Quran Miracle Debunked 5 of 50 : The Female Honey Bee

[MesMorial]

I think you are changing meaning because you wish the Qur'an to be true. You must eliminate that and when you look at it objectively you find it is just a repetition of what we already see. E.g. gnat was the smallest creature known at the time, flies suck food, expanding (vast) universe means it was expanded like earth etc.. There is not much when you look. That is just to start.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial No, not neccessarily, the Heavens can refer to Universes, and as I said, that's how I intepret the verse. The lower Heaven, refers to our Universe, which contains stars. These stars explode in outer space, this is a scientific fact, where's the error...

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Youtube won't allow me to comment.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Youtube won't let me comment.

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

You just did

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Oh it wasn't for some time...

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial I think its letting me now, but anyway, you're arguments aren't making any sense.

No I'm not eliminating error. This is your logic basically:

Me: "The man saw a fly... The man sawed a piece of wood",

You: "How can a man saw a fly? That's impossible, the saw is too big."

Me: In the first case "saw" describes him seeing a fly, in the second case, it refer to him literally sawing a piece of wood.

You: You're just changing the meaning, because you wish to be true.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial In every language a word can have more than one meaning or imply more than one thing...

If you interpret it in this way, i.e. that somehow ridiculously, "Heavens" refers to the same thing every single time, then go ahead, but anyone who knows Arabic would totally rebuke such a an intepretation...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

You have not answered about context. Common sense is my method.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial BTW, I send you part of my book on message, have a skim read...

[MesMorial]

*whenever you see fit

[MesMorial]

I do no appreciate you trying to convince me of something whilst changing the meaning whenever you fit. Moreover I showed you an error in the Qur'an which you could not explain, so why are you here?

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial See you think I'm changing the meaning because you're not understanding Arabic...

As I said, in Arabic the word 'Sama' at the time referred to Heavenly bodies and to the skies/Universes... Therefore this word was use to describe multiple things...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

If we do a quick check of context, we find that the heavens which are separated from earth were separate from the stars which were added to the lowest heaven after it was made into 7.

[MesMorial]

*heavens were one

[MesMorial]

P.S. The Earth is a product of the material in the Heaven, so the heaven and the material are not exactly separated. There was no earth before the big bang. The heaven is just empty space so it is an anachronism to say the heaven was joined.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Have no exactly separated? Its funny how you use such ridiculous wording...

They've separated totally. The Earth is derived from escaped gas from the sun, so it did separate from the sun. Yes, there was no Earth before the Big Bang, yet all the Heavens and the Earth were once ONE ENTITY, before God separated them, scientific fact. The verse doesn't say he immediately separated them, it just says separated and the Earth did eventually separate, miracle remains 100%.

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

Thankyou for criticising my typo and displaying your nature. But the heavens one before they were made into seven, and the heaven of dunya has stars. I do not see how your interpretation makes much sense at all.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial [[The heaven is just empty space so it is an anachronism to say the heaven was joined.]]

Yeah, which is why it says the HEAVENS were joined, NOT THE HEAVEN. Read properly please... Heavens refer to the Heavenly bodies, whereas Heaven refers to empty space, miracle remains 100%.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Well about the fly, I'll just tell you quickly now.

The Holy Qur'an says that whatever a fly steals from us we'll never be able to recover the same thing from it (Surah al-Hajj 27:73).

Why in the world would someone mention this? A fly only grabs a small bit, its so insignificant so why?

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Well modern science confirms that a fly is among the few creatures to disgest food outside its body, as soon as it lands on the food it spits on it, the saliva of the fly breaks down the food immediately and it sucks in the good. So whatever it takes we can never recover it in the same way, that itself is another scientific miracle.

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

It is a scientific miracle if you do not look at the message of the verse in a common sense way. You are working backwards and ignoring the obviousness that flies do not carry food on the legs such that we can take it back.

[MesMorial]

Basic conclusion is that the Qur'an was written by a fallible author.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial The bee: You say, the Prophet must have had a lucky guess or picked the right information randomly.

The ant: The fact remains that ants do talk and the Holy Qur'an claims this, sounds like a madman wrote it, yet science confirms it.

The fly: We can discuss that after we finish.

The smallest of insects. See Surah al-Baqara 2:26, speaking of the significance of them. Modern science confirms malaria, small pox + so many other deadly diseases come from tiny insects.

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

No I never said that. I said there were attitudes and observations before the Qur'an where bees were believed and indicated to be female.

But humans cannot hear or understand ants so I do not know why you peddle it.

2:26 says nothing about anything being the smallest insect.

It is obvious you cannot get food back from flies, because they suck it straight away. Humans steal an apple and hang onto it. The point of the verse is that flies are weak.

[MesMorial]

Chapters such as 112 and 114 begin with "say:", and yet the Qur'an neglected to mention it in 27:91-92.

Allah's words are His words prior to 27:91, but then it flows into another's words indicating that Allah becomes someone else and commands himself to submit.

Is this not a logical, objective presentation of what is written there?

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Well the Holy Qur'an does often change the subject matter, it doesn't indicate at all that Allah becomes the Prophet. Yes, I agree it doesn't use the word 'Say' (i.e. "Qul") but there's definitely a hidden reason for that, which we can't understand, there's always a reason for why God uses certain terminology...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

It breaks its own rule. Thus all the other interpretations must be just interpretations.

Cheers.

[MesMorial]

The trickiness is increased by the fact that 27:92-93 imply that 27:91 was a command from Allah to Muhammad to say something, but there was no command (say:). Every time it is not Allah's perspective, there must be a "say" or else the message comes from a variant source.

[MesMorial]

By English definition of "miracle", it is 0%

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial "Miracle: A fortunate outcome that prevails despite overwhelming odds against it."

When you have verses upon verses about accurate scientific data that was either unpopular or non-existent at the Holy Prophet's time, which are confirmed by modern science, those are miracles upon miracles. The overwhelming odds would be totally against someone just coming up with these miracles, yet the Holy Prophet did (and keep in mind, I've analysed all the criticism of these verses)...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

I have studied the Qur'an myself, and found nothing interesting in terms of science. All I found was repetition of what people were supposed to already recognize. The big bang is wrong for a start, because Earth is inside the heaven, not apart.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial I've discussed all these issues in full detail, when I read it for myself I found miracle after miracle after miracle.

About the Big Bang, the Holy Qur'an states that the Heavens and the Earth were joined together in a single entity, the word 'Ratqan' means single entity according to Lane's Lexicon. Then God clove them asunder. This is the Big Bang 100%.

There's no error. It is a fact, because the Earth did eventually separate from the Heavens, though not immediately.

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

The heaven is empty space. The Earth is in empty space. The earth is inside the heaven, thus they are not separated.

I am talking about your definition of "miracle". The definition applies to its use as exaggeration, since a miracle must be inexplicable.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Yes the Heaven is an empty space, but the Holy Qur'an says, "The HEAVENS and the Earth were one until we clove them asunder."

The word HEAVENS refers to HEAVENLY BODIES, the word HEAVEN refers to space... So therefore there's still no claim...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

So when it says "seven HEAVENS" it means "seven heavenly bodies"?

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Not at all, Heavens doesn't neccessarily always refer to one thing.

The word Heavens generally refers to either Heavenly bodies or the sky above us. In this case, it means 7 skies and science confirms that there are 7 layers in the atmosphere above Earth. Another idea is the Multiverse theory, i.e. that this verse is referring to 7 Universes, an idea which I tend to agree with, based on other Qur'anic scripture...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

If it means universes then that means one big bang created 7. In fact according to Qur'an there was one heaven (AFTER "big bang") which was made into 7. Your argument is that heaven will mean one thing when it does not fit.

Also the lowest heaven has starts and protections, which rules out the atmosphere. ....

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial No, as I said, the Heavens means different things in Arabic, it can refer to different skies, different Heavenly bodies etc... The reason God used these terms was because in Arabic, they were the only terms available to describe these...

There's no error, you should me no error that I didn't explain.

The sun is a Heaven, the moon is a Heaven etc... In that sense Heaven refers to bodies etc...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

Yes but in context the one heaven of the 7 that is the heaven of dunya) is decorated with stars. This heaven was a part of the heaven that was separated. Thus it refers to the space, not heavenly bodies.

Your explanation is as reliable as your tafsir of 2:180.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial [[Yes but in context the one heaven of the 7 that is the heaven of dunya.]]

No, not neccessarily, the Heavens can refer to Universes, and as I said, that's how I intepret the verse. The lower Heaven, refers to our Universe, which contains stars. These stars explode in outer space, this is a scientific fact, where's the error...

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Now in regards to the lower Heaven where stars kill Satans, that's why I said I believe in the Multiverse theory and the way I see it, this verse is clearly referring to the stars in the Universe. Now if we go to outer space we see the most adverse and explosive reactions ever... Don't you think this would kill Satans? There's no inaccuracy, in what you can't prove to be wrong...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

Unless you think the stars are not the missiles, which they are in the Qur'an. The stars are the missiles which are pelted, but the sun is a star which doesn't do it, not do others.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial See, you take verses literally, that's the problem...

If you take everything literally that's just stupid. What if I go and say, 'Oh the Qur'an says the sun is a lamp, the sun isn't a lamp, a lamp has glass etc..." or 'The Bible says talks about the eye of a needle, needles don't have eyes?'

That's the logic of your discussion. Missile? The stars act as missiles when they self-destruct, these adverse reactions kill Satans, that's how I interpret it, nothing unscientific.

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

But they self-destruct at the end of their lives, and the Qur'an says they are the missiles, not the source of the missiles.

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

Your definition of miralce takes the word as "exaggeration". If I say something was a blast, it does not mean it was a blast.

When I use the term "miracle", I do not pretend that my exaggerating expression actually means "miracle".

"A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine."

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Nope, there is no exaggeration, when you have verses that speak of the significance of the smallest insects (Surah al-Baqara 2:26), at a time when insects were seen as lowly, worthless beings and verses about ants talking (Surah an-Naml 29:18), at a time when no one would ever believe this and about the female bee being the worker (Surah an-Nahl 16:68)... etc... which are confirmed by modern science totally, there's no exaggeration, its a 100% Divine Miracle...

[MesMorial]

So what this verse is saying in the Talmud, which was written before the Qur'an - it predates the Qur'an, it is essentially saying that it takes it for granted that the bees that come to the flowers are all female.

[MesMorial]

The only time you use feminine plural, which is used here in the Talmud, is if the entire group is feminine - there is not a single male in the bunch. And again, in this verse in the Talmud it says: she-ba'ot - masculine feminine, they come - v'okhlot - again, mascu... I'm sorry(!), feminine-plural. I apologize, feminine plural, she-ba'ot, "they come," and then v'okhlot, again feminine plural, "they gnaw on" or "they eat," and then it goes on to say "my flowers".

[MesMorial]

It gets even more interesting. The first part, "they are coming," is she-ba'ot - ba'ot is actually conjugated in the female plural. "They are coming". And this is an interesting point about Hebrew grammar: "they are coming," being plural feminine is interesting because it is stating - well let me explain something about Hebrew grammar. In Hebrew grammar, if you have a group that is plural - let us say you have all boys - if you have all boys you refer to them in the masculine plural.

[MesMorial]

Now the word that he used for "your bees" is d'vorakh, and it is from the Hebrew word for bee and the Aramaic word - well actually Aramaic has two words for bee, but this particular word for bee is feminine. he explains why he wants the bees to be kept away from his plant, and he says: she-ba'ot v'okhlot lighlooghei chardla'ee - which means "they are coming and eating the flowers," or "coming and gnawing on the flowers of my mustard plant."

[MesMorial]

"this is actually from the Talmud, from tractate Bava Bratra, which is a tractate in the Babylonian Talmud - it is section 18a. There is a verse where there is a debate about plants and bees - if one man owns bees and another man owns plants - and at one point one of the people in the debate says to another one - this is in the Talmud - I will give you the Hebrew and the Aramaic first. He says: charcheq d'vorakh min chardla'ee, which means "distance your bees from my mustard plant".

[MesMorial]

*thus worker bees were female.

Giron also raised a point about bees being female in the Talmud.

[truebeliever786]

Thanks for your videos, they've been insightful. I'm Muslim and I believe the Holy Qur'an is miraculous, so I've been searching through several of your videos to find key information, because I'm writing a book on this issue and I want to analyse each and every bit of criticism there is, so thank you =]

[000tm000]

And what you said is truth that the word bee is femminine but in Quran says "النحل"

and it mean bees not bee :)

and allyour videos are the same you add words and delete words thats the truth and you cannot debkound something you dont know it language and about last thing about human and bees Lord didnt say and in human homes he sayed to make the home on mountains and on trees make it family all videos are the same :) and they are all wrong

[TheIslammiracle]

@000tm000

First of all, it makes absolutely no change to the verse, whether you say bee or bees, it still refers to the insect in question, I hardly think a typo is valid as an argument *rolls eyes*

2) Well you clearly didn't watch the video or payed attention in history class if you honestly think that the medicinal use of honey was unknown prior to the Quran, that is clearly a lie.

[MesMorial]

@TheIslammiracle

The Qur'an uses feminine even when referring to the male soul of Jacob (12:68).

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial That's done in many cases, for instance the same thing is done with Joseph in Surah Yusuf 12:30...

The answer is simple, different Arabic tribes had different form of grammar. One tribe would use masculine for a noun that would be considered feminine in another tribe.

But Surah an-Nahl 16:68 doesn't use a feminine noun, it uses a feminine VERB, that's the miracle of the verse, it is referring to the female bee being the worker bee, an idea that Aristotle rejected...

[MesMorial]

A miracle is something that cannot be performed by humans. Aristotle says that there were people who said what the Qur’an suggests. The Qur’an at best simply shares one of the opinions.

30:2 suggests the Romans were defeated by women. Female birds were eating (12:36). The gender-verb of what holds bird up is feminine (16:79). Females come from mountain-paths (22:27).

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Coming from a non-Arabic background, the whole masculine/feminine dilemma wouldn't make sense to you...

In Arabic grammar masculine words are often used to describe feminine objects and vice-versa... You can look this up or ask any scholar in Arabic linguistics. The importance of the verse on the bee isn't the noun, if the noun was feminine, it wouldn't mean squat, its the verb that is important, which is what many Muslims don't understand...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

Noah, Ad and Thamud were not only denied by women even though the verb for “deny” is feminine. The verb point you bring up is part of a trait in the Qur’an, whether it is consistent or not. I think it depends on whether the noun is feminine or not, because the word for “bee” was apparently feminine in Muhammad’s dialect.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial And the verb is "Ittakhidhee" in Surah an-Nahl 16:68. Both "Lane's Lexicon" and the "Quranic Arabic Corpus" agree that this is a feminine verb. This is undeniable.

Now in Arabic a when a verb has a gender it ALWAYS refers to a person of that gender, unless it is said in a joking/jesting manner to insult others. This is a fact.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial So the female bee is the worker, says the Holy Qur'an.

Did the Prophet copy this? Well it a minority view during Aristotle's time that Aristotle himself rejected (he believed workers were male) and the mainstream view was with Aristotle.

Now, if the Prophet was copying science from others, why did he copy a piece of science (which we now know to be correct) that wasn't part of mainstream scientific thought at the time? Maybe he plagiarised the right info every single time

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

Again, a miracle is something that cannot be performed by others. There was the opinion 1000 years before Muhammad that the worker bees were female. This shows it was not hard to realise, and then there is a 50/50 chance for the Qur'an to get it correct. Drones appeared even without the queen, thus they are female.

Again, I showed you cases where verbs were female even referring to males, and that the word bee is feminine.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial No, the word for bee used is "Nahli" which is masculine, you can check the Quranic Arabic Corpus, a renowned and authentic online source.

"TAKE HOUSES in mountains..." (Surah an-Nahl 16:68).

A feminine verb for is used for "take" which is "Ittakhadhee". Its masculine equivalent is "Takhudhu" which is used in Surah al-Baqara 2:255 (check Lane's Lexicon and the Quranic Arabic Corpus)...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

Aristotle was 1000 years before, and he was debating people who said they were female. They said it because of the appearance of eggs.

I have not got the reference on this computer, but most scholars say the word is masculine and feminine, but feminine in Muhammad's dialect.

Your fact about verbs is debunked by my examples.

Even the Qur'an debunks your idea of "miracle" by saying it must be inimitable (2:23).

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Thanks for copying and pasting Giron's statement, but no thanks. I already read it.

I have the reference for all of this. Yes, Aristotle was debating those who said the worker was female, because he rejected the idea, thinking they were male. The mainstream view was that of Aristotle (see beeclass. com/dts/aristotle_on_bees. htm).

So why would the Prophet pick the minority view here and somehow happen to be correct?

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

And before thanking me about copying and pasting Giron's statement, please note that I mentioned him before, so there is no need to try to expose me.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial You must be referring to Surah an-Naml 27:19, NOT 91.

Not a single mistake in that verse. Tell me, how can science disprove God's miracles. God gave Solomon the power to hear ant talk. This seems impossible to us, but we're just ordinary humans, God has given his Prophets miracles of raising the dead, healing the blind, parting the sea etc... So why should we be surprised.

In fact the verse before it is a full 100% scientific miracle (ants do communicate through sound).

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

Solomon was extremely surprised about hearing ants talk, which shows it was not the result of his research. The suggestion that he can hear sound is scientifically inaccurate anyway, even if we take it as an allegory or a miracle from God. A scientific miracle is different to one from God.

But I was actually referring to 27:91. Allah becomes Muhammad.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial

"Verily I am commanded to worship the Lord of this territory of Mecca, Who hath sanctified the same: Unto Him belong all things. And I am commanded to be a Muslim." (Surah an-Naml 27:91 George Sale).

I missed the part where Allah becomes Muhammad, totally ridiculous bogus claims...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

To you, the whole Qur'an is the word of Allah, since the message is not the messenger's. The messenger carries someone else's message, thus the message is not of the messenger's authorship. To you, the entire Qur'an is Allah's word. Therefore there must logically be a "say:" every time the message is referring to what the messenger is supposed to utter. Otherwise the message which is Allah's will be partly someone else's message, resulting in a paradox.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Using just the topic of insects alone, nothing else, I can show the miracles of the Holy Qur'an on the fly, the bee, the ant and the smallest of insects, and prove that this Holy Qur'an is no ordinary book at all...

Just insects, nothing else, although I can bring up numerous other things, like water, cosmology, astronomy, anatomy etc... But I don't need to, all I need is insects... That's the miracle of the Holy Qur'an...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

The bee and the ant we have discussed. I am not sure what else you refer to.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Yes, the Holy Qur'an is inimitable, the idea of the bee doesn't contradict this in any way, whatsoever.

No one can imitate the Holy Qur'an, not a single Chapter of it, because of its eloquence, beauty and literary superiority over all other books, on top of its scientific miracles... Nearly all people have made some sort of scientific error in their books of "science" up till today, yet the Holy Qur'an, not even a "science" Book, made no error 1400 years ago... None...

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

I was not talking about the Qur'an being a miracle. Moreover your claims about the Qur'an are subjective and irrelevant, because I have read more thoughtful poems. In fact 27:91 proves it has a mistake. It is a concrete empirical mistake.

The point was that a miracle must be inimitable. If you say the Qur'an is a miracle, it does not mean you can call the bee statement a miracle. The bee point is not inimitable; in fact it seems to be taken from the Talmud.

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial As said earlier, in Arabic masculine and feminine nouns are used numerous times to refer to objects of the opposite gender, whereas masculine and feminine verbs ALWAYS refer to that specific gender. This is a fact.

Now, the claim about the Talmud doesn't work out, because Giron himself points out that in another place in the Talmud, the worker bees are referred to in a masculine sense... That's a mere contradiction...

[truebeliever786]

@MesMorial Thus based on all this, the Prophet must have somehow co-incidentally managed to pick the right information about the bee, even though it was a minority view. As I said, Aristotle totally rejected this idea, it was others during his time who accepted it, and they were in a minority.

For a man like the Prophet, who wasn't a scientist, it wouldn't make sense even to believe that bees have genders, because he never spent his days analysing them. Thus the miracle remains 100%.

[MesMorial]

@truebeliever786

Everything is interpretation, and we can work backwards to "confirm" Qur'an or we can be objective.

[karlmall]

Islam is the only religion of which its founder already has used violence in order to spread it.

[duffs89]

@karlmall thats the biggest lie that has been told to the world.... Islam means submission to Allah.. u have to be sincere to be a muslim ... u cant force sincerity on people... prophet Mohammed was the most peaceful man to ever grace this earth

[abdushoshana]

@karlmall

Comment after u urself study something better

Believe the TV always.

Peace

[mooglebee2]

@ktss61 bees plural actually. grammatically feminine by default.

[MayIPleaseAskYou]

@ktss61

16:68 and your lord REVEALED to the bee, a REVEALING through inspiration..... AL Jalalayn

so A BEE is also a 'prophet' of your islam, as your ilah made a 'REVELATION' to it? ;0)

ROFL

is lame just gets FUNNIER and FUNNIER!!!!

Kat >^.^<

[alpha123465]

@MayIPleaseAskYou like the way you wrote Islam in the last line. Sound's like you actually made a connection to islam and the words 'its lame'.

Islam= is lame = its lame

in other words Islam is lame :)

[MayIPleaseAskYou]

@alpha123465

I have no idea to what you are referring LoLoL

To suggest that I consider the cult of islam to be more correctly named 'is lame'! ;0)

Kat >^.^>

[MrRisinglight]

@GS212301 the desease in their heart Allah mentioned in the quoran several times, is (i beleive)racist hate, they think that Islam is for us arabs, they refuse to accepte anything wich comes from us, they hate us, they think that jesus was white europeen, and he has to be not only the final messenger but even god!!!what a blasphemy what an ignorance!! they dont know that they worship a pagan idols.....

[greeny202a]

I think someone had better phone the ASPCA because with @ktss61 your flogging a dead horse here!

[FANGKENSTEIN]

Very good video, but perhaps u could have pointed out some of the cases where the female was used and didnt really apply.

[THEHARMONIKZ]

Any mention in the Koran of how not to kill innocents?

[MrRisinglight]

@THEHARMONIKZ everything about it in the koran is against what says the bible, some exemples for muslims: Deuteronomy 7.2

numbers 31.17and 31.15and25.4

samuel15.3

judes15.8 leviticus4.7 numbers1.51

ok....if anyone wants more there is always more.....hiiiiyaaaaaa

[Vogter2100]

Subbed today. Going thru some of your vids. Excellent work!

[TheIslammiracle]

@Vogter2100

Thankyou, glad to be of service.

[WarezDaBeef]

As usual . . . you strike with great force using logic and pointing out the internal flaws of this bizarre, savage death cult known as Islam.

[spartacandream]

Great video!

[SpookyFan]

Thanks for the info. Keep up the good work.

[TheRationalizer]

The video is much better without the text to speech :)

[Takaja316]

great video, but there is one problem. Do yo u think muslims actually watch these?

[MsMrNoface]

Yup, another fail miracle from the Koran. Understandably many Muslims are embarrassed by those who try to put forward these arguments, and I hope THEY get involved in the debate.

[captaindisguise]

Good video, i have actually met two muslims who acknowledge that there isnt anything miraculous about this verse, because they realize the arabic for bee (nahl) is feminine and was feminine even before Muhammad.

[TheRationalizer]

@captaindisguise

That's exactly how I refuted it to a proselytising Muslim in the city centre a month back. It was very quickly accepted :)

[discussislam]

Good vid - thanks!

[TheIslammiracle]

@discussislam

Thankyou, Plenty more where this came from.