Introduction: The following documents just some of the evidence which demonstrates that the Quran could not have been written by man, rather a supernatural source must have been involved. For example, we find statements in the Quran which agree with modern science which was only discovered recently. Obviously a man living in the desert 1400 years ago could not have knowledge of such scientific facts.

In addition to that, there are many clear prophecies which we have seen fullfilled in recent times. There are also recent Archaeological digs which confirms facts stated in the Quran.

Please examine the evidence for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Evidence for Islam

Featured Articles

* Are there any scientific errors in the Quran?
* The Quran and modern science alogrithm - Read this before you start!
* The definition of a coincidence - Read this before you start!


Scientific evidence in Islam

Prophecies in Islam

Archaeology in Islam



Common Objections

* None of these claims impress me!
* These are all poetic passages you moron!
* We should not take metaphorical passages literally
* These verses and correlation with science are all vague and ambiguous
* Muhammad(P) meant something else by those words...
* Not enough information is given to demostrate he was referring to that scientic fact
* Christians make the same claim about the Bible
* These claims are copied from the Greeks and others
* Science keeps changing, so wouldn't that make the Quran wrong?
* You are reading science into the verses of the Quran
* Islamic scholars are at odds with your interpretation
* You are just spinning your interpretations


Scientific evidence in Islam




Physical barriers in the seas


He has let loosed the two seas meeting together. Between them is a barrier which none of them can transgress.

Chapter 55:19, 20 of the Quran states that there are barriers in the sea. Science has confirmed this fact. The scientific term for this barrier is called the 'pycnocline'. The The Barrier Zones in the Ocean By E. M. Emelyanov, chapter 9 page 287 tells us the following about this barrier:

In seas where the pycnocline is a distinct feature(for example, in the Baltic Sea and fjords in the Nordic seas), it is a barrier which prevents deep waters from mixing with surface waters....

Wrap Text around Image

The following science text books, Earth: Portrait of a Planet, 2nd Stephen Marshak states:

pycnocline The boundary between layers of water of different densities

And finally, this barrier can not been seen with the naked eye. Maryland Sea Grant College states:

The pycnocline forms an invisible boundary...

The Quran states there are barriers in the sea. Science confirms there are barriers in the sea. Therefore, the statement in the Quran agrees with what modern science has recently discovered.

Objections and Responses

1. The barrier in the seas is observable.
2. You can look at salt and fresh water and deduce there is some kind of barrier.
3. Is this talking about a barrier between salt and fresh water?
4. Not enough information to show that the Quran was referring to the scientific fact.
5. Ibn Kathir's commentary stated barrier in this verse is referring to land.
6. The Quran states "they do not transgress", that is wrong!
7. The pycnocline is really a gradient.. not a real barrier
8. Does Genesis 1:6 state God put barriers in the sea?

Go back to the top


The barrier in the seas is observable.

This is false. This barrier can not been seen with the naked eye. Maryland Sea Grant College states:

The pycnocline forms an invisible boundary...

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



You can look at salt and fresh water and deduce there is some kind of barrier.

The argument here is that Muhammad(P) made a brilliant deduction and figured out there are barriers in the sea. The Quran, is not the work of a scientist. It is a foolish assumption because this scientific fact was only discovered recently with advanced technical devices. However, although it is a foolish assumption, it is not 100% impossible, but very unlikely. How could Muhammad(P) have made such a brilliant discovery which no one could just "figure out" until scientists discovered it 1400 years later? Nonsense, but not totally impossible.

What is very interesting about this, is that Aristotle conducted research on this same subject. Aristotle is one the greatest Greek philosophers, who was also an intelligent student of Plato. He was also a scientist. Yet, when researching this subject, he made many grevious many scientific errors:

Meteorology By Aristotle, Translated by E. W. Webster part 2 states the following:

"The place which we see the sea filling is not its natural place but that of water. It seems to belong to the sea because the weight of the salt water makes it remain there, while the sweet, drinkable water which is light is carried up. The same thing happens in animal bodies. Here, too, the food when it enters the body is sweet, yet the residuum and dregs of liquid food are found to be bitter and salt. This is because the sweet and drinkable part of it has been drawn away by the natural animal heat and has passed into the flesh and the other parts of the body according to their several natures."

Aristotle could not figure out that there is a barrier in the seas through his research. This means that Muhammad(P) is a greater scientist than Aristotle? Nonsense. However, we can dismiss this nonsensical yet... hypothetically possible argument very easily by point out that there were other scientifically correct statements pertaining to oceans in the Quran, such as there is no light in the deep seas and there are internal waves in the seas. Yet... there are no scientific errors related to oceanography! (There are actually no scientific errors at all in Islam). Aristotle made several errors in one paragraph, yet Muhammad(P) made none?

Therefore, in conclusion... hypothetically although it is rediculous, it is possible... however when we consider other scientifically correct statements and we see a consistant frequency of verses which agree with science, we then can dismiss this idea that Muhammad(P) just figured it out. The Quran, is not the work of a scientist.


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Is this talking about a barrier between salt and fresh water?

There are 2 different verses in the Quran which talk about the barriers in the seas. We have discussed chapter 55:19, 20. However it is chapter 25:53 which discusses specifically the barrer between salt and fresh waters, "it is he who has let free the two bodies of flowing water, one palatable and sweet - (referring to fresh water) - and the other salt and bitter…"
Please keep in mind that there is a pycnoline between salt and fresh water as well. However, chapter 55:19, 20 does not state that is referring to the barrier between salt and fresh water. Inspite of this fact, if you insist that it is referring to it... then that means this verse would be considered a coincidence, which only further proves the Quran is miraculous.


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Not enough information to show that the Quran was referring to the scientific fact.

This objection has already been answered in our 'Common Objections' section here.


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Ibn Kathir's commentary stated barrier in this verse is referring to land.

The argument here is that Muhammad(P) meant something else by those words, and therefore accidently, used a choice of words which agreed with science. This objection has already been answered in our 'Common Objections' section here.


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



The Quran states "they do not transgress". wrong! Seas do mix

The deception being imployed here is that they want to draw your attention away from the area where Islam agrees with science, and draw your attention to where they think Islam disagrees with science. But we shall soon see, they are spinning their own false interpretations.

Trangress in what way? Two seas not transgressing does not descsribe any scientific process. Some have created their own personal interpretation that it means, "prevent itself from mixing...". However that is NOT what the text says. The word for mixing is khalit... and this word is not being used here. Why not? If that is what the Quran meant to say, then it would have clearly stated that. Rather another word is being used here is baghi which literally means a sexual transgression against God's command. Muslims often pray protect us from al-Baghii.

The truth is, we have no idea what is being described here. There is not enough information in this phrase for us to understand it scientifically. In addition to that, it should not be understood scientifically, rather it should be understood morally, because the word "baghi" has to do with obeying God's moral commands, not science.

Just as some overzealous believers might distort the meaning of Quran to make it "fit" science by reading science into the verses which does not belong there... We see the exact opposite occuring now - people are reading science into the verses of the Quran which does not belong there so that they can show a scientific error. Both are wrong.


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top


The pycnocline is really a gradient.. not a real barrier

This opinion is not supported by science. Therefore it will be rejected as a misrepresentation of what science really states. Just as some overzealous believers might distort the meaning of science to conform with what they want it to so that it can fit their holy book, we see the exact opposite occuring now. Here we see an attempt to distort what science really teaches in order to refute the scientific claim for Islam.

Science has made it clear - the pycnocline is a barrier. We have given the references above.


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top


Does Genesis 1:6 state God put barriers in the sea?

Absolutely not. You would be lucky if you can even figure out what is being discussed in that passage of the Bible. Here are several translations of the Bible , none of them translate the word "raqa" to mean barrier.

Some may argue that the author of the Quran used this Genesis 1:6 to come up with barriers in the sea. In other words, the author of the Quran took a verse which makes no sense scientifically...and made it fit science? Then inserted the word barrier(which is not found in Genesis 1:6) into this version which he copied? This does not make any sense. Therefore this nonsense.


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Cure for the bubonic plague: kill the rat and keep the cat

example graphic During the era in which Muhammad(P) lived, hundreds of millions of people perished from a horrible disease known as the bubonic plague. Later on, this plague killed off one third of the population of Europe.

Science today tells us that rats and the fleas which fed upon them caused the bubonic plague. History For Kids states:

Crowded villages and cities had more bedbugs, lice, and fleas, which bit the rats and then bit people and so spread the disease.

In the midst of the bubonic plague, Muhammad(P) gave the cure for it:
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 531:

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet said, "Five kinds of animals are mischief-doers (fawasiq) and can be killed even in the Sanctuary: They are the rat the scorpion, the kite, the crow and the rabid dog."

Prophet Muhammad(P) condemned the rat as "fawasiq" meaning something evil, and therefore killing them is such a righteous thing, that you can even do it in the sanctuary. In addition to that, although Islam frowns upon keeping pets, Prophet Muhammad(P) encouraged to keep the cat. This of course, would get rid of the rats because the cats would either chase them away, or eat them. Question - What is Muhammad(P) doing with the cure for the bubonic plague? The statement of Muhammad(P) once again agrees with modern science in a big way.

Objections and Responses

1. If I saw a rat in my house, I would kill it. This is common sense.
2. Killing rats will not prevent the plague.
3. Rats are not the cause of the plague.
4. Why were those other animals ordered killed?
5. Some references say that cats can cause the plague.

example graphic If I saw a rat in my house, I would kill it. This is common sense.

True, however Prophet Muhammad(P) orded them to be killed because they are evil, not because they are disgusting or unpleasant. No other book of antiquity has this command to kill rats.But what if you saw a rat outside your house, let's say down the street in some alley? Most people would just walk by and ignore it. If the Europeans would have killed the rats, the bubonic plague would not wiped 1/3 of Europe. Rats were not being killed because people simply did not care to do so. Therefore, even if people viewed rats to be disgusting or as a pest, so long as they are out of sight, they are out of mind, and people did not see it as their goal in life to go after them. But Muhammad(P) made it a priority to kill the rat, and condemned them as evil. That would insite any true believer to kill them.

In addition to that, it is also important to point out that in Hinduism, rats are sacred, and are not killed, as we see in the picture above. One of the causes of the bubonic plague in Europe, was that the Catholic Church declared cats were evil and therefore ordered them to be killed. Therefore, the Catholics decided to oppose the teachings of Islam, and kill the cat and keep the rat! As a result, millions of people died a horrible death, all of which, could have been avoided had they not went against the teachings of Islam.

Return to list of objections.
Go back to the top



Killing rats will not prevent the plague

This opinion contradicts science. Indiana State Department of Health states:

"You can minimize your risk for infection of bubonic plague through good rodent control efforts..."

UCLA Fielding School of Public Health states:

"Rat suppression by poisoning (see 9B6, below) may be necessary
to augment basic environmental sanitation measures"

However it is important to point out, that once the plague has manesfested itself, then it will be useless to kill the rats. The fleas would just go look for another host. Nevertheless, it can not be refuted that to kill rats is good advice scientifically as they do spread disease.


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Rats are not the cause of the plague

National Geographic states the following:

"Upon release these rat agents carried the Black Death..."


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Why were those other animals ordered killed?

It is irrelevant to the argument. If other animals were ordered killed, how does that change or falsify the following following statement:

"keeping the cat and killling the rat is scientifically good advice to prevent the plague."


Killing other animals does not falsify this statement.. Just because we don't know of a scientific reason for those other animals... does not falsify or confirm anything. It is completely irrelevant.


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Some references say that cats can cause the plague

Although it is hypothetically possible that cats can cause the plague, cats were not the cause of the Bubonic plague which killed 1/3 of Europe. Rather it was rats. Keeping the cat and killing the rat is the best possible solution for a people living during that time.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top


Darkness in the deep seas




Regarding the disbelievers, chapter 24:40 of the Quran states:

Or is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with a great wave topped by a great wave, topped by dark clouds, darkness, one above another, if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light.

Scientists have recently discovered that at the very bottom of the ocean it is completely dark, meaning there is no light:

Six hundred feet below the Antarctic ice,
where no light can be found, NASA scientists made a startling discovery...


The Quran gave many different descriptions to the vast deep seas, one of those descriptions is that "there is no light". This is a scientifically correct statement.

Objections and Responses

1. What about glowing fish in the deep seas?
2. Pre-Islamic source The Illiad states "she plunged into the dark sea"



What about glowing fish in the deep seas?

The vast majority of the deep seas is absolutely pitch dark. There is no light. However it is true, that occasionally a glowing fish might pass by and give off some light. However notice the verse of the Quran gave 2 distinct characteristics of the deep dark seas:

1. if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! <-- This indicates there is small amount of light
2. There is no light

Both characteristics are true. Inspite of the glowing fish giving off an occassional glow, the vast majority of the deep seas is absolutely pitch dark. Here are some references:

"There is no light in the deep sea..."
Source: http://www.venturedeepocean.org/life/microbes.php

"there is no light at all"
Source: http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/uriartej/573/abyssopelagic_zone.html

"In the bathypelagic zone there is no light"
Source: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/drazen/fishes.htm

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Pre-Islamic source The Illiad states "she plunged into the dark sea"

Obviously from reading the text, it does not state there is no light. The argument here is that maybe the author of the Quran saw this statement, then used it to figure out that there is no light at the bottom of the sea. However, the same argument was used to explain how the author accurately stated that there are barriers in the sea. So he just figured it out that that there are barriers in the sea and he just figured out that there is no light at the bottom of the sea? Nonsense. By arguing nonsense, it only further proves the case for Islam - that people must argue nonsense to explain away the clear scientific miracles of Islam.

Therefore, in conclusion... hypothetically although it is rediculous, it is hypothetically possible... however when we consider other scientifically correct statements and we see a consistant frequency of verses which agree with science, we then can dismiss this idea that Muhammad(P) just figured it out. The Quran, is not the work of a scientist.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Babies should-breast feed for 2 years


The mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole years, (that is) for those (parents) who desire to complete the term of suckling

The Quran states in chapter 2:233 that a woman should breast-feed her baby for 2 years. Science has agreed with this position. UNICEF's Infant and Young Child Feeding guide states:

It is well recognized that the period from birth to two years of age is the “critical window” for the promotion of good growth, health, and behavioral development. Therefore, optimal infant and young child feeding is crucial during this period. Optimal infant and young child feeding means that mothers are empowered to initiate breastfeeding within one hour of birth, breastfeed exclusively for the first six months and continue to breastfeed for two years or more.

Center for Disease ú Control and Prevention states:

The World Health Organization recommends continued breastfeeding up to 2 years of age or beyond.

Science tells us that a baby should be breast-fed for 2 years because this is the "critical window" for growth, health, and behavioral development. The Quran states that the baby should be breast-fed for 2 years. Therefore Modern science agrees with the Quran.

Objections and Responses


None reported at this time.
Go back to the top



Function of the Cerebrum

Chapter 96:15,16 of the Quran states the following about a terrible sinner named Abu Jahl:

Nay! If he ceases not, We will catch him by the forelock, A lying, sinning forelock".

Wrap Text around Image The Shakir translation of the Quran uses the word "forehead" instead of forelock. The Arabic world used is is naseya, defined as a region which is the portion of the forehead. Why did the Qur'an describe the front of the head as being lying and sinful? Why didn't the Qur'an say that the person was lying and sinful? Is there a relationship between the front of the head and lying and sinfulness?

Science today tells us that it is the frontal lobe of the brain which used for decision making. The Neuroscience on the Web Series at California State University, Chico tells us the following:

The Frontal Lobe is the most anterior lobe of the brain... This lobe deals with with higher level cognitive functions like reasoning and judgment.

For a better understanding...please look at the following diagram:

Wrap Text around Image

The Neuroscience Web Series explains the following:

Areas 9, 10, and 11 are anterior to area 8. They are involved in cognitive processes like reasoning and judgment which may be collectively called biological intelligence

In conclusion, the Quran states that the forehead engages in decision making such as lying and sinning. This is the virtually the exact region of the human body in which reasoning and judgment occurs. Therefore this verse of the Quran agrees with modern science.

Objections and Responses

1. He really meant the hair on the front part of the head.

He really meant the hair on the front part of the head

The word for hair in Arabic is sha'ar. This word is not used here. If the author really meant to say "I will grab him by the hair (sha'ar) on the front part of his forehead, then he could have easily done so. But he did not state anything like this in the Quran. The Arabic world used is is naseya, defined as a region which is the portion of the forehead.

Therefore my prophecy has come true - I stated on my website that those who try to refute our arguments will be the ones who only after seeing the clear correlation between the Quran and science will then attempt to redefine words to break that link or make the Quran NOT agree with science.

Just as some make the accusation that Muslims are reinterpreting the Quran to make it agree with science, true, some do do that... however now you must accept that it works both ways - those who oppose Islam also do the same thing! Only after seeing the clear agreement between Quran and science, they then try to reinterpret the Quran so that it does NOT agree with science. If those critics would read the this verse without knowing about the correlation with science, they would never declare, "this word means hair on top of the head!". They only declare this after seeing the clear correlation between Quran and science. Now you might say - you do the same thing! Absolutely not. If I come to across a verse which has no correlation with science... I do NOT try to redefine words nor do I create my own interpretations to make it agree with science.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



There are internal waves in the sea

Internal waves enhance the vertical mixing of the deep waters

Quran states there are internal waves in chapter 24:40:

Or is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with a great wave topped by a great wave, topped by dark clouds, darkness, one above another, if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light.

We are all familiar with the cliche of the California surfer surfing the ocean waves on the surface of the ocean. However, the Quran states that in vast deep seas there are "great waves topped by great waves", not just on the surface. The Arabic word for "in" is "fe" which is used in this verse, meaning these are waves are internal, not on the surface.

Scientists have recently discovered that there are internal waves. DiscoveryNews article, Giant Internal Waves Caught Breaking by Larry O'Hanlon states the following:

900-mile-long string of scientific instruments across a stretch of the open ocean has revealed the first evidence of giant internal waves partially "breaking" inside the oceans.
Tide-generated internal waves up to 300 feet tall are thought to mix shallow and deep waters when they break



Objections and Responses

1. Can we interpret this verse to mean on top of the sea?
2. Muhammad(P) meant out there far off there are waves

Can we interpret this verse to mean on top of the sea?

Absolutely not. The Quran states very clearly IN the deep seas. This means internal. The Quran does not say:

"out there on the vast seas.."

"on the vast seas..."

"the seas have vast waves"

The above are all false interpretations which some might make. Let me remind you, just as it is wrong to reinterpret scripture to make it 'fit' science, it is also wrong to reinterpret scripture to make it not fit science. This type of dishonesty works both ways.

Furthermore the word luge'an is used in this verse, which conotates a unfathomable depth. It would make no sense to use this word if you are talking about something on the surface.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Muhammad(P) meant out there far off there are waves

Just as it is wrong to reinterpret scripture to make it 'fit' science, it is also wrong to reinterpret scripture to make it not fit science. This type of dishonesty works both ways. The verse literally statesin the seas, then the word luge'an is used, which conotates a unfathomable depth.

However, even this reinterpretation will do no good. Because whenever you say "the Quran meant to say", this falls under the category of coincidence.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top


Prophecies in Islam


A prophecy about Adolf Hitler




And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment

This verse is speaking about the Jews, as we read in chapter 7:159. The above verse found in chapter 7:167 should be obvious that Adolf Hitler is a clear fulfillment of this prophecy. It is astonishing to see that even after 1300 years from when this verse was written, this promise came true and that the Quran accurately predicted the time frame when this persecution will happen - near the Day of Judgment. It should also be pointed out, that Islam condemns terrorism and genocide. Judgment is for God only.



Objections and Responses

1. There is persecution in Jewish history. Therefore, a mere man can make this prediction.

There is persecution in Jewish history. Therefore, a mere man can make this prediction.

The argument here is, yes... the prophecy has indeed come true, but a mere human could do it. It is true that it is hypothetically possible for one to make this prediction, but it is not easy. There would be a lot of factors to consider before accurately making this prediction against any group of people:

- maybe those people would cease to exist such as we have seen in history. For example the Spartans and Medes were ancient people who no longer exist today.
- Maybe the persecution would end and the world would be a better place
- Maybe the they will become militarily strong and thus be able to thwart any attempt of persecution.

What is even more difficult is to accurately predict the exact time frame this persecution will happen in. The Quran said this will happen "until the Day of Judgment". According to Islamic Eschatology, we are living in the final days before the day of Judgment. This is unanimously agreed by almost all of Islamic scholarship.

Christians also agree that we are living in the last days before the Judgment. Therefore they will have to agree that this persecution did happen in the time frame given. However, some Agnostics/Atheists might say, "I don't believe in the Day of Judgment", which is a valid objection.

However, look at the signs given by Prophet Muhammad(P) before the Day of Judgment... and even they will agree that they see all those signs in our present day. Here are those signs:

✔   Christians will be the majority, they will good at feeding the poor, do not allow their kings to oppress them and good in disaster recovery.

✔   When singers and musical instruments will become popular, and much wine will be drunk.
Ibn Kathir's (died 1373) Signs before the day of Judgment pg 9 of 69

Therefore, the persecution of the Jews will happen even when you live in a period in which you see all the signs listed above. The holocaust ended 67 years ago... we have seen these signs for at least the last 40 years... therefore the author of the Quran predicted the exact time frame.

In conclusion, yes, it is hypothetically possible to make this prediction, but extremely difficult. However, pinpointing the exact time frame when this persecution will happen is almost impossible. Please keep in mind, that the main argument is that although it is possible for a person to make a prediction, but it is frequency of these prophecies prove that it could not have been authored by a mere human. This prophecy about Hitler is part of a cummulative case which is being made.

Return to list of objections

4 end time prophecies about Christians


In the collection of hadith known as Shahih Muslim, Prophet Muhammad(P) made the following 4 prophecies about Christians( scroll down to read the actual hadith text):

example graphic

1. The last hour would come when the Romans (Christians) would have the maximum population. This prophecy has come true. Christianity has become the largest religion in the world today:



Islam is the world's second-largest religion - behind Christianity and ahead of Hinduism, the third largest



example graphic 2. They are most able to cope with tribulation, the quickest to recover after disasater and to return to the fight after disaster. Both Germany and Japan were devestated after World War II. However, America rebuilt both of these nations which rose up from the ashes and later became economic super powers. The world has never witnessed such a disaster recovery and return to prosperity before. This process of nation building is known as The Marshall Plan:


example graphic

The Marshall Plan formed the greatest voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another known to history. Technically known as the European Recovery Program, the plan was passed by the U.S. Congress with a decisive majority and was signed by President Truman on April 3, 1948.




example graphic 3. Christians will be the best at treating the poor. There is no need for discussion here. Christians have become world renowned for their charity and belevolence to the poor, outreach to the homeless and charities. If we look at the top charities in the world today, they are all from America and Europe(Romans). example graphic Christian charities made up nearly a quarter of the 100 best nonprofit groups (There is no distinction in Islam between secular and non-secular Christians, therefore we should not make that distinction when looking at the top charities in the world today).





example graphic

4. They do not allow themselves to be oppressed by their kings. Once again, no need for any kind of discussion here. The decendants of those Roman Christians which Muhmmad(P) prophecised about, who are Americans as well as the European nations, all live under democratic governments today. However, during the life of Muhammad(P) this was not the case, they were ruled by a cruel tyrant named Heraclius, who was the emporer of the Roman Empire. However a thousand years later after Muhammed(P) uttered these words, his prophecy began to take fruition - one by one every Christian nation decided not to be "oppressed by their Kings" any longer, and got rid of every single one of them. One of the clearest examples is how America revolted against British King seeking it's independence and establishing a democracy. This is a sharp contrast when we compare it to the Muslim world, almost every country is ruled cruel and oppressive dictator. Perhaps the Arab spring may one day change this.


Here is the original hadith text the 4 prophecies are taken from:
Sahih Muslim Book 041, Hadith Number 6925:

Sahih Muslim Book 41. Turmoil And Portents Of The Last Hour Chapter : The last hour would come when the Romans would have the maximum population.

Mustaurid al-Qurashi reported: I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:

The Last Hour would come (when) the Romans would form a majority amongst people.

'Amr said to him (Mustaurid Qurashi): See what you are saying? He said: I say what I heard from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Thereupon he said: If you say that, it is a fact for they have four qualities.

✔ They have the patience to undergo a trial and immediately restore themselves to sanity after trouble and attack again after flight.

✔ They (have the quality) of being good to the destitute and the orphans, to the weak

✔ And fifthly, the good quality in them is that they put resistance against the oppression of kings.

Here is another translation of this same hadith by renouned commentator Ibn Kathir's (died 1373) Signs before the day of Judgment pg 25-26 of 69:
I heard the prophet(P) say, 'The Hour will come when the Romans will be in the majority.''Amr asked him, "What are you saying?" He said I am repeating that which I heard from the Prophet(P)."'Amr said, "If you say this, it is true, because they have four good characteristics:

✔ they are most able to cope with tribulation, the quickest to recover after disasater and to return to the fight after disaster

✔ and are the best as far as treating the poor, weak and orphans is concerned.

✔They have a 5th characteristic which is very good; they do not allow themselves to be oppressed by their kings.

Who are the Romans? They are Christians and their decendants originating out of the Roman Empire which expanded and fractured, whom later spread throughout Europe and the Americas. Here are some examples from the Islamic texts:

Muqatil ibn Sulayman al-Balkhi (died 767) was a 8th-century exegete stated in his tafsir pg. 11:

Christians are the Byzantines(Romans)

Ibn Kathir in his tafsir used a derogatory comment about the Christians, however he points out that the Romans are Christians:

Then, he started preparing the Islamic armies to fight the Roman cross worshippers



Objections and Responses

1. But the text does not say Christians, that is your interpretation.
2. Everyone knows that Catholics are not Christians.

Answer to #1: It is true that the world "Christian" is not being used, rather a general term like "Romans". As I stated, this is how the early Muslims would refer to the Christians from Europe. The Romans are Christians and their decendants originating out of the Roman Empire which expanded and fractured, whom later spread throughout Europe and the Americas. Here are some examples from the Islamic texts:

Muqatil ibn Sulayman al-Balkhi (died 767) was a 8th-century exegete stated in his tafsir pg. 11:

Christians are the Byzantines(Romans)

Ibn Kathir in his tafsir used a derogatory comment about the Christians, however he points out that the Romans are Christians:

Then, he started preparing the Islamic armies to fight the Roman cross worshippers


But even if you reject all of this, it is still a fulfilled prophecy . That is because a group of people, whom we will remain nameless, have indeed emerged during the end-times(Muslims and Christians agree we are living during the last days), who fit all 4 descriptions:

✔   This group's religion will be in the majority
✔   This group will be the best at recovering from disaster
✔   This group will the best at taking care of the poor
✔   This group will will not allow themselves to be oppressed by their governments

There is no doubt, that a group with all 4 qualities like this has emerged. Therefore, we don't have to put a name on it, when their description is so clear. This is why it is a fulfilled prophecy. Now of course, we can play dumb and say I really don't know anyone like that... the text doesn't say! But that is exactly my point - you are forced to engage in foolishness so that you can refute the evidence for Islam.

However, common sense will dictate, that Romans were the Christians during the life of Muhammad(P)... therefore it is very possible that Muhammad(P) is using this term to describe Christians in general... and now we find a prophecy in which all 4 descriptions match Christians of today, therefore he must have been referring to them. This is not a terrible leap of faith.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top

Answer to #2: There are some Christians who believe that Catholics do not follow true Christianity... but we need to look at this matter from an Islamic point of view. From an Islamic point of view, all forms of Christianity is wrong. So Catholics are just as wrong as Protestants. Whom is more wrong does not matter, and it would be foolish to make a distinction that this group has misinterpreted a false doctrine... while this group understands this false doctrine correctly! Therefore when Muhammad(P) addressed Christians, he is addressing all the different sects and groups.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top




Horses will never be ridden in war again



Muhammad(P) gave many signs of the end times. One sign in particular he spoke of regarding the "final hour", as recorded in English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, Volume V, pp. 269:


They said: 'O Messenger of Allah, why will horses be so cheap?' He said:

'They will never be ridden in war again'

There is no need for any explanation here. I believe this is a clear prophecy anyone can recognize.





Objections and Responses

1. Maybe Muhammad(P) meant horses will not be used because there will be no more wars.
2. Horses are still expensive... this is a cause-effect relationship!
3. I'm sure horses are still being ridden in war in some 3rd world country
4. The Janjaweed in Sudan rode on horses.
5. How do we know horses will not be used in the future?




Maybe Muhammad(P) meant horses will not be used because there will be no more wars.

You are basically arguing, is that the prophecy was fulfilled earlier than expected. Here are my 2 responses:

1. when they asked him, "why will a horses be so cheap?" his answer was NOT "because there would be no more war..." this is a false interpretation. Rather his answer was very different, he said "They will never be ridden in war again", which may imply that war will take place.

2. Muhammad(P) simply provided a list of signs which will happen before the day of judgment. But the list is NOT in chronological order. If you read a few paragraphs above, the list of signs begins with:

"The people will be united and none will be worshipped except Allah(everyone will convert to Islam).
War will cease...
and Quraish will no longer be in power."

example graphic "The people will be united and..." has not happened yet. However "The Quraish will no longer be in power" already happened. In fact it happened during the life of Muhammad(P). But if you look at the sequence given above, "The people will be united and..." is listed before "The Quraish will no longer be in power". Therefore, these signs given are not to be read chronologically - this means that the signs will NOT happen in the exact order given in the text.

3. Here is another example showing you that the list is not in chronological order - Immediately before Muhammad(P) foretold about the price of the horse, he spoke about the ox. Then they asked Muhammad(P) about the price of the oxen, and he said:

It was said to him: 'Why will oxen be so expensive?'
He said: 'Because all the land will be tilled. Before the Dajjal (anti-Christ) appears there will be three difficult years in which people will suffer...'

Therefore, first Muhammad(P) spoke of the ox, then the horses, and explained that the sign of the oxen will come at least 3 years before the the arrival of the Dajjal (anti-Christ). "Wars will cease", comes after the Dajjal.
Here is the chronological order of events - First the Dajjal will appear...then Jesus will return... then there will be a period of peace in which wars will cease.


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Horses are still expensive... this is a cause-effect relationship!

example graphic The problem here, is that the questioner is confused. Therefore, let me clear up the confusion. Here is the correct cause-effect relationship:

The effect of horses not being used in war will cause horses to be cheap.

The following is NOT the cause-effect relationship:

The effect of horses being cheap, has caused horses to be no longer to be used in war - WRONG

Therefore, the argument presented here is.. yes... the prophecy has been fulfilled, but we do not see the effect yet. Horses are still expensive. A simple response to this, is that it may very well be possible that the price drop may happen at a much later time as a result of them not being used in war. It does not have to be immediately. Therefore, there are two prophecies here - one which states that horses will no longer be used in war, and and second prophecy is that the price will be cheap. The first prophecy causes the second prophecy to happen at a later time.

Here are a list of some false assumptions an ignorant person might make due to their zeal in trying to refute this prophecy, they misread the text in the following way:

when horses become cheap, then horses will no longer be used in war.
(correction: Horses no longer used in war will happen first)

Horses not being used in war can only occur when horses are cheap.
(correction: Horses no longer used in war will happen first)

The price of the horse will drop IMMEDATELY once tehy are not used in war.
(correction: no where does it state that it will happen immediately)

If the price of horses is expensive, then they must still be used in war.
(correction: after they are not used in war, it does not say when the horses will be cheap.. it can happen at a later time.. therefore they may be a period in which the price of the horse will remain expensive)

This is a cause-effect relationship. First horses will not be used in war, then the price will become cheap as a result of that. However, this price drop may happen at a later time.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



I'm sure horses are still being ridden in war in some 3rd world country

We are not aware of any wars in the past 90 years where horses were ridden onto the battlefield.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



The Janjaweed in Sudan rode on horses.

The hadith states, horses will never be ridden in war. There is no war in Sudan. The Sudanese government did not declare war on it's own people. Rather the Janjaweed are group of thugs and gangsters who murder, rob and pillage unarmed civilians who can not fight back. This is not war. The Janjaweed if prosecuted, will not be considered prisoners of war, but as murders and criminals.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



How do we know horses will not be used in the future?

The hadith states that horses will never be ridden in war. This literally means men riding on horses onto the battlefield to fight the enemy. From our research... this has not happened for at last 90 years. Closest to this was WWI.

Therefore it would be foolish to make this assumption - can you imagine... men riding horses onto the battlefield in this day and age? Nonsense. Since this assumption is nonsense, I would ask that you not entertain nonsense. If you do entertain nonsense, then that only further proves the argument - that people must make nonsensical arguments to refute the prophecies in Islam.

However, let's hypothetically say that someone will ride a horse onto the battlefield. That does not make this prophecy unfilfilled. We must pay close attention to the wording - it does not say that the horse(singular) will never be ridden in war... rather it refers to horses(plural). This makes a big difference because when the plural is used - it logically conotates that "in general" horses will never be ridden in war. It will become the norm. If someone were to ride a horse it will not make this prophecy null because it is an execption to the case. Therefore, if we were to ask "in general are horses ridden in war?" the answer is no. Therefore we can say - in general the prophecy has come true.

In conclusion, we don't know of any instance where horses are being ridden into war, and we should not expect it to. If it does for some strange reason, the prophecy does allow exceptions to the case because horses are plural.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top




Horses were used to carry supplies in the Afghan Mountains

The hadith states that horses will never be ridden in war. This literally means men riding on horses onto the battlefield to fight the enemy. The prophecy does not get into specific details and address every specific situation, And we should not require it to or else every prophecy would be 100+ pages long! That is silly. Anyhow, there is no logical contradiction in the following statement:
"horses are not ridden into war but can be used for carrying supplies"

We can also say, in almost all situations this prophecy has been fulfilled. What makes this prophecy even more accurate is that in the case where horses are being used to carry supplies, but when the battle begins... anyone on a horse will immediately dismounts making this a fulfilled prophecy.


Mongolian Invasion with leather shields

The great Mongolian warrior and conqueror, Genghis Khan


Prophet Muhammad(P) foretold the following in English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, Volume V, pp. 284:


Please pay attention to the following characteristics from the text:

✔   Small eyes... like the eyes locusts

✔   Flat faces

✔   Leather shields

✔   They will be horsemen (They will not come on foot, nor ship, nor will they be camel or elephant riders)

✔   Tying their horses to the date-palm tree

In the year 1220, roughly 6 hundred years after Muhammad(P) made this prophecy, the Mongols invaded the Islamic world inflicting upon it the worst devestation it has ever experienced. The Department of History at University of Calgary's The Islamic Word to 1600 tutorial documents the following:

the Mongol destruction of the Islamic heartland marked a major change of direction for the region. By destroying the Islamic empires that existed before they came, the Mongols instigated a new era for the Islamic world, in which most of the region's power would fall to three great empires - the Ottoman, the Safavid, and the Mughal - as we will see in Chapter 5.

The Mongols began their push into Central Asia and Persia in the early 13th century under Genghis Khan. The cities of Bukhara and Samarkand, later to become part of the Chagatai Khanate, fell to Genghis Khan's armies in 1220.

From there it was not difficult to raid Persia, and by 1221 the Persian cities of Merv, Nishapur, and Balkh had fallen. In the inevitable pillaging that followed Mongol attacks, the invaders decimated the population of these regions, sparing only the artisans they deemed useful.

The Mongols also uprooted many Muslim graves in their wake, including that of Harun al-Rashid, the 8th century Abbasid caliph who was featured in The Thousand and One Nights fables.

However, this story took on a strange twist in the end, as the tutorial continues:

Although the faith prevailed, and the Mongol invaders were eventually converted to Islam

Let us revist the description Muhammad(P) gave us. He said you(Muslims) will fight a people who has the following traits:

Small eyes like locusts - A very accurate descrption of the Mongols as we see in the following locust pictures:



Wide faces - This is a scientifically accurate description of the Mongols. The History and Geography of Human Genes By Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza Page 223 states the following:

The Mongoloid face is flat, with a flat nose and high cheekbones



Leather shields - At this point, some can say, well maybe Muhammad(P) made a good guess that one day you will fight the oriental race. However, if it can also be proven that the Mongols used leather shields, it would be absolutely astonishing. This is not something that you can just easily guess at. History has confirmed that the Mongols, did indeed use leater shields just as Muhammad(P) foretold.
Empire of the Mongols By Michael Burgan pg 32 states the following regarding the Mongolian soldier:

All soldiers carried a shield made of wicker and leather.

Penn State University Center for the Performing Art's Famous People from Mongolian History:

The Mongol cavalry wore metal armor, which gave him greater agility than metal. He carried a small leather shield on his left arm for protection.



They will be horsemen - They will not come on foot, nor ship, nor will they be camel or elephant riders. The Mongols did infact invade the Islamic World upon horses. The Department of History at University of Calgary's The Islamic Word to 1600 tutorial documents the following:

the Mamluks realised that grasslands were needed to pasture the Mongols' horses. Therefore, the Mamluks often burned grasslands in Syria in their wake, to prevent the Mongol horses from grazing.



Tying their horses to the date-palm tree - This is very interesting, because the date-palm tree grows in the Muslim lands, and is symbol of Islam. Saudi Aramco World Magazine, A History of Dates, written by Paul Lunde states the following:

To the West, the palm is as much a symbol of Islam as the crescent and star, and this is not unreasonable: just as the olive was a basic element in Mediterranean civilizations, so was the date an economic element in those of Islam.

This means they will enter the lands of the Muslims - they will be the invaders. The Mongol invaded Iraq and spread throughout the Islamic lands.




Objections and Responses

1. I won't believe in anything unless it physically says "MONGOLS" in that hadith!
2. Were leather shields used during Muhammad(P)'s time?

Answer to #1: We have enough information in that hadith to conclude it is a fulfilled prophecy without the word "Mongol". We can rephrase the prophecy - Muhammad(P) prophesied that after him the Muslims will fight a people with the following characteristics: small eyes, wide faces, they have leather shields, and they will be horsemen. Did this infact happen? Yes. It happened. Therefore it is a fulfilled prophecy.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top


Answer to #2: There is some reference to the Vikings using leather on their shields. But there were many different types of shields used. Classical Studies Professor Vincent J. Rosivach from Fairfield University posted the following article, Hoplite Arms and Armor Jonathan Zimmel and Todd Girard which states:

Most early shields had a bronze strip around the edge to prevent splintering and rotting, but later on the shield's entire exterior surface was covered with a thin bronze sheet.

Victori - The Roman Military states:

The shield was covered with felt which was stitched through the wood

Hellenic-Art.com states the following about the Spartan shield:

Made from a combination of materials including iron and bronze

In conclusion, though leather shields might have been known, it would take an amazing guess to get it right, that you will fight oriental horsemen, with leather shields.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top




Fornication will cause new diseases

Prophet Muhammad(P) stated that in the following hadith, recorded in English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, Volume V, pp. 118-119:


Point to be noted - if people commit "immorality" openly, such as in pornography, or on television, new diseases will appear. Japanese scientists have discovered a new disease known as the gonorrhea 'superbug':

A new, untreatable strain of the sexually transmitted disease gonorrhea has been discovered in Japan, according to an international team...

example graphic This scientific prophecy has been fullfilled - new diseases linked to widespread sex have been discovered. Without widespread sex, the new strain of this virus could not have been created.
By not engaging in widespread sex, you deny the opportunity for the virus to move from body to body and different kinds of environments, which cause evolution and mutations, such as this gonorrhea 'superbug'.

There are other examples of new diseases due to fornication such as the AIDS virus. Therefore, what Muhammad(P) said about the cause of new disease has been confirmed 1400 years later by scientists.

Objections and Responses

1. Can polygamy cause new diseases?
2. Maybe the word used for fornication doesn't really mean sex

Can polygamy cause new diseases?

There is no scientific research which states this. Therefore this statement is false. But that also demonstrates that the person who raised this question can not perform basic math. Islamic polygamy is a limitation on the number of sexual partners a man can have up to four. However four women share one man, which actually reduces the number of male sexual partners by three. Therefore there are less sexual partners involved in polygamy than monogamy.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Maybe the word used for fornication doesn't really mean sex

This is false. The word used in this hadith is fahisha. You will find the same word used in chapter 17:32 of the Quran:

And come not near to the unlawful sexual intercourse. Verily, it is a Fahishah, and an evil way (that leads one to Hell unless Allah forgives him).


Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



Al Qaeda and Taliban foretold

Prophet Muhammad(P) stated that in the following hadith, recorded in English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, Volume V, pp. 197:


Did you see the prophecy? You mean you didn't? It's a bit hidden. Let me explain. Hudhaifah bin Yaman was worried about the 'callers to the gates of hell' and asked, "what do you command me to do if I live to see that?". He(Muhammad(P)) said:

Adhere to the main body of the Muslims and their leader..."

ok let's pause for a second -

Today there is no leader of the main body of Muslims. Neither is there anyone who the majority of the Muslims consider their leader. Let's do some quick Islam 101. In the religion of Islam, the leader of the Muslims is called a "Khalifa". His role is very similar to the role of the Pope in the Catholic religion. When Muhammad(P) died his successor Abu Bakr was the first Khalif of all the Muslims. So, what should we do when we don't even have leader? Muhammad(P) gives the answer:

if there is no such body and no leader, then withdraw from all their groups...

So there is the prophecy - Muhammad(P) prophecised that their will be groups which will appear in absense of a leader of the main body of the Muslims. This is exactly what we find - many groups have emerged in absense of a leader such as Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Hamas. One of their goals, is to establish a leader of the main body of Muslims.

Then he gave us a severe warning that should instill fear in any true believer - for us to stay away from them:

even if you bite onto the trunk of a tree until death finds you in that state

This statement is a clear condemnation of these groups. It expresses just how important it is to stay away from them. In conclusion, not only is this a prophecy come true, it is true guidance that is very relevant for our times. Is there anyone who can deny that this is good advice to help us with our current problems today which we face? Don't forget to read imminent scholar Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani's Debate with a "terrorist". In this debate, the scholar hit the terrorist with the same hadith and argument mentioned here.




Objections and Responses

1. Shouldn't Muslims fight to establish an Islamic state?
2. But there are many good groups out there, maybe Muhammad(P) is speaking in a general sense?




Shouldn't Muslims fight to establish an Islamic state?

How did Muhammad(P) answer this question? He told us what to do when there is no leader or main body of the Muslims. In that situation, it means that the Muslims have NOT established an Islamic state. It means they are NOT implimenting the laws of God. You would expect to Muhammed to answer "well, if there is no islamic state or caliphate, then you must pick up the sword and make one!" "Or what!?! no caliphate? By any means nessassary you must wage war until there is an Islamic state and do NOT rest until to succeed! All who die in this path will go to heaven immediately. For it is the duty of every Muslim to impliment Islamic sharia law!" Or something like that.

But Muhammad(P) said no such thing. Remember, Muhammad(P) is speaking about a time when there is NO Islamic state. Rather, Muhammad correctly prophecised that groups will emerge and condemned all of them. No exceptions.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top



But there are many good groups out there, maybe Muhammad(P) is speaking in a general sense?

I thought that at first. But look carefully at the text:
withdraw from all their groups

The arabic word underlined is kul , which means "all" or "each".

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top




Certain Jews will fight you from behind walls

They will not fight you all except within fortified cities or from behind walls.

Chapter example graphic "Al-Hashr"(59) verse 14 states that they, the Jews, will not fight you except from behind walls. So, how do we know that this verse is talking about Jews? We must go to the hadith which explains the Quran:

Sahih Bukhari hadith #404:
Narrated Said bin Jubair: I asked Ibn Abbas... "(What about) Surat Al-Hashr?" He replied, "It was revealed in connection with Bani an-Nadir

ok.... so who are the Bani an-Nadir?

Sahih Muslim hadith #4364:
It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Jews of Banu Nadir and Banu Quraizi fought against the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)

So chapter "Al-Hashr" was revealed regarding the Jews of Bani an-Nadir who fought against Prophet Muhammad(P). The Quran made a prophecy that the Jews will fight you (Muslims) from behind walls.

example graphic

This prophecy was fulfilled in July 2003 , when the Jewish state of Israel constructed one of the largest walls known to man... for the exact purpose stated in chapter "Al-Hashr" verse 14, and that is to fight against Muslims so that they may occupy and steal their land. However, it is important to point out that unfortunately some ignorant Muslims engage in terrorism but Islam condemns this. The Israeli government's website states that upon completion this wall will span 491 miles.




Objections and Responses

1. Jews will only fight Muslim from behind walls - not true
2. Did Jews fight from behind walls during the life of Muhammad(P)?
3. Maybe this verse is talking about Amr bin Jihash bin Ka`b

Jews will only fight Muslim from behind walls - not true

Chapter Al-Hashr(59) verse 14 is not talking about all Jews. Rather it is addressing some Jews who have this type of mentality. This verse was revealed to Muhammad(P) to address the Jews of Bani Nadir, who took refuge in their forts, as we read in The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume, pp. 437:

Chapter: THE DEPORTATION OF THE B. AL-NADIR, A.H. 4:

The Jews took refuge in their forts and the apostle ordered that the palm trees should be cut down and burnt...

example graphic

Even before the Bani Nadir fought against Muhammad(P), another Jewish tribe called the Banu Qaynuqa fought against him. This story is found in The Life of Muhammad: page 363 of Sirah Ibn Ishaq. Also there were others Jewish tribes who fought against Muhammad(P) such as Banu Qurazya, Banu Mustaliq, and the Jews of khayber. Neither forts nor walls were used. This means that that the author of the Quran knows very well that not all Jews will fight from forts or behind walls, rather it is a certain type of Jews who have this mentality.

Therefore, the prophecy has indeed come true - The Quran prophecied that they will fight you (Muslims) from behind walls. Today we find a certain type of Jews, who have contructed one of the largest walls every built, to fight against Muslims and ensure their safety.

These are the same exact reasons why Bani Nadir baracaded themselves in their fortress. The Jews who constructed this wall in our time, have the same mentality as the Bani Nadir during the life of Muhammad(P).

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top


Did Jews fight from behind walls during the life of Muhammad(P)?

Walls were never used by the Jews against Muslims. However, this portion of the verse, "They will not fight you all except within fortified cities..." took place during the life of Prophet Muhammad(P). Please read answer to #1 for more detail. The Jews of Bani-Nadir lived in a fortified city and they were thinking that their fortresses would save them from Allah. However, this was not the case. God revealed this verse to expose this faulty thinking of theirs.

Strangely, the Quran then adds, "or from behind walls". This is a prophecy. When we read the Islamic sources... there is no record of them nor any of the Jews fighting from behind walls. Yet the Islamic sources have documented in detail Muhammad's interaction with the Jews.

As a result, the commentators and scholars could only comment about the statement "They will not fight you all except within fortified cities..." but they have fallen silent about this portion of the verse "or from behind walls" and it has remained a mystery for 1400 years. Finally, we now know what this verse means.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top


Maybe this verse is talking about Amr bin Jihash bin Ka`b

Amr bin Jihash bin Ka`b volunteered and ascended the wall of the house to drop a stone on the Messenger. This is not from behind a wall, rather it is on top of a house.

The verse does not fit this incident, because it states "They fight not against you even together"... this means that they will not fight against you unless they are in a group. Pickthal translation states: "They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified villages..."

However even if it was true, it make no difference. It still a prophecy. Because what the Quran stated about this man's actions came true later on as well.

Return to list of objections
Go back to the top




Dressed women appearing undressed

Sahih Muslim Book 024, Hadith Number 5310:

Sahih Muslim Book 24. Clothes and Decorations Print Chapter : The women who are naked even in their dresses and who deviate from the right path and lead their husbands astray. AbU Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said this: Two are the types of the denizens of Hell whom I did not see: people having flogs like the tails of the ox with them and they would be beating people, and the women who would be dressed but appear to be naked, who would be inclined (to evil) and make their husbands incline towards it. Their heads would be like the humps of the camel inclined to one side. They will not enter Paradise and they would not smell its odour whereas its odour would be smelt from such and such distance.

Keep in mind, these women did not exist during the life of Muhammad(P) because he stated he has not seen them. In another narration, Imam Malik's Muwatta Chapter 48 Hadith no: 7 stated that these women will "make others go astray". This has been fulfilled as well in many ways. One example is how other women will copy their fashion and dress like them even down to the exact brand name. Go back to the top


Common Objections



None of these scientific claims impress me!

If a verse agrees with modern science or a prophecy comes true, that does not make the Quran miraculous. We are not expecting that you should be impressed because of 1 or 2 instances of this. However, there will come a point in which we will have to agree that it is impossible for a book to agree with modern science (as well as fulfilled prophecies) so many times. There is a point, where it will get rediculous. Then we need to ask why is this happening so many times?

Therefore, after 3 or 4 times or more when we see this book agreeing with science, we need to pause and say... hey wait a second... this is not suppose to be happening.

What is impressive, is the amount of verses which agree with modern science(as well as fulfilled prophecies). It is the frequency which is the phenomenon. When you see the Quran agree with science (as well as fulfilled prophecies) over and over and over and over and over again, that is impressive. There is no human or natural explanation for this. It is something supernatural.

Go back to the top



These are all poetic passages you moron!

Chapter 69:41 of the Quran states:

It(Quran) is not the word of a poet, little is that you believe!

However, let's go along with this false assumption. It does change anything. The argument here is that these verses which correlate with science/prophecy are all coincidences. He meant to be poetic, yet accidentally... unanticipatedly... agreed with science. Pease read the definition of what is a coincidence.

Go back to the top



We should not take metaphorical passages literally

There is no evidence that these verses which agree with science are metaphorical. Rather this metaphorical interpretation is being forced on to the text.

However, let's go along with this false assumption. It does change anything. The argument here is that these verses are all coincidences. He meant to be metaphorical, yet accidentally... unanticaptedly... agreed with science. Please read the definition of what is a coincidence.

Go back to the top



These verses and correlation with science are all vague and ambiguous

We do not accept this as a valid objection. If you feel there is an error with our argument, then we will request the following:

1. Area and location of the exact error
2. Why is it wrong? Please provide details.
3. What needs to happen to make the argument correct?

We made sure to single-out only the most clear and precise correlation with the Quran and science. For example, Science tells us that rats caused the bubonic plague. The Quran orders the killing of rats. There is nothing vague and ambigous about this correlation.

The real problem is that the questioner is confused and that is why things look vague and ambiguous. Many different objections(as we listed them above) are racing through their heads at one time Critics are confused on how to refute the crystal clear correlations between Quran and science. Therefore because they are confused on how to refute this evidence, they simply declare, "this stuff is all vague and ambiguous!".

Therefore, in order to clear up the vagueness, then I suggest watching some of the video discussions with the critics on this issue, which will made available shortly.

Go back to the top



Muhammad(P) meant something else by those words...

Muhammad(P) meant something else by those words... This is the same thing as saying this is all a coincidence. Please read the definition of what is a coincidence.

Go back to the top



Not enough information is given to demostrate he was referring to that scientic fact

Let us assume for argument sake, that Muhammad(P) was not referring to the scientific fact. This means we affirm that Muhammad(P) in no way was referring to the scientific fact, therefore that answers the question. The reason why there is not enough information in the passage is because he did NOT know about this scientific fact.

But this only further demonstrates the miracle of the Quran. Here is a man who had no knowledge of science... let me repeat - he in no way had any knowledge of science... yet there are so many statements in his book which agree with science. There is no human or natural explanation for this. It is something supernatural.

Therefore, by assuming that Muhammad(P) had no knowledge of science only further proves the argument that the Quran is supernatural.

Go back to the top



Christians make the same claim about the Bible

There is some truth in this claim. However, upon investigation, we only find evidence in the Jewish Old Testament. Not the New Testament. The most we can do with this evidence is grow our beards long wear big black hat and become an Orthodox Jew. Showing prophecies from the Old Testament only proves Judaism.

This is a mistake many Christians make, that they think there is evidence for their faith but in reality they are using Old Testament evidences. To prove Christianity, you need to show some kind of evidence for the New Testament. Although there are multitudes of claims for the New Testament, such as manuscript evidence, none of them are correct. The New Testament is a book of 100% blind faith. I know this is a hard pill to swallow for many Christians, however the purpose of the ExamineTheTruth website is to demonstrate that if we examine the evidences for Islam and Christianity... all the prophetic, scientific and archaelogical evidence points to Islam. The tangible evidence does not point to Christianity. This is why you should accept Muhammad(P) as the final and last prophet. Now, I don't expect you to just accept this claim and I'm sure you won't. However, I ask that you examine the evidence for yourself and you will see that the matter is unabiguous and quite clear.

In conclusion, there are many websites which attack Islam and Christianity such as "Answering Islam" and "Evil Bible". Please do not waste your time attacking. Rather... spend your efforts in making a positive air-tight claim for your faith, why is this belief the right way... and spend your time attacking what we present as evidence.

Go back to the top



These claims are copied from the Greeks and others

This is false. All of the scientific statements and prophecies on this page are not mentioned in any book prior.

Go back to the top



Science keeps changing, so wouldn't that make the Quran wrong?

The verses of the Quran which agree with science are well-established science facts, which the probability of it changing is so dismal that it is rediculous to suggest. We try to stay away from theories.

For example... science discovered that there are barriers in the sea. The Quran agrees with this. The probablity of this science being wrong is almost impossible.

But what if the science tomorrow discovers that it is wrong? That does make the Quran wrong. Stating that there are barriers in the sea still does not contradict science. Here is another example - what if it is discovered tomorrow that rats do not cause the bubonic plague? Does the fact that Islam orders to kill rats contradict science? Of course not.

Go back to the top



You are reading science into the verses of the Quran

This is a false allegation and it has been answered under These verses and correlation with science are all vague and ambiguous

Go back to the top



Islamic scholars are at odds with your interpretation

There are no scholars I know of who disagrees with us, You can find same arguments all over the internet and on Arab TV shows all throughout the middle east. All scholarship agrees that Quran is a miracle based on the science in it.

One scholar who comes to mind is Dr. Zaghloul Najjar Here is a booklet on Quran and science which is approved by a council of scholars.

I hope you can see the canard at work here. What is happening is, you see that the statement in the Quran agrees with science, but take permission from your scholars! Rather than admiting this fact, you decided to fight against it... by bring Islamic scholars to condemn this and put an end to this once and for all!

No, I don’t need to take their permission. Christian nor Atheist websites need to take permission from scholars for their material. A fact is a fact, regardless if scholars are aware of it or not. I can not go through my entire website and get explicit permission to use each argument from scholars. Please do not hold me to ridiculous conditions.

Go back to the top



You are just spinning your interpretations

This is false. Rather this is my allegation against those critics who try to refute the evidence. They will be spinning their own interpretations to make the Quran NOT agree with science. They will be the one, who only after recognizing clear agreement between the Quran and science or prophetic fulfillment, will then try to break the link between Quran and science by either redefining words or comming up with silly interpretations. That means if those critics would read the this verse without knowing anything about the correlation with science being made, they would never declare, "hey this word means something else". They only declare this after seeing the clear correlation between Quran and science. Here is a good example.

Now you might say - you do the same thing! Absolutely not. If I come to across a verse which has no correlation with science... I do NOT try to redefine words nor do I create my own interpretations to make it agree with science. All I am doing is making an observation which is - the author of the Quran used a choice of words which agree with science. Nothing more. I am not telling you what the verse means. They are doing that. Not me. They are telling us that the verse means something else.

Go back to the top



The Quran and modern science alogrithm

A statement in the Quran, or any book correlates with modern science, or a prophecy which comes true, that does not make it automatically miraculous. There can be several human explanations. Therefore, in a discussion on Quran and science, there needs to be certain systems and procedures. The following algorithm will provide a systematic method of analysis without personal opinion or bias. This algorithm lists all the human possibilities, and also lists the supernatural possibility:

IF Statement in the Quran = Scientific fact or fulfilled prophecy THEN

(it can be one or more of the following 8 possibilities)

  A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genius. He figured it out.

  B. A very good guess, luck.

  C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great scientist. He conducted research and discovered this fact

  D. coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just happened to match up with science),, and the author had no intention of talking about science; it was an accident. Coincidence is a form of luck.

  E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow).

  F. The scientific fact is observable.

  G. The information already pre-existed in history. He is not telling us anything new.

  H. A source greater than man was involved.

END.



Go back to the top



The definition of a coincidence

"Muhammad(P) meant something else..." is the same thing as saying this is a coincidence. Oxford Dictionaries defines a coincidence as the following:

a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection:
it was a coincidence that she was wearing a jersey like Laura’s

In addition to that, yourdictionary.com states a coincidence must be unexpected. It must also be unintentional (not plan or arranged)

Here is an example of a coincidence:

Fact 1: The Quran states there are barriers in the sea
Fact 2: Science states there are barriers in the sea known as the pycnocline

Some may say the "Muhammad(P) meant something else..." barrier here, is referring to land. This is just another way of saying that the Quran had no intention (not plan or arranged) of referring to the pycnocline, but unexpectedly or in other words, accidently, used a choice of words which agreed with science.

Coincidence can only explain why the Quran verses agree with science 2 or maybe 3 times max, but not anymore. Because the definition of a coincidence is that it is something unexpected and accidental. However, once you have seen this same event occur 2 or 3 times before, now the next time it happens it is no longer unexpected. Rather you should be expecting it to happen again, because you just saw it happen 3 times before.

Therefore, to say that "Muhammad(P) meant something else..." means that it was an unexpected accident(coincidence) that he used a choice of words which agreed with science when he had no intention to do so. Therefore this can only work 2 or 3 times.

Go back to the top


Archaeology in Islam



The lost city of Iram

The Quran makes mention of an city called Iram in chapter 89:6-7:

Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with ‘Aad –[With] Iram – who had lofty pillars,

This city has not existed for thousands of years, and did not exist during the life of Muhammad(P). However it seems that the Arabs during Muhammad's life had knowledge of this city which could have been orally passed down.

Because there are soo many myths and legends which get passed down from generation to generation, many assumed that this city was exactly that - Muhammad(P) heard of this mythological place called Iram and just wrote it in the Quran. There simply was no evidence that this city called Iram every existed.

However all of this skepticism changed when in an archaeologists discovered a city named Ebla which contained a library in which it documented other cities it did business with. One of those cities, was the city of Iram. Here we find something amazing, and that Archaeology confirms the truthfulness of the Quran over a thousand years later. This is not something anyone can make happen. Now some may argue that these things have happened before, but they are missing the point - here we find a man Muhammad(P) in which the things which the statements he utters come true thousands of years later...his statements match up with modern science over and over and over again and now... Archaeology is also confirming his statements? How can you explain a man who's statements not only come true thousands of years later... but also confirmed by both Archaeology and modern science thousands of years later?

Objections and Responses

1. Knowledge of the city of Iram existed during Muhammad's life, so he copied
2. Archaeology also confirms Homeric poem's city Troy
3. In the same dig they also found Sodom and Gomorrah mentioned in the Bible

Knowledge of the city of Iram existed during Muhammad's life, so he copied

Yes, we already stated that knowledge already existed of the city of Iram. Out of all the information available at that time... much of it is myths and legends, the author of the Quran chose a city which really did exist. How did he know? There was no way to confirm that this place really did exist. Furthermore, Archaeology thousands of years later confirms the information in the Quran. If I were to ask you to write a book in which an archaelogical dig will confirm it's facts thousands of years later... could you do so? The answer is no. It is impossible to know. Could this all be a stroke of luck?

Therefore, I will repeat my question - How can you explain a man who's statements not only come true thousands of years later... but also confirmed by both Archaeology and modern science thousands of years later?

Simply saying it was a stroke of luck or he copied the correct city does not make sense when we take into consideration his accurate prophecies and statements which agree with modern science.

Return to list of objections



Archaeology also confirms Homeric poem's city Troy

It is true this amazing phenomenon has take place before. Therefore it proves that the at least some of Homer's poem is based on real facts. Homer could not have planned this type of confirmation to happen. The same hold true for the author of the Quran. Therefore, does this fact prove that Homer's work is miraculous? Of course not. The same holds true for the Quran. No one is arguing that this piece of Archaelogical evidence proves the Quran to be miraculous and you should be impressed. However, what does make the Quran miraculous is that in addition to this piece of Archaelogical evidence, there are several prophecies and scientifically correct statements which can not be simply passed over as a coincidence. Therefore this piece of Archaelogical evidence is just a part of series of arguments which show that the Quran is miraculous.

Therefore, I will repeat my question - How can you explain a man who's statements not only come true thousands of years later... but also confirmed by both Archaeology and modern science thousands of years later?

Simply saying it was a stroke of luck or he copied the correct city does not make sense when we take into consideration his accurate prophecies and statements which agree with modern science.

Return to list of objections



In the same dig they also found Sodom and Gomorrah mentioned in the Bible

There needs to be a correction here, the same phenomenon was found in the Jewish Old Testament, not the New Testament, which does not have evidence to support it. The Quran teaches that God sent inspired books to the Jews, therefore it is very possible to find the same kind of evidence in there. Therefore yes... we have found some traces of evidence in the Jewish Old Testament.

However, that only strengthens this argument - since we see the same kind of phenomenon in both books that would lead us to believe that it is the same author for both books. Therefore we are lead to believe that the God of the Old Testament authored the Quran as well, because the same type of evidence is in both books. But that does not mean that this type of phenomenon is exclusively used by the God of Israel, we have seen the same thing happen regarding the city of Troy, which can be interpreted as a great stoke of luck.

What is interesting here... is that the pagan Arabs during the life of Muhammad(P) also noticed that there was some kind of supernatural relationship between the Jewish Old Testament and the Quran as we read in chapter 28:48 the following:

But when the truth has come to them from Us, they say: "Why is he not given the like of what was given to Musa (Moses)? Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Musa (Moses) of old? They say: "Two kinds of magic [the Taurat (Torah) and the Quran] each helping the other!" And they say: "Verily! In both we are disbelievers."


The pagans referred to the Torah and the Quran as "magic" because they saw something supernatural in them supporting each other. What is astonishing is that 1400 years later, we can find this same kind of "magic" in both books, supporting each other.

Return to list of objections


tml>