are no rifts therein?  And the earth – We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and caused it to bring forth plants of beauteous kinds (in pairs).  An insight and a Reminder for every slave who turns to God.  And We send down from the sky blessed water whereby We give growth unto gardens and the grain of crops.  And tall palm-trees, with shoots of fruit-stalks, piled one over another.” (Quran 50:6-10)

As the above verses imply, the Quran always urges people to think, to reason and to explore everything in the world in which they live.  This is because science supports religion, saves the individual from ignorance, and causes him to think more consciously; it opens wide one’s world of thought and helps one grasp the signs of God self-evident in the universe.  Prominent German physicist Max Planck said:

“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith.  It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” (J. De Vries, Essential of Physical Science, Wm.B.Eerdmans Pub.Co., Grand Rapids, SD 1958, p. 15.)

All the issues we have treated so far simply put it that the existence of the universe and all living things cannot be explained by coincidences.  Many scientists who have left their mark on the world of science have confirmed, and still confirm this great reality.  The more people learn about the universe, the higher does their admirations for its flawless order become.  Every newly-discovered detail supports creation in an unquestionable way.

The great majority of modern physicists accept the fact of creation as we set foot in the 21st century.  David Darling also maintains that neither time, nor space, nor matter, nor energy, nor even a tiny spot or a cavity existed at the beginning. A slight quick movement and a modest quiver and fluctuation occurred.  Darling ends by saying that when the cover of this cosmic box was opened, the tendrils of the miracle of creation appeared from beneath it.

Besides, it is already known that almost all the founders of diverse scientific branches believed in God and His divine books.  The greatest physicists in history, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin and Maxwell are a few examples of such scientists.

In the time of Isaac Newton, the great physicist, scientists believed that the movements of the heavenly bodies and planets could be explained by different laws.  Nevertheless, Newton believed that the creator of earth and space was the same, and therefore they had to be explained by the same laws.  He said:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.  This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion.  He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.” (“Principia”)

As is evident, thousands of scientists who have been doing research in the fields of physics, mathematics, and astronomy since the Middle-Ages all agree on the idea that the universe is created by a single Creator and always focus on the same point.  The founder of physical astronomy, Johannes Kepler, stated his strong belief in God in one of his books where he wrote:

“Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.” (Dan Graves, Scientists of Faith, p. 51)

The great physicist, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), who established thermo-dynamics on a formal scientific basis, was also a Christian who believed in God.  He had strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution and totally rejected it.  In 1903, short before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, “With regard to the origin of life, science… positively affirms creative power.” (David Darling, Deep Time, Delacorte Press, 1989, New York.)

One of the professors of physics at Oxford University, Robert Mattheus states the same fact in his book published in 1992 where he explains that DNA molecules were created by God.  Mattheus says that all these stages proceed in a perfect harmony from a single cell to a living baby, then to a little child, and finally to an adolescent.  All these events can be explained only by a miracle, just as in all the other stages of biology.  Mattheus asks how such a perfect and complex organism can emerge from such a simple and tiny cell and how a glorious human is created from a cell even smaller than the dot on the letter ‘I’.  He finally concludes that this is nothing short of a miracle. (Robert Matthews, Unraveling the Mind of God, London Bridge, July, 1995, p.8)

Some other scientists who admit that the universe is created by a Creator and who are known by their cited attributes are:

Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)

Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)

Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)

Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)

Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)

John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)

Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)

John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)

Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratigrapher who investigated earth layers)

Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)

Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)

Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)

Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

%d bloggers like this: