Why Islam does not clash with modern science, or does it?

[Abdelrahman]

Peace be unto all of you! Believers and Non-Believers alike!

As a Muslim, we put huge regard on scripture not clashing with modern science. We believe that if God created the scripture then it should not contain errors in it when referencing the natural world and what we've come to understand about it.

"Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction." - The Holy Quran (4:82)

Many Christian/Atheist debates exist out there, but I am saddened to see that no atheists debate Muslim scholars who read and write Arabic fluently. When debates are organized between people who don't understand arabic or science it goes no where.

Arabic is my mother tongue. I also speak English at home so I'd say im fluent in both. I am a science university graduate and I love the topic of religion and science.

In Islam, we don't have 'blind faith'. I am not allowed to believe something blindly, I must have reasons. Real reasons. That is why we believe God allowed the prophets to perform miracles - so as to give people a sign. And since we believe the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the last prophet, his sign and lasting miracle is the Qur'an. The Qur'an is meant to be a 'sign' to the end of time and I invite all members to reflect on its verses.

I am looking to debate someone on whether or not Islamic scriptural references to the natural world clash with modern scientific understanding!

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 29 by Abdelrahman]

All the planets in our universe emerged out of a dense hot cloud that kept getting denser as time elapsed - forming stars and the planets. Heavier and heavier elements forming as time went on (interestingly the element Iron was not formed when Earth was being formed and the Qur'an hints at this by saying that Iron was literally 'sent down' to Earth - something we now know as scientific fact Iron came to Earth from space in asteroids but I digress).

The billions of galaxies in the universe formed from individual clouds. The early universe was largely hydrogen. As pockets of hydrogen condensed into large bodies due to gravitational attraction they eventually got hot enough in their cores to initiate fusion and thus form stars. These stars burn for billions of years accumulating heavier elements in their cores. The last stage is when iron begins to form and fusion no longer generates energy. It is after that that stars may go supernova, sending all the built up elements into space which can then be incorporated into condensing gas clouds forming new stars. Our sun contains this debris and the planets in the solar system are remnants of this debris. The iron in the core did not form after Earth was formed. There is an hypothesis that the bulk of the water on Earth arrived via comets. Whatever the Qur'an hints at it is not scientifically accurate.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 29 by Abdelrahman]

"Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly." - The Holy Qur'an [41:11]

The physical description given was that the heaven and earth were like a 'smoke' and then he made them come into existence.

It is no more accurate than the countless other creation myths that humans have invented. In fact, it is even sillier than most. God talking to smoke and the earth telling them to come into being, and they replied! Good grief.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 29 by Abdelrahman]

As for the every living thing made of water fact...again...it does not tell us how God did it. We don't know HOW He made us. But when we study cells and see that most of a living cell is cytoplasm which is composed of 80% water. Then we look at humans that are about 70% water. Then we look at ALL living things and that they are composed of 50-90% water.

Living those contain water, but that is not the same as saying they were made from water. It doesn't take divine inspiration for the average person to become aware that there is a lot of water in the bodies of living things. If that is the best revelation we can get from celestial beings then they are no better than your average human being. Living things require liquid water because it is the solvent which dissolves all the necessary compounds needed for the chemical reactions of life. Liquid water preceded living things. No god necessary.

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 25 by DrNoGods]

Again since you are not an Arabic speaker you will not understand translating and understanding the text. We can translate the meanings, but one passage can have more than one meaning and its all correlated, that's the main idea. I'm not saying you will have contradicting meanings and actually its the reason why Quran was written in Arabic. Philologer Angelika Neuwirth said on a published paper "Qur’an, being a highly poetical text, celebrates high language in an unprecedented way and thus raises the Arab heritage to a new level of dignity."
And now try to convince any person that illiterate person created that text.

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 33 by brunumb]

Living those contain water, but that is not the same as saying they were made from water. It doesn't take divine inspiration for the average person to become aware that there is a lot of water in the bodies of living things. If that is the best revelation we can get from celestial beings then they are no better than your average human being. Living things require liquid water because it is the solvent which dissolves all the necessary compounds needed for the chemical reactions of life. Liquid water preceded living things. No god necessary.

The Arabic words "وجعلنا من" doesn't explicitly and only mean we made it "from" water. Taking other texts like "غموض النساء جعل من هذه الحياه أكثر إثارة" "Being mysterious women made life more exciting", can tell you its a reason and not a base for creation. God is stating that every living thing is alive due to water.
Now asking " did prophet Muhammed saw every living thing ?" and the clear answer is no!. We claim God said in another form" I created every living thing using some of the water I descended from the sky to you".
Now after some time, people started looking behind the text and after so much research we found out that every living thing is alive because of water. Its a matter of translation and understanding.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 26 by Abdelrahman]

Reference what is vague, detail by detail. Tell me what about those sentences is too vague for you?

I'm not going to respond to every comment because it is just more of the same, and I don't need an explanation of the rules. To pick just one of your interpretations, take the comment about mountains.

"And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of Allah, who perfected all things. Indeed, He is Acquainted with that which you do."

You've interpreted this to mean that whoever wrote it knew something about tectonic plate theory which was not worked out until the 20th century, and therefore this person must have had divine input. But look again at the text and read it carefully. It is a completely vague statement that the mountains "will pass as the passing of clouds." How can you possibly equate that to tectonic plate theory?

I could interpret it to mean they will simply disappear (as clouds often do when barometric pressure rises). How do you know the statement does not refer to the mountains vanishing for some reason, like clouds? Or it could mean they move because Allah causes them to move because he feels like it. There is nothing in that statement that relates in any way to tectonic plates or their existence, or earth movement in general. It mentions that mountains "will pass" without any comment about the mechanism by which this happens, or what "pass" even means (does it mean vanish or disappear, or does it mean movement?). Without any mention of the mechanism by which "passing" occurs (whatever that word means in this context), you cannot make a claim that it refers to mountain formation or movement due to tectonic plate activity, subduction, etc. as we understand it today.

You have created that association when it does not exist in the quoted text, so that you could claim it must have divine input. If it were a scientifically valid explanation or prediction, it would have to contain some language suggesting that mountains move (if that is what "pass" is supposed to mean) because the earth they are attached to is moving (ie. tectonic plate movement). But there is none of that. It simply states that mountains "will pass" with no definition of what that actually means (ie. it is vague) so that it is open to interpretation. And you can't hide behind the idea that Arabic is precise and English is not, and I don't understand the passage because I don't understand Arabic. Show me a translation of the original Arabic of this passage that mentions movement of the earth to which the mountains are attached or connected, etc. It is a vague statement that you are interpreting to mean something that cannot be concluded from the words.

Same for the water cycle text:

"Have you not seen that Allah sent rain down from the sky and caused it to penetrate the ground and come forth as springs, then He caused crops of different colors to grow…"

Followed by your comment:

"The verse here indicates that springs form from the infiltration of rain water into the Earth."

From which you claim an understanding of the water cycle. This passage only suggests that the source of spring water was rain, but it also states that "Allah sent rain down from the sky." Rain does not come from Allah "sending it down." It comes from clouds reaching the saturation point for how much water they can hold at a given temperature, and water precipitates out and falls to the earth because of gravity and the fact that clouds are above the surface. Then there is the comment about causing "crops of different colors" to grow. But that statement follows the comment about rain water coming forth as springs. So it seems to imply that the source of water for crops is springs, when the primary source of water for crops is direct rain water and nothing to do with springs.

I could interpret this same passage to claim that rain does not come from saturated clouds but is directly created and "sent down" by a god in order to create springs. That is literally what it says. Then all crops get their water only from springs. Or, I could interpret the passage to mean that springs only come from rain water and are not where the water table meets ground level (which is their actual cause ... all rain water does not result in springs being formed), and that the comment about crops of different colors has nothing to do with spring water but is an unrelated comment showing the power of Allah to cause crops to grow. Again, this passage is way to vague and incomplete to suggest that the author(s) had any knowledge of the water cycle. It in no way demonstrates an understanding of the water cycle ... if anything it shows a complete misunderstanding of it as it states that rain is "sent down" by Allah, but you ignore that part of course.

All of these examples of 1400 year old text claiming divine input are the same. Vague statements open to interpretation. People have done this exact same thing with Nostradamus who I'm sure you are familiar with. This situation with the Qur'an is no different. Vague passages interpreted to suit an argument.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 34 by mms20102]

I'm not saying you will have contradicting meanings and actually its the reason why Quran was written in Arabic.

Really ... is this why the Qur'an was written in Arabic? Isn't a more likely explanation that Arabic was the common language of the people of that area? Surely there are translations from Arabic to English that can accurately capture the original meaning, and I would think that translations of the Qur'an would make every effort to preserve the original meaning. But you seem to be arguing that this is not possible and the original meaning can only come from reading the text in Arabic. Seems like another weak argument to try and support the idea that it had divine input.

I don't have any problems with religion or people practicing any religion they like. I think a lot of people actually need it, and in my country (USA) we have the First Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion (or freedom from religion of one so chooses). But I don't understand the need of some people to pretend that their ancient holy books are compatible with modern science. What is the point? Why make the effort? If you are supporting the existence of an all powerful god being who can perform miracles, create universes, life, etc. what is the point of needing the old stories to be compatible with science? Just state that the god being did whatever it is that is under discussion due to his omnipotence, and leave it at that. No need for compatibility with modern science when you have a god being who can do anything.

[Abdelrahman]

In that case it's nothing more than rhetoric. I would go as far as to say it is meaningless gibberish.

[/quote]

Wow Brunumb, you can't be serious. Meaningless gibberish? Meaningless GIBBERISH?! lol I can't take you seriously I'm sorry.

This is meaningless gibberish:

dajdf asjhfk askhllsj dokskalaL

A baby's talk is gibberish - totally meaningless.

Maybe I should teach you on the English language and the meanings of words. I think that would greatly help you understand the English language.

Here is our first lesson:

1) Earth - 'Earth' is the planet we live on. It contains all known life and is shaped almost like an oval.

2) Heavens including the planets and stars - This is defined as all the planets in space above Earth. Have you ever looked outside at a night sky? Those little twinkly things are called stars! Stars also inhabit space along with the planets and black holes and the such..

3) Joined entity - Bear with me, this might be a little tough. This is when two things (or more) become one thing. It's like like when twins are joined together as one body and then surgery is performed to remove the two twins from each other. We say they were once a 'joined entity' and now they are not. We even go above and beyond with the word entity - which is defined as a thing with distinct and independent existence. That maybe the twins when joined together, were a distinct and independent existence, maybe not made of flesh.

4) Were once - 'Once' means at some point in the past and 'were' is the past subjunctive of 'be'. So combined, 'were once' means: at some point in the past something was...

Now, what do we get when we combine all these meanings together? Comon you can do it Brunumb...think hard...what do we get? We get something called a sentence in English. Not meaningless gibberish. In fact a very meaningful statement made decades ahead of its time. This concludes our English lesson!

Now onto our science lesson! Don't worry, I know science is boring but I'll try make it fun for you to understand! Give yourself a gold star for effort!

The billions of galaxies in the universe formed from individual clouds.

Yes!! Yes Brunumb!! Good work!! Oh my, I think you've started to get it! Everything in the universe was once a cloud... a hot dense opaque gas...and when we see these pictures online it looks just like smoke. Do you not realize that to say just that 1400 years ago is simply sublime. That is what we're saying!!

The iron in the core did not form after Earth was formed.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble buddy but yes it did. And it did not form on Earth for that matter, it came down to Earth in the form of meteorites! Like you said, the Iron was made inside stars and fragments of it are blasted into space. With me so far?

Check out this answer which I think is written simple enough for people to read:

https://socratic.org/questions/how-did- ... -years-ago

And here:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-ear ... ous-metals

Describing that Iron came to Earth in the form of a 200 million year meteorite bombardment. Earth had existed yes, and this is how heavier elements, including Iron came to Earth - They were quite literally 'sent down'.

I proudly remember the verse:

“And We also sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind…� - The Holy Qur'an [57:25]

Coincidence? I think not. Combine all the verses I've shown you - and literally many many more.

So far you've done a great job at paying attention Brunumb!! Extra gold stars for effort!!

Before we go I wanted to have another real quick English lesson! It's not boring I promise, we can watch a cartoon after if you pay attention!!

"And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of Allah, who perfected all things. Indeed, He is Acquainted with that which you do." - The Holy Qur'an [27:88]

Anyone want to tell me what the word mountains means? Comon anyone, don't be shy! No one? Alright let me lay it down for you:

1) Mountains - a large natural elevation of the earth's surface rising abruptly from the surrounding level; a large steep hill. I'm sure you've seen mountains before! Ask Mommy and Daddy what mountains are next time you're all out for a drive!

2) Rigid - unable to bend or be forced out of shape; not flexible. not able to be changed or adapted.

Hhmm, what can I use to explain this more clearly for you Brunumb? If something is rigid, it is stuck..like Mr. Snowpuff if we left him out in the snow for soo long and he died - his body would turn rigid - not moving - not bent out of shape or flexible. Mr. Snowpuff would be fixed! Don't worry class nothing's going to happen to Mr. Snowpuff!!

3) Pass - move or cause to move in a specified direction.

4) They will - 'They' means: used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified. and 'will' means: expressing the future tense. expressing inevitable events.

So together they will means... common anyone! Brownie points for anyone that get's this right. Yes!! It means two or more things will inevitably something...

When we combine all these words together what do we get?! A sentence...yes boys and girls and what does that sentence say? Common.. I know you guys got it by now!

Besides all the sarcasm, I hope you're getting the point. These sentences are not 'meaningless gibberish' they have deep meaning. God very literally says...you think mountains are fixed and unmovable but surely they move and will inevitably pass...just like the clouds.

I don't know if you can remember geography class growing up but incase you forgot how mountains form and what will eventually happen to them, check this video out for kids!



Mountains move 4 mm every year! Wow, super cool right kids?

Now tell me Brunumb, instead of doing what DrNoGods does which is just call things vague without explaining himself. Why don't you tell us what is gibberish to you? Which words are meaningless?

Is it mountains? Or maybe fixed...how about pass? pass is a tricky word!! Maybe that's what you don't understand?

How about the sentence formation, i.e. combining all these words together? Is that the tricky part? I know it can be difficult but I promise you, there's a sentence waiting for you to build! You can start making your own sentences today full of meaning!

Instead of calling it meaningless gibberish, prove it. Prove that it is meaningless gibberish.

I can't believe I'm debating two atheists here who don't like details and evidence. I thought atheists were all about their evidences and proofs. How come your not proving your statements?

You've incorrectly stated that Iron was not 'sent down' to Earth and that Earth had not formed first. But I corrected you! I've given you some nice english lessons on what words mean and how sentences are made so that maybe, just maybe, you can understand the significance of these statements.

It doesn't take divine inspiration for the average person to become aware that there is a lot of water in the bodies of living things.

All living things? Everything? All million species? I mean a man in the desert 1400 years ago isn't exposed to all the genus and species of the world, surely. Imagine only being exposed to camels, goats, sheep, a couple of insects, dogs, cats, birds and humans. Only a handful of species...and then making the sweeping statement that everything on Earth also requires water.

Mms20102 has shown above that the meaning is even beyond 'made of' and means that water is essential to life....statements made decades before this was established science.

Hope you all had fun today class!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 38 by Abdelrahman]

Maybe I should teach you on the English language and the meanings of words. I think that would greatly help you understand the English language.

brunumb can obviously reply, but your condescending comments probably won't help you to be taken more seriously. What is ironic is that you are giving English lessons, but don't appreciate that all the passages you keep quoting from the Qur'an are too vague to make the conclusions that you are making. Perhaps you could benefit from reading these passages more carefully, and seeing what is missing from them that invalidates your conclusions as to what they mean or imply.

[Abdelrahman]

I'm not going to respond to every comment because it is just more of the same, and I don't need an explanation of the rules. To pick just one of your interpretations, take the comment about mountains.

Yes DrNoGods!! Yes!! Oh man you made me so happy. You're actually debating me now, well done. Now we're getting somewhere.

"And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of Allah, who perfected all things. Indeed, He is Acquainted with that which you do."

You've interpreted this to mean that whoever wrote it knew something about tectonic plate theory which was not worked out until the 20th century, and therefore this person must have had divine input. But look again at the text and read it carefully. It is a completely vague statement that the mountains "will pass as the passing of clouds." How can you possibly equate that to tectonic plate theory?

I could interpret it to mean they will simply disappear (as clouds often do when barometric pressure rises). How do you know the statement does not refer to the mountains vanishing for some reason, like clouds? Or it could mean they move because Allah causes them to move because he feels like it. There is nothing in that statement that relates in any way to tectonic plates or their existence, or earth movement in general. It mentions that mountains "will pass" without any comment about the mechanism by which this happens, or what "pass" even means (does it mean vanish or disappear, or does it mean movement?). Without any mention of the mechanism by which "passing" occurs (whatever that word means in this context), you cannot make a claim that it refers to mountain formation or movement due to tectonic plate activity, subduction, etc. as we understand it today.

Awesome DrNoGods! Awesome work, give yourself a pat on the back. Pass in ENGLISH yes it means the following (from Google):

1) move or cause to move in a specified direction. 2) go past or across; leave behind or on one side in proceeding.

Those are the two main definitions of pass. Obviously pass has other meanings, like to 'pass wind' or to 'pass a test'...Obviously these things cannot physically mean move past a test - although one could see that to pass an exam is to move past it symbolically but again, I digress.

Check out the cambridge dictionary website for what pass is in arabic:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... rabic/pass

As you can see, so many different 'pass' words exist in Arabic, each of them different according to the meaning. So If I say to 'pass an exam' the word for pass is 'نَجاح', for sports when you pass a ball to someone its 'تَمْريرة' and guess what it is for 'movement to go past something or someone' .... drum roll please... 'يَم�رّ' yes, the word used in the Qur'an! In English, dully enough, there's only one word for all these things and thus why you're so confused.

So don't fret DrNoGods, the Arabic language is here to save your worries! The Qur'an does not mean vaporize, disappear, or superfluously generate into Jelly (im never going to forget that lol) but it means quite literally movement. And it describes said 'movement' to the 'movement of the clouds' which are very slow, yet appear fixed in the sky - exactly what the verse is saying. That the mountains move slowly and will eventually be no more.

This statement, is decades ahead of its time. No it is not detailing plate tectonic theory, it is not drilling cores out of the Earth and studying seismic activity...it is just saying one thing only... that mountains move very slowly but you think they're fixed. A statement made 1400 years ago, in and of itself simply SUBLIMEEEE.

and I don't need an explanation of the rules.

But you've misunderstood the rules! You said something incorrect and I get a little twitch when someone says something incorrect in my presence I must correct them to relieve the itch. I'm sorry if it offended you but it's simply true that you've misunderstood that rule. You won't be able to run and hide from Muslims bro, we're out to get you lol. I have a rash that im just dyiiinnnnggg to itch.

If it were a scientifically valid explanation or prediction, it would have to contain some language suggesting that mountains move (if that is what "pass" is supposed to mean) because the earth they are attached to is moving (ie. tectonic plate movement). But there is none of that. It simply states that mountains "will pass" with no definition of what that actually means (ie. it is vague) so that it is open to interpretation. And you can't hide behind the idea that Arabic is precise and English is not, and I don't understand the passage because I don't understand Arabic. Show me a translation of the original Arabic of this passage that mentions movement of the earth to which the mountains are attached or connected, etc. It is a vague statement that you are interpreting to mean something that cannot be concluded from the words.

Yesssss,...ahh that feels soo goood. My itch is...ah...right there... you got the spot....ahhhhhhhh

lol, I've shown you above the CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF AWESOME ENGLISH JARGON. Please sift through the evidence and do as yeeee please. The word means 'move' and nothing else...

From which you claim an understanding of the water cycle. This passage only suggests that the source of spring water was rain,

FACT. Decades ahead of its time. Oh boy. Before Leonardo and after Aristotle got it wrong. Muhammad (pbuh) an illiterate bedouin that out smarted Leonardo, Bartholomew of England and Aristotle.

but it also states that "Allah sent rain down from the sky." Rain does not come from Allah "sending it down." It comes from clouds reaching the saturation point for how much water they can hold at a given temperature, and water precipitates out and falls to the earth because of gravity and the fact that clouds are above the surface.

Listen man, until you can see where electrons disappear to when quantum tunneling out of existence, don't tell me God doesn't start the process. We currently have no idea what happens to sub atomic particles which literally disappear out of existence and reappear simultaneously at another point in space. God could have set up the system, the whole system was set up by God. God will not come push the cloud for you, but he created wind, and water, and the whole setup. That's what it means by God sends down rain. It's alot deeper than you think, you just have to be honest with yourself and think hard.

Then there is the comment about causing "crops of different colors" to grow. But that statement follows the comment about rain water coming forth as springs. So it seems to imply that the source of water for crops is springs, when the primary source of water for crops is direct rain water and nothing to do with springs.

Oohh the debate is getting heated! We're actually talking about the points! Well done DrNoGods, I applaud you for your bravery and attempt to actually debate. This is why I'm here, to answer your doubts and destroy your suspicions.

The reference for anyone reading is:

"Seest thou not that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and leads it through springs in the earth? Then He causes to grow, therewith, produce of various colours: then it withers; thou wilt see it grow yellow; then He makes it dry up and crumble away. Truly, in this, is a Message of remembrance to men of understanding." - The Holy Qur'an [39:21]

Let us go back to THE CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF AWESOME WORDS:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... rabic/then

Can you find the word 'ثم' anywhere? That is the word used in the Qur'an afterall. Cambridge lists 'ل�ذَل�ك' as the word for 'so or because of that' see in English both mean 'then'...
Facile

In Arabic, it says, rain water comes down, infilitrates the earth and from this we get springs. God ALSO causes crops to grow from said rain water and springs. Super clear like my sprite soda on a hot summers day.

I could interpret this same passage to claim that rain does not come from saturated clouds but is directly created and "sent down" by a god in order to create springs. That is literally what it says. Then all crops get their water only from springs. Or, I could interpret the passage to mean that springs only come from rain water and are not where the water table meets ground level (which is their actual cause ... all rain water does not result in springs being formed), and that the comment about crops of different colors has nothing to do with spring water but is an unrelated comment showing the power of Allah to cause crops to grow. Again, this passage is way to vague and incomplete to suggest that the author(s) had any knowledge of the water cycle. It in no way demonstrates an understanding of the water cycle ... if anything it shows a complete misunderstanding of it as it states that rain is "sent down" by Allah, but you ignore that part of course.

Look its good to over think, but here you're only doing yourself harm. Instead of putting ALL this effort into debating the words with me, why don't you just open a dictionary. Like really. This is a debate after all. Ccome with thy evidence squire! There are numerous arabic dictionaries online like THE CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH TEXTUAL WORDS. These dictionaries are very very useful...highly recommend.

I proved how your interpretation is incorrect given the meaning of words. I proved what we mean by 'God' sends it down. It is like I set a trap to have a bucket of water fall on you, then you walk into my trap and the bucket falls. You can say...oh Abdelrahman didn't do this... the bucket just fell. It's the bucket falling that made water splash everywhere not Abdelrahman. Now imagine the trap is the entire universe with all its laws and forces, going about its regular day. God started it all, if not, then tell me what started the Big Bang? What existed before? Nothing? We came from nothing? Good luck with that belief? SOMETHING ALWAYS CAUSES SOMETHING.

All of these examples of 1400 year old text claiming divine input are the same. Vague statements open to interpretation. People have done this exact same thing with Nostradamus who I'm sure you are familiar with. This situation with the Qur'an is no different. Vague passages interpreted to suit an argument.

[/quote]

Nostradamus got many predictions wrong. See that is the work of guess work. When you guess you're bound to get some wrong:

Just two examples of what he got wrong:

-World War 3 will begin in 1994.
-New York city will be bombed and the entire city will be destroyed leaving no one alive in 1999.

The Prophet Muhamamd (pbuh) has not made one prediction that is incorrect. Not one. Go find it. I challenge you. I triple dare you. Whatever is going to get you moving DrNoGods, I'll beg if I have to. Go find one.

Remember, the Muslims had not reached the ends of the Earth when he (pbuh) was alive. All the cities mentioned above were super powers of their day and the bedouins could not in their wildest dreams have dreamed of one day Islam reaching those super powers.

It's like a small simple island people off some coast invent a religion and then say 'one day spain, the us, russia and china will be said religion' Those Island people would have their minds blown. Here is a beautiful example of one said prediction when he was being chased by a non-Muslim at the time - Suraqa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suraqa_bin_Malik

This was a non-Muslim bedouin man chasing down a pair of people (Prophet (pbuh) and his friend) and everytime he got close he got stuck and asked that the Prophet (pbuh) pray that he gets unstuck and promising everytime that he would not chase after him (pbuh) if he prayed and saved him. This happened 3 times. Either his camel would get stuck or his hands would become paralyzed. Finally the Prophet (pbuh) said to him that Suraqa would one day wear the bangles of Khusrow of Persia. He asked in wonderment if Muhammad meant the bangles of Khusrow bin Hormuz, the Persian king. Muhammad nodded in acknowledgement. Suraqa probably though the Prophet (pbuh) was crazy... here he is hunting him down.. an enemy to him... and the Prophet (pbuh) predicts that one day he will wear the bangles of the king of Persia. Later on in his life Suraqa becomes Muslim and after the Prophet (pbuh) died and the next ruler ruled, Abu Bakr, after Abu Bakr, Omar ibn al-Khattab ruled and it was under his rule that Persia was defeated....and Suraqa was called to the treasury where the Kings bangles had been stored and they were places on his hands. He began to cry as he remembered the Prophets (pbuh) prediction all those years back then when he was chasing him to kill him. Beautiful stuff. Narrated by someone who used to be an enemy to Islam.

Find me one prediction. You've done a great job at addressing the details DrNoGods! But just double check your definitions before you dig too deep a hole for yourself.

And I applaud you for actually debating me, well done.