Islam contradicts science

Thanks Pro. Preface: - Reminder: Pro has the BOP. Rebuttals: 6) We cannot leave earth - Firstly, this verse is generally interpreted in relation to the Hereafter due to the clearly reigning theme within its context, which unambiguously imposes that the verse is related to the Hereafter, as it is preceded by: “Everyone upon the earth will perish [. . .]” (55:26) [5]. Ibn ‘Ashur [6], head of the Maliki School in his time, says in his 30-volumes Exegesis of the Qur’an at-Tahrir wat-Tanwir [7] concerning the verse: “the context of the text, anterior and ulterior, implies that the discourse is related to the Hereafter and not this life” [8]. Faker ad-Din ar-Razi, the Mujaddid of the 6th century of Islam [9], says in his 32-volumes Exegesis Mafatih al-Ghayb [10]: “Fourth question, is this discourse related to the Hereafter or to this life? We say: it is explicit and clear that it is related to the Hereafter.” [11]. - Secondly, the terminology “heaven & earth” in the Qur’an indicates the Cosmos as whole, so, in this case, it couldn’t possibly be related to the Earth or outer-space, for that would go against the linguistic limitations (of Arabic), & also the limitations of context, which wouldn’t allow it. In this case, even if we suppose the discourse concerns the actual world & not the Hereafter, “pass beyond the regions of heavens & earth”, would mean to go beyond the Universe, which is, indeed, impossible. - Thirdly, even if we concede, for the sake of argument, Pro’s suggestion that somehow the verse is talking about the Earth (which it isn’t), then there won’t be any contradiction either. The verse doesn’t say: “you shall not pass”, it says: “you will not pass, expect by the leave of Allah”. => It’s pretty clear that Pro’s objection here is not just baseless, for it contradicts the linguistic & literary context of the verse, but is also thoroughly invalid. 7) Moon emits light - Surely, this is an argument against Pro. The verse illustrates a similitude between the Sun & a burning lump, in the aspect of generating light ; & also between the moon & light, in the sense of not generating it. “In considering that the moon is ‘Nur' (light) is an allusion to the fact that the moonlight is not intrinsic [. . .]” Ibn ‘Ashur [12]. - As for Pro’s contention that the word ‘Nur' (light) is used in relation to Allah, such as in: “Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.”, well: > One: ‘Nur' literally means ‘Light’, not ‘source of light’. > Two: is Pro suggesting that Allah, or God, emits light, as in photons?! Of course not! ‘Light’ here is obviously NOT literal, “Informing that Allah is Light is undoubtedly allegorical, for it is restrained by the doctrinal basis of Islam in that Allah is not material nor contingent nor an essence” Ibn ‘Ashur [13]. Such as in: “[Allah] brings them out from darknesses into the light (‘Nur’).” (2:257) [14], meaning from “the darkness of ignorance & doubt” to the “light of truth & proof” [15]. - Finally, concerning the Hadith. It looks perfectly fine to me, & don’t see any arguments provided by Pro showing any contradiction. Counter-rebuttals: 1) Moon split miracle - Firstly, Pro has yet to prove that the splitting of the moon never happened, which his source, NASA, does not support. No evidence for the positive does not imply evidence for the negative! Thus, the interpretation that the split happened has yet to be refuted. - Secondly, regardless if such event happened or not. Other interpretations are available & equally supported by scholars. The moon-split being in the future is supported by scholars across history, namely: al-Hasan (d. 728), ‘Ataa (d. 732), al-Balkhi (d. 810), al-Qu’shayri (d. 1074). . , al-Mawardi (d. 1058) even mentions that this position is the majority opinion [1]. - Lastly, the event is not physically impossible. Some scholars [1] suggested that it may be an astroid occultation [16], which are extremely rare events with very tiny viewing area, which may explain why it wasn’t observed widely, which may also explain why Ibn ‘Abbas & others have referred to the ‘split’ as ‘eclipse’. => Pro has not been successful in refuting even one interpretation of the verse, concluding against the verse is thus invalid. 3) Bees eat fruit - Pro is being a little unreasonable here. If the linguist says “Thamarah” refers to flowers, then it does. Pro’s contention is thus invalid. Not finding a word in a tiny Arabic online dictionary, does not imply in that it doesn’t exist! Serious Arabic dictionaries are as expanded as 40 volumes long (such as Taj al-‘Arus [17]). In fact, “thamarah” can also mean: vegetation, off-spring, wealth, date. . . & have been used to refer to ‘flowers’ by poets such as at-Tarmah (d. 743) [18] ; from the classic dictionary: Lisan al-‘Arab [19]. 4) Earth is flat - Pro here is clearly arguing a straw-man! He ignored the points I made about the global shape of the Earth & resorted to misrepresenting my argument. - As previously established, “Yukawwiru” (meaning: ‘englobe’, or literally ‘form into a global shape’) is used in the verse, which strictly contradicts a flat-earth model, & is necessarily compatible with a round-earth model. In fact, saying “the Earth is spherical” in Arabic is “al-Ard Kurawwiya”, ‘Kurawiyya’ being the exact adjective of the verb ‘Yukawwiru’. - The links to the sources of the quotations I mentioned: > Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) [20]. > Abu al-Husein Ibn al-Munadi (d. 947) [21]. > Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328) [22]. - As for Pro’s false claim that Sheikh Abdulaziz Ibn Baz believed the Earth is flat! Well, Pro’s very dubious source claims Ibn Baz issued a fatwa: “The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment.”. So, if that were true, then, is Ibn Baz thereby calling all muslims, including the companions & all the great scholars who believed the Earth to be round, atheists?! He must surely be mad!!! Now, of course that’s not true. This is obviously a made up claim, especially since Ibn Baz denies ever saying that in his official website [23], & especially since there is an audio recording of him saying: “the Earth is round according to the scholars, & there is a consensus between scholars that the Earth is round” [24]. 5) All organisms are created in pairs - ‘Zawjayn’ means, literally: ‘pair’ or ‘two’, & could mean figuratively: ‘mates’. - Pro essentially concedes this point, by admitting that the verse is referring to “all things” not “all organisms”. If we suppose that Pro’s reasoning is right, that is: all things are created as sexual mates, then what about rocks & metals & stuff!? This clearly leads to nonsensical conclusions. The Hadith: * Narrated Anas: “the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine)" - I am not what’s Pro’s objection here, as he did not advance any arguments. It is known that piss of animals is used as medicine in many cases. For instance, Premarin, a drug manufactured from horse urine to treat menopausal symptoms & other conditions [25]. Camel urine also was & still is used to treat swelling, tuberculosis & other conditions [26]. Conclusion: - Lastly, Pro has not been successful in proving one instance where the Qur’an (or Islam) contradicts science. As I’ve established, all Pro’s objections are invalid. => Vote Con. Sources: [5] http://goo.gl... [6] https://goo.gl... [7] https://goo.gl... [8] http://goo.gl... [9] https://goo.gl... [10] https://goo.gl... [11] http://goo.gl... [12] http://goo.gl... [13] http://goo.gl... [14] http://quran.com... [15] http://goo.gl... [16] https://goo.gl... [17] https://goo.gl... [18] https://goo.gl... [19] http://goo.gl... [20] http://goo.gl... [21] http://goo.gl... [22] http://goo.gl... [23] http://goo.gl... [24] https://goo.gl... [25] https://goo.gl... [26] http://goo.gl...