Muslim Response by
Randy Desmond
Date: Friday, 14 March 1997
Don't confuse special
miracles given to prophets with "scientific" proofs. A miracle, by
definition, is something which human reasoning (culminated in science)
can not explain, but which the human is made to feel awe at the power of
God!
You quote from "The Ants" by Holldobler and Wilson. You quote them as
saying "Two froms of sound production have been identified, body rapping
against the substratum and stridulation." You then quote the book out
of sequence (I suppose to fit your agenda - but I will give you the
benefit of the doubt and call it an honest mistake), then you go back a
page and quote again, "The signaling pattern is independent of the
triggering stimulus That is, the ants do not modify the drumming to
identify the category of danger to the nest."
Now, what you have proven (if I can piece the puzzle back in order)
is that a sound is used to warn the nest (is that true?).
If you have shown that, then thank you! What you try to disprove is
that the ant mentioned in the Qur'an did not specify the type of danger
to warn the nest. I'll hold out for further scientific studies - just
from your quotes I do not know how those studies were performed.
What was used to cause a threatening danger to the nest? Does the body
rapping against the substratum in conjunction with stridulation specify
the type of danger? There seems to be many logical possiblities.
Especially when we consider that smell is also used as a means of
communication.
Oops! Seems I got caught up in one of your presuppositions, so let me
clear that up before continuing. The verse is actually talking about
an ant telling the other ants to get into their habitations, not
"look out the nest is in danger" (as you presuppose by your quote of
page 256). You may be quoting somthing irrelevant to the matter at hand
and if so I retrack my thank you above.
Anyway, the worker ants are female. Neat. The Qur'an uses the feminine
gender when talking about this ant! (Another knowledge comes from
the Qur'an which I wonder if it was descovered before Muhammad's time
- peace be upon him).
Another note to point out is that the Qur'an does not use the word
for hearing in Solomons case. It only mentions that the ant "said"
and "speech(of the ant)". Interesting, don't you think? How often do
we say the newspaper said something, but, in fact, the newspaper never
"says" anything.
In conclusion, let me point out that. (1) you have tried to break
a miracle from God into scientific rational. (2) you have pointed
out something about communication of ants - but not everything
and you have not shown what the communication modality(ies) is
for the specific situation which is described in the Qur'an.
Department of Behavioral Physiology and Sociobiology
This site is by one of the authors of the book quoted above.
In it there is a mention of the Johnston's organ of bees used to
pick up sound.
An Introduction to Insect Morphology and Anatomy
See the section on Antennae. The point is that the same organ
(Johnston's)
is associated with ants as it is with bees. Then if you go to the
"Hearing and other Senses" part of the page, you will find in the "Ears"
section further mention of the Johnston's organ - it is closely
associated with the movement of hairs on the antennal scape.
Then go on to read out the sense of smell. Fascinating.
Remember I said that the arabic word is naml and comes from
a verbal root which means "to tingle, to prickle"? That is exactly
what happens all over the bodies of these ants. Let me quote that
web page.
Is smell and touch the tingling and prickling of molecules against
our sensory organs? Can you imagine the tingling sensation they would
get?
Another Excellent site.
So where is the contradicion? Can any other religion offer its adherents
such comfort in knowledge and faith?
Confusing Miracles with Science
Read the Qur'an. This is associated with the miracle(s) given to
Solomon. Would you say Jesus raising of the dead was scientifically
sound?
Or do you propose that this (refer to the verse below) is also
"scientifically" wrong?
"I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I make for you
out of clay, as it were, a figure of a bird, and breathe into it
and it becomes a bird by God's leave. And I heal the blind, and
the lepers, and I raise the dead by God's leave."
(Surah 3, Ayat 49)
Or do you propose that Moses'(peace be upon him) staff turning into
a snake is "scientifically" wrong?
Entertaining the Proposed Arguments Anyway
Besides being an illogical accusation (since the subject matter is a
specific miracle given to Soloman - peace be upon him), it seems that
the Qur'an may actaully be more correct than you assume. I will,
insha'Allah (God willing), explain.
What about the Arabic
The word in Arabic for ant is naml and the verbal root word is
namila which means "to tingle, to prickle". Could it be that the
name in Arabic denotes something with respect to how ants communicate?
Could it be inferring stridualtion? Or the sensation of scent?
God knows best.
Other Ant Web Sites
Lastly, anyone interested can do a net search on ants and find out
what they can about their communication. The link you provided was
strictly to suit your claims. That is not honest scholarship.
"Eyes are not of great importance to ants because the antennae
help ants smell, communicate and explore."
"Most insects communicate using smell or chemoreception and it is
not
surprising that they have evolved a large variety of ways of
detecting the moloecules involved. Insects do not have noses
like us which concentrate all our sense of smell in one place,
instead they have a lot of small sensory bodies scattered over
their body, though they tend to have a concentration of them on
their antennae."
To show that my whole approach is miguided you write:
Don't confuse special miracles given to prophets with "scientific" proofs. A miracle, by definition, is something which human reasoning (culminated in science) can not explain, but which the human is made to feel awe at the power of God!
I have no problem with miracles, and to a certain extent they are for what you say is their purpose. But Solomon's hearing of ant speech does not fit your own criteria. If it is a miracle at all, then it is one of those "senseless" miracles of the Qur'an.
But it is not presented as a miracle. It is a totally casual event that happened 'in passing by'. Especially the purpose of miracles according to your claim is not achieved, because nobody other than Solomon heard it and therefore nobody could be awed by it.
You might claim it as a continual miracle that Solomon understood the animal speech [he is talking to birds as well which is as unscientific as the other one] but the Qur'an does not call it a miracle but instead seems to assume that these animals communicate on a highly intelligent and sophisticated level. And it is clear that neither ants nor the birds are able to communicate (among themselves) information as structured and sophisticated as claimed by the Qur'an. You would need to claim two miracles. Namely the miracle that Solomon understood (this I would grant you as a Qur'anic claim) and the miracle that these particular animals are even able to talk with such sophisticated content as presented in the Qur'an. But the latter is not described as a miracle. This seems to be assumed as reality.
Feel free to believe so, but for my taste, this is the stuff legends are made of.
Was Aesop also a prophet because animals talked and behaved like humans in his stories?
As to the name of the ant in Arabic, derived from "tingle, prickle", it should be obvious to everybody who has ever been bitten by ants where this comes from. Furthermore, the name of the animal was not revealed but the Qur'an used the name that was there in the Arabic language before the Qur'an and you would have to claim that the earlier idolatrous Arabs had miraculous knowledge about the behavior of ants when you want to make a point on that. It certainly would not be an argument for the Qur'an since the word was not originated through the Qur'an.
In summary, I do sure see that you are able to invest great imagination into this. It does not convince me and I prefer to read the Qur'an in its plain text and the meaning the Arabs in Muhammad's time would have understood. After all, it was for them first and foremost. Allegorizing it afterwards can be done with any text.
Muslim Response by
Randy Desmond
Date: Friday, 14 March 1997
You said, "I prefer to read
the Qur'an in its plain text and the meaning the Arabs in Muhammad's
time would have understood."
Do you know Arabic? If not, then why are you even questioning and/or
saying that this is not a miracle? Read the verses of 27:15 and 16 too!
The Arabs of Muhammad's (peace be upon him) times would have know
this was a miracle from Allah.
That should be a sufficient response, but I still have to address your
latest presupposition when you say...
"Was Aesop also a prophet because animals talked and behaved like humans
in his stories?"
Can't you see the error here with your use of logic? What you've said
is just like as if I said the earth is round, and you were to reply,
"Was the baseball also an Earth because it is round?" You are simply
making an argument confusing attributes of two incomparable objects with
the objects as a whole. And so your point is unestablished.
But perhaps the reason for this use of poor logic is inherent in
maintaining your position. Having been a Christian, I know a
common loaded question with great logical fallacies; "Was Jesus
either a lunatic, liar, or God?" As if those are the only possiblities!
An Muslim scholar (Ghazali) wrote a whole treatise regarding
logic and where Shaytan gets in and causes misunderstandings and
illogical conclusions. Your example is one such case, and the
"lunatic, liar, or God" example is another such case.
In fact, in hypnosis, the "lunitic, liar, or God" is a common type
of question used to give the illusion of choice. In other words,
tricking people!
Furthermore, the Qur'an is revealed in Arabic on purpose. That means
that the Arabic language (with all its grammar, word derivations, and
definitions) was chosen for a reason for the Last Prophet (peace be upon
him). Think about it. Don't accuse me of delusions. I had only put
forth possibilities with reagrd to the name "naml" for ant. But I don't
expect you to understand this point anyway. But to clarify, I had talked
with an Arab brother when discussing the root "to tingle" and he said
that same root is what is used when the Arabs describe the tingling
sensation when something like an arm or leg falls asleep.
What I can't figure out is how you come up with these ideas for what is
a contradiction. I mean I would like to know what is your specific
criteria for establishing a contradiction. I don't want vague answers
like "if equal positions are deliniated to dissimilar meanings".
I want to know what is your methodology?
Do you read a verse and say, "how could this be
a contradicion?" and then only look for evidence to support that?
When I look for contradictions, I test it against the criteria I had
mentioned in a previous response. Why don't you do the same, or at
least post a web page detailing your methodology. Perhaps you could
get comments on your methodology which would refine your methods.
Yes. I would love to see a detailed webpage of your method of finding
contradicitons. Maybe in a step-by-step laid out plan. That way, I can
test your methodology to see how it works and test it also for
soundness. Would you be willing to do that?
About logic: I never presented your above alternative of "Lunatic, liar, or God?" You are building up straw men. Yes it is a common type alternative and it is a correct alternative when you present the whole argument and not only part of it. For example it is presented in "A Case for Christianity." I trust that when you read it you will see how you misrepresented the argument. "In other words, tricking people" by misrepresenting their true arguments? Think about it.
As to logical fallacies, Muslims are masters of presenting invalid alternatives. I am constantly presented with them. I just started to record them at Common logical falllacies of Muslim apologetics.
If you want to have meticulously logical defenses of Christianity, here are two book recommendations. I have never seen anything from the Islamic side coming even near this quality of presentation:
Dr. William Lane Craig: Reasonable Faith
Dr. J.P. Moreland: Scaling the Secular City
Does Islam have anything to present for it on a similar level? I am really interested to know about it.
Method of finding contradictions? I don't have a method. I read the Qur'an, I read books about the Qur'an, I read many other things and I make connections between them. Every once in while, things don't fit together. And then I record it. That is all.
Contradictions in the Qur'an
Answering Islam Home Page
Last edited: March 17, 1997