Atoms & Sub-atomic Particles in the Qur'an

Dawahganda Argument

1. Original Argument

Premises

1) The Qur'an uses the word "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ)

2) "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ)" means "atom" (as per the modern Atomic theory)

Conclusion

Therefore, Qur'an contained knowledge of atoms (before anyone knew).

2. Updated Argument

Premises

1) Before the Quran, atoms were considered (by the Greeks) to be the smallest unit of matter

2) The Qur'an uses the word "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ)

3) "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ)" means "atom" (as per the modern Atomic theory)

4) The Qur'an mentions something smaller than atoms

5) Sub-atomic particles are smaller than atoms

Conclusion

Therefore, Qur'an contained knowledge of sub-atomic particles (before anyone knew).

Source for Argument

1. Harun Yahya – Sub-Atomic Particles
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_36.html

Verses

 لَا يَعْزُبُ عَنْهُ مِثْقَالُ ذَرَّةٍ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَلَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا أَصْغَرُ مِن ذَٰلِكَ وَلَا أَكْبَرُ إِلَّا فِي كِتَابٍ مُّبِينٍ

(Pickthall Translation)

34:3 - ... Not an atom's weight, or less than that or greater, escapeth Him in the heavens or in the earth, but it is in a clear Record

(Transliteration)

34:3 - la yaAAzubu AAanhumithqalu dharratin fee assamawatiwala fee al-ardi wala asgharu min thalika wala akbaru illa fee kitabin mubeen

For other translations, visit http://quranx.com/34.3

For word-by-word analysis, visit http://quranx.com/Analysis/34.3

(ذَرَّةٍ) dharra is also mentioned in 4:40, 10:61, 34:22, 99:7-8

Objections

1. The meaning of "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ) as "atom" is a modern definition

2. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation & the Fallacy of Undistributed Middle

3. Anachronism: conflating modern Atomic theory with the Philosophy of Atomism

4. The updated dawahganda argument is based on a false premise
5. Translating Ancient words with Modern Terminology is not Unique to the Qur'an

1. The meaning of "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ) as "atom" is a modern definition

           The primary objection to the dawahganda argument is that it is based on a mistranslation, or at the very least, an anachronistic translation. While the word "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ) has acquired the meaning of "chemical atom" in the modern era,[i] no evidences have been provided to suggest that this word signified the meaning of "chemical atom" in the 7th century.

          Furthermore, Classical Arabic lexicons, such as Lisan al-Arab[ii] or Lane's lexicon[iii] do not provide such a meaning of "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ) as signifying either the “philosophical atom” or the “chemical atom”. 

            The word "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ) is mentioned 6 times in the Qur'an (4:40, 10:61, 34:3, 34:22, 99:7, 99:8). All 6 instances of the occurrence of "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ) are used to convey the same or a very similar message. It is understood from the verses that the word "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ) refers to a very minuscule object, the weight of which is insignificant. Such a word is used to convey, metaphorically, the triviality of a certain concept, deed or belief. This is immediately understood from all six verses.

4:40 - "...Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom's ((ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra") weight..."
10:61 - "...not absent from your Lord is any [part] of an atom's ((ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra") weight..."
34:3 - "...Not absent from Him is an atom's ((ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra") weight..."
34:22 - "...They do not possess an atom's ((ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra") weight [of ability] ..."
99:7 - "So whoever does an atom's ((ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra") weight of good will see it,"
99:8 - "And whoever does an atom's ((ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra") weight of evil will see it,"

             The Qur'an's usage of the word "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ) is wholly consistent with the understanding provided by Classical Arabic lexicons such as Lane's lexicon; which states the following³

           An important point to be noted here is the fact that none of the six verses are centered about the word (ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra". None of the verses expound on the meaning of this word. The significance of this matter is that the methodology behind the dawahganda argument boils down to translating this word using modern concepts and then claiming the modern concept was always conveyed by the text.

          Such reasoning is blatantly absurd. For an example, consider the word "proton" which originates in Greek and had the meaning "first". As such it is a common term that appears in the New Testament.[iv] The dawahganda argument above is the equivalent of a Christian evangelist who ignores the context and historical understanding of the word "proton" and claims that the Bible speaks of sub-atomic particles. Such an argument is fallacious.

            The word (ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra" has been translated as "atom" in modern times. This alone then forms the basis for dawahgandists to claim that the Qur'an foretold anything and everything about the atomic theory. Formally, such an argument commits the fallacy of equivocation & the fallacy of undistributed middle.

2. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation & the Fallacy of Undistributed Middle

           The dawahganda argument takes the following form,

1) The Qur'an contains the word atom ((ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra")

2) The atomic theory contains the word atom.

Therefore, The Qur'an contains the atomic theory

            The equivocation fallacy is committed since the word (ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra" is equated to the modern atomic theory using a contrived translation of (ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra" as "atom" and without providing any reasons or evidences to establish that the two are equivalent. For instance, the word “atom” was in use by the ancient atomists of Greece to refer to smallest unit of matter. Their conception of the “atom” differs from the modern usage where atom signifies the fundamental unit of an element. Thus, the claim that the word “atom” refers to the modern conception can be suspected since the term could easily refer to the ancient conception of atomism which predates the Qur’an.

            The fallacy of undistributed middle is committed as even if it is the case that the word ((ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra" was meant to signify the word "atom", this in itself does not entail that "atom" is a reference to the atomic theory. For instance, as in the above case, the word “atom” could be a reference to the ancient philosophy of atomism rather than the modern atomic theory.

          Confounding this confusion is the relatively popular historical misconception that arose with the conflation of the modern Atomic theory with the philosophy of Atomism.

3. Anachronism: conflating modern Atomic theory with the Philosophy of Atomism

          The Physicist Robert Purrington notes the following regarding the conflation of Atomic theory with that of Atomism;

"It is important to distinguish atomism as a philosophical position (that is, as an a priori hypothesis about the underlying structure of matter) from what we might call chemical atomism, which around 1800 first gave the atomic theory an empirical foundation."[v]

          The difference between the two views is of fundamental importance. Ancient atomism had no empirical basis unlike the modern atomic theory. Ancient atomism is result of a simple hypothetical/metaphysical thought. The thought was centered on the question of whether matter was divisible definitely or indefinitely. Atomists proposed that if one were to repeatedly divide matter, one would eventually reach a fundamental indivisible unit, the “atom”. This metaphysical thought had no empirical basis in ancient times. As Dr. Purrington notes;

“...the ultimate structure of matter - specifically, whether it is continuous (and therefore essentially a fluid or an elastic solid) or whether it is made up of elementary discrete structures. This well-known problem has a long history, originating, as far as we know, with the Greek atomists of the fifth century B.C. ... Until at least the seventeenth century, the discrete structure of matter was strictly a hypothesis unsupported by any empirical evidence”[vi]

          As such, the ancient atomists would consider the “atom” as defined in modern science a misnomer since “atom” specifically meant “uncuttable” or “indivisible” unit; yet the “chemical atoms” as used in Modern science are composed of sub-atomic particles which are themselves made of further elementary particles. As the revered physicist, Erwin Schrödinger notes;

“The purely qualitative character of ancient atomism and to the fact that its basic idea, embodied in the word 'atom (uncuttable or indivisible), has made this very name a misnomer.”[vii]

4. The updated dawahganda argument is based on a false premise

            Recently, several dawahganda sites have altered the original argument. Rather than claiming that the Qur’an foretold the existence of “atoms”, they now claim that the Qur’an foretold the existence of “sub-atomic” particles. The future step, perhaps, is to claim that the Qur’an foretold the existence of the Higgs Boson. The reason for the alteration from the original argument can be reasonably suspected to be that the dawahgandists have had to acknowledge the ancient Greek root of the conception of “atom” which predates the Islamic sacred text.

          Predictably, the updated argument suffers from all the fallacies & misconceptions found in the evaluation of the original claim. Additionally, the newer argument is also based on a false premise and a weak inference.

          The 1^st premise, which states that the ancient atomists believed that the atom was the smallest, indivisible, unit of matter, is a true statement when viewed in isolation from the rest of the argument. However, the argument as a whole has committed the fallacy of equivocation as it tries to suggest that the ancient atomists believed that the modern “chemical atom” is the smallest, indivisible, unit of matter. This is patently false.

          The ancient atomists neither had knowledge of nor spoke of the modern scientific conception of “atom”. For elaboration, refer above to objections 2 & 3.

          The 3^rd premise, that "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ)" meant "atom" (as per the modern Atomic theory) is also false as demonstrated in objections 1,2 & 3 above.

          Since, the 3^rd premise is false, the 4^th premise is also false. The 4^th premise attempts to infer “sub-atomic” particles from verse 34:3 where the Qur’an mentions something “smaller than ["dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ)]”. Since, it has been demonstrated that there are no good reasons to think "dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ) signifies the modern conception of an “atom”, it consequently follows that there are no reasons to think “smaller than ["dharra" (ذَرَّةٍ)]” is a reference to sub-atomic particles, quarks, photons, higgs bosons or any further elementary particles. Thus, the conclusion of the updated argument is false.

5. Translating Ancient words with Modern Terminology is not Unique to the Qur'an

          Additionally, this is not a uniquely Quranic phenomenon where ancient words are translated using modern scientific terms. For example, an English translation of the Bhagawad Gita contains the following passage (Verse 8:9);

"One should remember man's spirit as the guide, the primordial poet, smaller than an atom ..."[viii]

          Thus the dawahgandists would also have to acknowledge that if their argument was sound then the Bhagawad Gita also foretells the existence of atoms and sub-atomic particles.

Conclusion

            The dawahganda argument claimed that the Qur’an foretold the existence of either “atoms” or “sub-atomic particles”. The argument, however, was based on a contrived anachronistic translation founded on the historical misconception about the philosophy of atomism which was conflated with the modern atomic theory. Thus this miracle claim is false and debunked.

---

[i]. Hans Wehr. A Dictionary of Modern Arabic. Edited by J Milton Cowan. 4th Edition. Spoke Language Services, Inc., 1994, page 356

[ii]. (ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra" Lisan-al-Arab. Searchable online at http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=ذرر

[iii]. (ذَرَّةٍ) "dharra" Edward William Lane. An Arabic-English Lexicon. Librairie Du Liban 1968 Vol 3 page 957.  http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000123.pdf

[iv]. “proton” Bible Study Tools. http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/proton.html

[v]. Purrington, Robert D. Physics in the Nineteenth Century. Rutgers University Press, 1997. page 113

[vi]. Ibid., 

[vii].  Schrödinger, Erwin. Nature and the Greeks' and 'Science and Humanism. Cambridge University Press, 1996 page 75

[viii].  The Bhagawad-Gita. Chapter 8. Verse 9. Trans. by Barbara Stoler Miller. Bantam Books, 1986. Page 78

_________________________________________________________________________________

Reddit Discussion

Dawahganda: Atoms & Sub-atomic Particles in the Qur'an
http://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1xap7z/dawahganda_atoms_subatomic_particles_in_the_quran/

Additional Links

Articles & Blogs

1. Jochan Katz Does the Qur'an Speak about Atoms?

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/katz/quran/science/atoms.html

2. Masud Masihiyyen's Sub-Atomic Particles Mentioned in the Qur'an? How splitting atoms leads to degrading the Qur'an
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/rebuttals/yahya/subatomic.html

Fingerprints in the Qur'an

Dawahganda Argument

Premises

1) The Qur’an mentions the term banan (بَنَانَ)

2) The term banan (بَنَانَ) means “fingerprint”

3) Fingerprints are individually unique

4) Premise 3 was unknown in Antiquity

Conclusion

Therefore, the Qur’an mentions that each fingerprint is distinct (before anyone knew)

Source for Argument

The Identity in the Fingerprint

http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_66.html

Verses

بَلَىٰ قَٰدِرِينَ عَلَىٰٓ أَن نُّسَوِّىَ بَنَانَهُ

(Pickthall Translation)

75:04 - Yea, verily. We are Able to restore his very fingers!

(Transliteration)

75:04 - Bala qadireena AAala an nusawwiya bananahu

For other translations, visit http://quranx.com/75.4   

For word-by-word analysis, visit http://quranx.com/Analysis/75.4

Objections

1. The argument is logically invalid - Non-Sequitur Conclusion

2. banan (بَنَانَ) does not mean fingerprint

3. Uniqueness of fingerprints may have been recognized in Ancient time

1. The argument is logically invalid – Non-Sequitur Conclusion

            The goal of the present dawahganda argument is to claim that the Qur’an foretold the uniqueness of every individual fingerprint. Yet this conclusion is derived entirely based on a translation of a single word, banan (بَنَانَ), as “fingerprint”. There exists no references or inferences to the uniqueness of banan (بَنَانَ) (translated as “fingerprint”).

            The mere mentioning of “fingerprint” does not, in and of itself, entail any other information related to it. Thus, this argument contains a blatantly non-sequitur conclusion. Therefore, this dawahganda argument is logically invalid.

            The rather disheartening act here is that the dawahganadists do not even make an attempt to explain away the obvious non-sequitur conclusion.[i] Such examples of pretense call into question the integrity and sincerity of these dawahgandists.

2. banan (بَنَانَ) does not mean fingerprint

            On top of the logical invalidity of the present dawahganda argument lies the fact that it also relies on a mistranslation. The term banan (بَنَانَ) has been translated as “fingerprint” yet neither classical nor modern dictionaries of the Arabic language express such a meaning.

            Lane’s lexicon, a lexicon of Classical Arabic, defines banan (بَنَانَ) in the following way[ii];

            The definition given is that of fingers or the ends of fingers. Similarly, the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic defines banan (بَنَانَ) in the following way;

            Additionally, the same term banan (بَنَانَ) appears in another verse, Sura 8:12, where it is used in the phrase “smite of them each finger (banan (بَنَانَ))”. Given the context of the verse, it is more sensible to say “smite every finger/fingertip” rather than “smite off every fingerprint”.

            The dawahgandists who push this argument have not provided any sources to believe that the term banan (بَنَانَ) means “fingerprint”. Therefore, this premise can be rejected due to lack of evidence as well as the positive evidence pointing to its meaning as “finger” or “fingertip”.

            Nevertheless, it should be remembered that even if it was the case that banan (بَنَانَ) meant “fingerprint”, the dawahganda argument is still logically invalid as demonstrated in Objection 1.

3. Uniqueness of fingerprints may have been recognized in Ancient times

            Lastly, there is some evidence to suggest that the alleged scientific knowledge of the uniqueness of individual fingerprints may have been recognized in some cultures of Antiquity. For example, Criminologist Prof. Simon Cole states the following on the history of fingerprinting;

"It is impossible to pinpoint exactly when the idea of authenticating personal identity through papillary ridges first emerged. Fingerprints appear on ancient pottery and cave painting in Asia, Europe, and North America, where they may have denoted authorship or identity. Archaeological evidence from seventh-century China shows fingerprints embossed in clay seals which were used to sign documents, and the practice may have been as old as the Former Hand dynasty [202 BCE - 220 CE]. From China the practice spread to Japan, Tibet and India, where fingerprints were used as signatures or seals. The use of fingerprints as signatures suggests that fingerprint patters where believed to be unique. In 1303, the Persian historian Rashi-eddin, reporting the use of fingerprints as signatures in China, declared: "Experience shows that no two individuals have fingers precisely alike.""[iii]

            Given that this point is tentative, it cannot be conclusively used to claim that this information was known in antiquity or that Muhammad knew about it. It can only be taken as probable evidence.

Conclusion

            The present dawahganda argument relies on a mistranslation of the word banan (بَنَانَ) and then arrives at a non-sequitur conclusion which has no basis, reference or inference in the Qur’an.

---

[i]. For example, this site, http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_66.html, begins by stating that the Qur’an mentioned “fingerprints”, then moves on to separately discuss the uniqueness of fingerprints, and incoherently concludes, without any intermediary argument or reason, that the Qur’an foretold uniqueness of fingerprints.

[ii]. Lane, Edward William; "An Arabic-English Lexicon"; Librairie Du Liban, 1968. Vol. 1, page 258 http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000295.pdf  

[iii]. Cole, A.S. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification.  Harvard University Press, 2009.  Page 60 (Accessed via Google Books. URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=3CYqtVk6oI8C)