._001.jpg)
The Quran
The Quran is no ordinary book. It has been described
by many, who engage with the book, as an imposing text, but the way it imposes
itself on the reader is not negative, rather it is positive. This is
because it seeks to positively engage with your mind and your emotions, and it
achieves this by asking profound questions, such as “So where are you people
going? This is a message for all people; for those who wish to take the
straight path.”[1] and
“Have they not thought about their own selves?”[2]
However, the Quran doesn’t stop there, it actually
challenges the whole of mankind with regards to its divine authorship, it
boldly states “If you have doubts about the revelation we have sent down to Our
servant, then produce a single chapter like it – enlist whatever supporters you
have other than God – if you truly think you can.
If you cannot do this – and you never will – then beware of
the fire prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones.”[3]
This challenge refers to the various wonders in the Quran,
even within its smallest chapter, that give us good reasons to believe it is
from God. Some of these reasons are historical and scientific.
Historical...
There are many historical statements in the Quran that show
us good reasons that it is from God. One of them is that the Quran is the
only religious text to use different titles for the rulers of Egypt at
different times. For instance while addressing the Egyptian ruler, at the
time of Prophet Yusuf (Joseph), the word “Al-Malik” is used which refers to a
king (note: that during the middle old kingdom Hyksos Asiatic families were
governing Egypt and they did not use the title Pharaoh, as the Quran mentions
“The King said, 'Bring him to me straight away!’”).[4]
In contrast, the ruler of Egypt at the time of the Prophet
Musa (Moses) is referred to as Pharaoh, in Arabic “Firaown”. This
particular title began to be employed in the 14th century B.C., during the
reign of Amenhotep IV. This is confirmed by the Encyclopaedia Britannica
which states that the word Pharaoh was a title of respect used from the New Kingdom (beginning with the 18th dynasty; B.C.
1539-1292) until the 22nd dynasty (B.C. 945-730).
So the Quran is historically accurate as the Prophet Yusuf
lived at least 200 years before that time, and the word “King” was used for the
Hyksos kings, not Pharaoh.
In light of this, how could have the Prophet Muhammad known
such a minute historical detail? Especially when all the other religious texts,
such as the Bible, just mention Pharaoh as a title for all times? Also, since
people at the time of the revelation did not know this information and
hieroglyphs were a dead language, what does this say about the authorship of
the Quran? There is no naturalistic explanation.
Scientific...
The Quran always mentions nature as a sign for God’s
existence, power and majesty. Every time these are mentioned, they are
expressed with a great accuracy, and they also give us information that could
have never been known at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. One of these
signs includes the function and structure of mountains. The Quran
mentions that mountains have “peg” like structures and that they have been
embedded into earth to stabilise it, a concept known in Geology as
isostasy. The Quran mentions: “We placed firmly embedded mountains on the
earth, so it would not move under them…”[5] and
“Have We not made the earth as a bed and the mountains its pegs?”[6]
The Quran’s eloquent renderings of the facts mentioned above
are confirmed by modern science which only came to be understood by the end of
the 20th Century. In the book Earth, by Dr. Frank Press, former
president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, states that mountains are
like stakes, and are buried deep under the surface of Earth.[7]
With regards to the vital role of mountains, it was formerly
understood that mountains were merely protrusions rising above the surface of
Earth. However, scientists realised that this was not actually the case,
and that the parts known as the mountain roots extended down as far as 10 to 15
times their own height. With these features, mountains play a similar
role to a nail or peg firmly holding down a tent, which has been discovered by
modern geological and seismic research, a concept known as isostasy.[8]
In conclusion, how can we explain this in the light of the
fact that this is relatively recent science (with no one at the time of the
revelation knowing this information)? What does this tell you about the author?
Again, there is no naturalistic explanation.
Is Life Absurd without God?
The writer Loren Eiseley said that man is a cosmic
orphan. This is quite profound, as man is the only creature in the
universe who asks: why? Other animals have instincts to guide them, but man has
learned to ask questions. If many of these questions raised by man
exclude God then the conclusion is simple: we are the accidental
byproducts of nature, a result of matter plus time plus chance. There
is no reason for your existence and all we face is death. Modern man
thought that when he had got rid of God, he had freed himself from all that
repressed and stifled him. Instead, he discovered that in killing God, he
had also killed himself.
If there is no God, then man and the universe are
doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death we await our unavoidable execution.
What is the consequence of this? It means that life itself is absurd. It
means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or
purpose. For example, according to the atheist worldview this life is
purposeless, or at best, just assembled to propagate our DNA. The way
some atheists get out of this is by saying we can create purpose for ourselves,
however this is a self-delusion as we try and find some purpose by attributing
purpose to the things we do in life, but remove purpose from our very own
lives. Also, without God our lives do not have any ultimate
meaning. If our ends are the same, in that we just pass out of existence,
what meaning does that give our lives? Does it even matter if we existed at
all? If the universe was never in existence what difference would it make?
Existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus
understood the meaningless reality of life in absence of acknowledging the
purpose of our existence. This is why Sartre wrote of the “nausea” of existence
and Camus saw life as absurd, indicating that the universe has no meaning at
all. The German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued in clear concise
pronouncements that the world and human history do not have any meaning, any
rational order or aim. Nietzsche argued that there is only a mindless
chaos, a directionless world tending towards no end. It is not wonder the
philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said he would have wished the world never
existed. All of these views on the world are absurd conclusions carved by
the atheist world view.
Footnotes:
[1] Quran
Chapter 81 Verses 26 – 28
[2] Quran
Chapter 30 Verse 8
[3] Quran
Chapter 2 Verse 23
[4] Quran
Chapter 12 Verse 50
[5] Quran
Chapter 21 Verse 31
[6] Quran
Chapter78 Verses 6-7
[8] M.
J. Selby, Earth's Changing Surface (Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1985), 32.
No comments:
Post a Comment