Islam contradicts science

Thanks Pro :) Rebuttals: 1) Moon split miracle - There is no real contradiction here, as Pro is attempting to contradict an interpretation of the verse, not the verse itself. In fact, scholars have adopted several interpretations for the verse [1], the main ones being: 1. The moon was split in the time of the Prophet as Pro suggested. To support this view, the scholars rely on the the Hadith mentioned by Pro: “the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon.”, which is a sound Hadith, though not Mutawatir. 2. The moon did not split, but will split towards the end of Time (the Hour). Theologians generally accept only Mutawatir Hadiths to support miracle sightings or doctrinal principles. The difference between a Mutawatir Hadith & a sound (Sahih) Hadith is that: - the former is reported by a great number of narrators throughout the chain of transmission, which means a lot of people witnessed the event & reported it ; - while the latter simply does not have a noticeable flaw in its chain of transmission, even if just one person happens to report it. The scholars that support this view are thus not convinced by the above Hadith, so they opt for a literary interpretation instead. In the sense that, the Hour will be near, when the moon gets split (in the future that is). 3. The moon did not split, though it did eclipse, in the time of the Prophet. This view is supported by the fact that some reports mention an eclipse rather than a splitting, such as: * Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas (companion): “The moon was eclipsed in the time of the Prophet (pbuh), they (Quraysh) said: “the moon was bewitched!”, thereafter it was revealed: "The Hour has come near, and the moon was eclipsed”. [2] > In this case, “Inshaqq’a”, the word for ‘split’, can also be interpreted as ‘eclipsed’. It could be that the sighting of the eclipse coincided with the Prophet’s challenge to Quraysh. => Conclusion, attempting to discredit an interpretation of the Qur’an doesn’t imply discrediting the Qur’an itself, especially since there are other perfectly good interpretations. 2) Mathematical error in hereditary laws - Alright, this is a little bit overstretched! I am not sure what Pro is proposing here, but one thing is at least evident, no sane person would mistake the sum of two thirds, two sixths & one eighth with ‘1’. The people in 7th century Arabia weren’t THAT dumb, especially since they were largely merchants! Is Pro suggesting that somehow the entire population of the Arabian peninsula didn’t know how to count?! If so, how could they have possibly applied what they, supposedly, did not understand!? - Nevertheless, I shall refute Pro’s claim. The shares of inheritance mentioned in these verses are not strict shares, they are indicative shares. It’s statistically evident that the sum of a particular combination of shares is unlikely to be ‘1’. - To elaborate, the existing shares are 6: * 2/3, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8. => A random combination of 1 or 2 or . . . 6 of these shares is, statistically, unlikely to amount to exactly ‘1’. Thus, in most cases of inheritance, they would amount to either less than ‘1’ or more than ‘1’. - Now, Pro mentioned a case where the shares exceed ‘1’, how about a case where the shares do not attain the ‘1’? The most evident ones are the existing basic shares (2/3, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8). Could such ridiculously obvious cases not been accounted for?! For instance, what if the person dies & leaves only his daughter (in this case her share is 1/2), then what about the other 1/2, to whom it belong?! She should get all the inheritance, that is, her indicative share (1/2) proportionally measured to the sum of shares (that is (1/2)/(1/2) = 1). This process in Shari’a is called ‘Radd’. - In case the sum of shares exceeds ‘1’, we do the same process, we proportionally measure the shares to their sums. 1/8 of 1.125 becomes 1/9. This process is called in Shari’a ‘Awl’, & it was practiced in Shari’a since the time of the companions of the Prophet. => Conclusion, the verses here provide guidelines of how inheritance ought to be divided, they don’t decree fixated shares as Pro claims! Thus, there is no mathemathical 'errors' here whatsoever. 3) Bees eat fruit - This is one of those cases where an argument against an English translation of the Qur’an doesn’t extend to the original Arabic text. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic, not in English! & indeed, “thamarat” (the relevant word) in Arabic stands for ‘fruits’ as well as ‘flowers’ [3]. 4) Earth is flat - “Maddaddna” (we spread out) here does not in any way entail that the Earth is flat! In the literal sense, the verses imply that the earth (as in ground, not planet) is expanded. The Earth might as well even be pyramid shaped & that wouldn’t change the intended meaning. - On the other hand, the Qur’an makes it clear that the Earth is indeed round: 1. “He wraps the night over the day and wraps the day over the night” (39:5) > Yukawwiru (‘wrap’) in the verse, derived from the root verb Kawwaru, which literally means: make into a globe (or a circle). > Commentary: the night is wrapped over the day encircling it, & the day is wrapped over the night encircling it. 2. “nor does the night overtake the day” (36:40) > Commentary: the duration of one night & one day is fixed, such that, one is not allowed to overtake the other. 3. “He merges the night into the day, and He merges the day into the night.” (35:13) > Commentary: the decreased hours of the night are added to the hours of the day, & the decreased hours of the day are added to the hours of the night. => Conclusion, the Qur’anic view provides an accurate description of the Earth’s cycle, night & day englobe each-other (i.e. on a globe), one over the other. Thus, the Earth MUST be round for such a description to fit. In a flat Earth, night & day can not possibly englobe each-other! - Furthermore, the muslims have always believed that the Earth is round, from the time of the companions: > Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) “None of the great scholars, who deserve the title of Imamah, may Allah bless them, contested the round shape of the Earth.” [^al-Fasl fil Milal #2/78] > Abu al-Husein Ibn al-Munadi (d. 947) “There is no difference of opinion between the scholars that the Sky is round shaped, and they all agreed that the Earth, land and sea, is in the shape of a globe” [^Majmu’ al-Fatawa #25/195] > Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328) “The planets are round shaped according to the Scholars of Islam [. . .], many have stated the consensus on this subject, such as Ibn Hazm and Ibn al-Jawzi, and they reported narrations to that effect from the Companions & their Successors with known chains of transmissions, and they brought proofs from the Qur’an and the Sunnah on top of mathematical proofs and astronomical proofs [. . .].” [^al-Fatawa #6/586] "The above verse tells all Muslims to pray towards the Ka'aba. This is only possible on a flat earth model." - This is rather a fallacious argument, if it could considered one! The directions we use such as North, South, West, East, are situated on the Earth, & we do not visualise them in outer space. 5) All organisms are created in pairs - Firstly, the verse doesn’t really say ‘mates’, it says, literally, ‘pairs’. - Secondly, the verse clearly says: “of all things we created pairs”, it doesn’t say: “of all organisms”! In that respect, Pro’s whole argument is unsound. - Thirdly, ‘pairs’ here is generally interpreted by scholars as: ‘opposites’ [4]. Meaning, of all things, there are opposites, much like the law of the excluded middle in Logic. Some scholars also include the sex (male vs. female) as indicative of these opposites. Sources: [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl... [4] http://goo.gl...