Quran and Modern Science Debate
Ahmed’s opening presentation for 60 minutes.
you. Insha'llaah, you can go ahead and start clocking me now. Well, let
me first start out tonight by welcoming everyone for today's debate on the Qur'an
and modern science. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Denis Giron
for coming for tonight's debate. In fact, me and Denis have debated this on
Google Groups for the last, I believe, nine months, so we are very familiar
with the topic and of course Denis has written many papers regarding Islam.
Let me start off by saying today that the Qur'an is a book which Muslims believe to be the literal word of God, and this book was revealed one thousand four hundred years ago to the Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), who lived in the Arabian city of Makkah. Now I believe that if anyone were to analyze the Qur'an, they will find that the Qur'an contains many statements - many correct scientific statements which were not discovered only until recently. Therefore, the question I would like to raise for tonight's discussion is: how could a man in the
Tonight is going to be kind of a very mentally intensive exercise, so I would recommend people to take notes and if you get the opportunity to listen to this debate, maybe two or three times if you can. So let me start off by saying that I think one of the difficulties we have in doing these types of discussions is that we tend to import many of our biases and our own personal opinions in this matter, and we tend to come to the table with a lot of emotional baggage. And that tends to blow our judgement. Even Denis himself, as an Atheist, of course, admits that he has a lot of bias too. But my issue is that being biased is not the problem. We cannot allow our biases and our prejudices to affect our judgement, and that is where the real problem comes in.
Therefore, what I would like to do tonight, I would like to bring some standard procedures that will sort of keep all of us in line tonight. Therefore, what I would like to present for you today is an algorithm which will provide a systematic method of analysis without personal opinion or bias. I'm going to cut and paste this algorithm to you inside the link which you can click on and you will be able to follow along with me. I'm going to send that to you right there – click here - okay. You're going to have to remove the digits "555" from the link; so if you do that, the link should work pretty good.
Okay, anyways, this is an algorithm which I think will provide a systematic method of analysis without personal opinion or bias. It will provide a logical analysis of statements concerning science - modern science - in any ancient text, whether it is the Qur'an, the Bible, or any other book. You're going to need to refer to this pretty often for the debate tonight. So, for those of you who don't have it in front of them, perhaps you might want to write it down very quickly - I'm going to go through it very quickly here. It says basically this:
if a statement in a book, whether it is the Qur'an or any other book, agrees with modern scientific fact, then it can be one or more of the eight following possibilities:
So these are your eight logical possibilities of how we could explain the Qur'an and modern science. So the very important point over here is that, therefore just because you have a statement in a book,which matches up with modern science, that does not automatically make it miraculous. It can be any one of these eight possibilities. Let me pause for a second so I can cut and paste all this information to you, for those who cannot open the link or something like that. Okay, there we go, these are all the possible scenarios and we will be referring to them
Okay, so now I want to just briefly talk about some logical fallacies which Atheists have made and other critics in their study of the Qur'an and modern science. These are three main logical errors. The first error is called The Fallacy of Multiple Interpretations. Basically what this means is that they think "if we can create another new interpretation, then we can dismiss that statement of modern science as being evidence - if I can just create another interpretation." And this is a very common mistake some people deal with. Let me give you an example: this is what science today tells us about the origins of the universe: science today tells us that the universe was created some time between ten to twenty billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. Now let's say you read inside some arbitrary book that it said the universe underwent a "big bang". Well, one person can correctly state that the statement in that arbitrary book matches up with modern science on the origin of the universe, and could therefore use this verse as an evidence, because it does match up with science. Science says there was this huge explosion and this book says there was a big bang. So yes, the statements do match up. But now an antagonist - he can create an equally valid interpretation saying that "no, no, no, you see what 'big bang' here means is actually a big surprise, you know like a big surprise that any big bang would cause for anyone, therefore the statement in that book is not talking about the origin of the universe - the author of the book had no intention of referring to the origin of the universe, therefore you cannot use this as evidence." But this is a logical fallacy I'm pointing out here - that just because you can spin more than one interpretation does not disprove that piece of evidence. Now of course we all know that when someone says this statement he is clearly referring to the scientific origins of the universe - about the Big Bang - so there is not question about that. So basically, the rule of thumb here is that so long as one feasible, logical interpretation matches up with science, that is all it takes to be used as evidence.
Let's look at the second fallacy which many Atheists have made. They said "well, the science pre-existed in other books." Basically they're talking about - I believe what we're looking at - is (G) the information already pre-existed in history. Therefore, what the author of the Qur'an simply did - or of any book - they just copied from that other source. That is one of the greatest misconceptions among Atheists; which is just because something has been mentioned in a book before hand, this automatically dismisses the case for the verse in the book, therefore you can't use it as evidence, and this is wrong. Let me explain to you why. Let's say that the Big Bang theory was mentioned in Aristotle's book, and it was also mentioned in the Qur'an - now this is all hypothetical - and someone brings up that verse of the Big Bang mentioned in the Qur'an and they use it as evidence showing that man could not have been the author of the Qur'an. Now someone can say "wait a second, wait a second, hold on - look, this statement that you are talking about of the Big Bang mentioned in the Qur'an cannot be used as evidence because it was already used in Aristotle's book, therefore what the author of the Qur'an simply did - he just copied from Aristotle's work." But there is a very, very big problem with this type of argument, which is: how did the author of the Qur'an know to select this explanation versus the several wrong ideas of how the universe was created which existed at that time? We all know what if you read the books of history, whether it is the Hindu scriptures, Bible, or whatever, there are several wrong and incorrect understandings of how the universe was created. How did the author of the Qur'an know to select this particular concept? That's the first question. How was he able to detect truth in an ocean of falsehood and myths? How did he know this is the right one? Therefore, my conclusion on this is that the argument that the Qur'an was just a copy job from previous books because of the fact that it mentions scientific information that was also present in those earlier books, that argument does not work because logic dictates to us that we better find five times as many clear scientific errors, right? Let me give you an example: you see when I was in high school, I never studied. In fact, what I would do, I would copy from my neighbor when it came on test day. But you know what happened? My neighbor didn't study either, so I wound up flunking. What basically happened was yes, I did copy some correct answers off his page, but I also copied some wrong answers from his page and I also incorporated that on my test exam, therefore I flunked. Likewise, doing a copy job in the year 600 AD was an even more dangerous job. It is literally a recipe for disaster, because the books available to the author of the Qur'an are filled with myths and legends and are filled with scientific errors and blunders. In fact there are much more scientific errors and blunders than there are any true statements, probably at least a thousand times, and even Denis, my opponent tonight, will verify that for you. Therefore, my conclusion on this point is that when we see a scientifically correct statement in the Qur'an, whether it was mentioned in other books or whether it was not, that does not matter, because what matters is how did the author of the Qur'an know this was the correct answer in an ocean of falsehood and myths. So that is another illogical argument used against the Qur'an or any book for that matter.
Now let me
talk about the last part. If you study the Qur'an you will see that the Qur'an
does not contradict any established modern scientific fact. This is a true
statement. That's really not what is going to be debated tonight, but I just
wanted to bring up that point. Anyway, many have tried to find scientific
errors in the Qur'an, but they have failed. On person in particular was Richard
Carrier, who is also Denis' I guess friend or colleague, and he is also a
writer for infidels.org, and he basically could not really find any scientific
errors in the Qur'an. But my point is this here: scientific errors really are
not germane to the topic tonight - they're really irrelevant. Let me explain to
you why. Let's hypothetically say again that there is this book we found - an
ancient book - two thousand years ago - I'm just giving you a hypothetical. And
in that book you found every single concept of modern day chemistry that
scientists have only discovered today. I don't think anyone would hesitate in
concluding that man could not have been the author of this book - nobody would
hesitate on that conclusion. Now let me throw this in this equation also: what
if there were two pages filled with scientific errors also in that book? What
does that mean? Does it change the fact that there are statements in that book
which a human being could not have known two thousand years ago? Of course not,
it does not change that fact. So again I'm talking logically here. Logically, scientific
errors are irrelevant. Whether a book contains scientific errors or not is
really irrelevant. It does not prove or disprove anything. These are all
emotional arguments. They're basically used to capture a shock effect, but it
doesn't prove or disporve the fact that this book cannot have been written by a
man - it had to have been a greater source. I hope everyone understands it - I
can repeat that point again in case anyone needs to. But as I said, if you look
in the Qur'an, there is nothing in the Qur'an which disagrees with established
modern scientific fact, though that is not being debated to night and I
Okay, having said all of that, I spent sixteen minutes pretty much laying down the ground rules and basically laying down the logic which we are going to use tonight. So let me start with the first piece of evidence of the Qur'an. I'm going to give you eight pieces of evidence, and these are eight statements in the Qur'an which agree with modern scientific fact which scientists have only discovered recently. Let me go ahead and start right here. Now what I'm going to do is I'm going to break up my talk into two different parts. I'm going to first tell you what science says, and then I'm going to tell you what the Qur'an says and then we can go from there.
This is what modern science has to say on the topic of zoology, in particular bees. We're going to be talking about bees over here. Today science tells us that the male bee has only one purpose, and that is to reproduce with the female - there's really no other purpose for a male bee. Now here's the important point - however, the worker bee or the soldier bee is a female bee. She is the one that builds the nest, leaves her home, and goes out in search of food. This what modern science tells us - that we have discovered only recently. Now it takes a specialist in the field to detect the sex of the bee - you cannot look at it from the naked eye - it is impossible, there is no way you can look at it that way. Now let me show you what the Qur'an says about bees. Now, keep one thing in mind here. In the Arabic language, animals are either male or female. Like in English we have the word cow - "the cow in the pasture" - that does not tell us if the cow is male or female. But in Arabic animals are either male or female. There is no gender neutral term for animals. Let's look inside chapter sixteen verse sixty-eight. It says over there:
"and thy Lord taught the bee" (here it is specified a female bee) "to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in men's habitations, then to eat of all the produce and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord."
exactly what modern science today tell us - that the bee that goes out and
builds the nest, that goes out looking for food, as what the Qur'an has
mentioned, is indeed the female bee.
So anyway, I'll have to raise a question now. How did the author of the Qur'an know this scientific statement, that the bee that leaves the nest in search of food is the female bee? Let's go back to the algorithm. If you can look at that link which I have just sent you, let's look at that algorithm. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an was a genius or a scientist, which is (A) and (C). Well, I don't think that could be a possibility, becuase no matter smart you are, you'll never be able to detect the sex of a bee, unless you had these modern scientific methods which did not exist one thousand four hundred years ago, so those could not be a possibility. Let's look at (F). Perhaps the scientific fact is observable. Well, this is not true either, because you cannot look at the bees and tell which one is a male or female. Let's look at (B). Perhaps it was a very good guess. Well, it is a possibility. If it was a good guess then we'll say it was a fifty-fifty chance, one half chance if that was the case - or coincidence, we can look at it that way. Now let's look at (G) here, I want to pause on this one for a second. The information already pre-existed in history, therefore the author of the Qur'an simply plagiarized from another source. Let's analyze this for just a second here.
Learn more about it here.
I want to
bring up one of the books which were written much before the time the Qur'an
was revealed, and that is the works of Aristotle. Because I think when you look
at Aristotle's works here, it's going to give us some insight, because he did
some research on bees, which a lot of people don't know. Anyway, when you go to
his books on meteorology you will find that he has done studies on bees. This
is what Aristotle had to say - and actually Aristotle did make some
scientifically correct statements regarding bees - Aristotle discovered that
there were three categories of bees, and he discovered that there was such a
thing as a leader bee, which today we know are queen bees, as well as drones
and workers. So he did make some correct discoveries inside modern science when
it comes to bees. But that can very easily fall under the category of (F), that
this is something which is observable. Meaning, if you study the bee hive,
you're going to see the same thing.
Anyway, here's an important point on Aristotle. Aristotle also made many scientific errors regarding bee study. I'm going to give you seven scientific errors, which Aristotle made.
So these are basically seven scientific errors which Aristotle made. Now I want to ask a question - I want to raise a point here. What is the scientific truth over scientific error ratio for Aristotle? Well, I believe it is one over seven(1:7). For one scientifically correct statement he made seven errors, and that's reasonable. There's nothing wrong with that, because that's how scientists learn and make discoveries. They make these discoveries by a trial and error method.
Anyway, let's say the author of the Qur'an really like Aristotle's work, he thought it was incredible, "wow, this is great stuff." If he was going to copy from Aristotle's book, you know what is going to happen? The same thing which happened to me in high school: he's going to copy many of the wrong and false statements into his book. Am I right? If you're going to use this book to copy from, you're in big trouble, because there is a lot of scientific errors in there. So, that is why the point I would like to raise here is that if we are going to entertain - going back to this point which I raised - if we are going to entertain this possible scenario which is (G) the information already pre-existed in history and the author of the Qur'an simply plagiarized from another source, well then what we are going to have to find - you'll have to also show us many of the scientific fallacies that the author of the Qur'an also copied. Because how did he know what to copy and what not to? So that's my point here; that's the only way we can entertain this particular objection or this particular possible scenario. If you going to say he copied from the book, then show us other things that he copied from that book. And if you cannot show that, then we cannot entertain this possible scenario, logically. Anyway, let me ask another question: what is the ratio of the scientific error over scientific truth for the Qur'an in relation to bee study? Who can tell me? Well, it is one over zero. Aristotle's was one over seven, the Qur'an's is one over zero. Which means that the author of the Qur'an could not have plagiarized this from any source, because if you're copying from a source, believe me man, I know this [from] first hand experience: you're going to copy some of the wrong answers too.
[Evidence #2: Lost city of
me move on to the second piece of evidence here. Evidence [...inaudible...]. If
you look in the Qur'an it talks about a city named Iram inside chapter
eighty-nine, verse seven. Now, there's something very unique about the city
Iram, which is that nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram before. You can
look through all the pre-Arabic or Arabic literature, none of the companions of
Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), or Aristotle's work, or the
Hindu scriptures, nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram yet this is a
city mentioned in the Qur'an. And for this point many people have actually
ridiculed the Qur'an and made fun of it because it is talking about cities
which nobody has ever heard of. And even one of the most famous critics of the
Qur'an, his name was Wellhausen, he stated that Iram was actually a fictional
place - it didn't exist - whoever wrote the Qur'an just made up some corny city
and then put it in the Qur'an. This is basically what many people thought,
especially Wellhausen. Some Muslims also, they felt very ashamed of this fact
and so they said "okay, okay, Iram is not the name of a city, actually
Iram is the name of a person, yeah, yeah it is the name of a person,"
because they felt ashamed on this point. Well, anyway, all of this changed in
1978, because there was an archeological dig and they discovered a city named
Well again, we would look at the algorithm and we could see that it is any one of those eight possibilities, perhaps. Now, actually Denis made kind of a very strange statement in the Google Group -I just want to raise it right now for just a second. He said - well first of all, let me back up a little bit here. Some people have guessed or basically made a hypothesis that Iram is a city in
Learn more about it here.
me move on to proof number three here. We are now going to move away from
archeology and we are going to talk about oceanography. Today, scientists tell
us that there is actually a barrier between the bodies of water, and that this
information has only been discovered recently, using advanced equipment. Now
let me give you an example: there is actually a physical barrier between the
Mediterranean Sea and the
Let's see what the Qur'an has to say on this topic. Inside chapter fifty-five, verse nineteen it says over there:
"He it is how has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress."
Now this is a
statement which completely agrees with modern science. Scientists have only
recently discovered that there are barriers inside the ocean, between the seas,
and I gave an example between the Atlantic and the
Now I was looking
and I saw that there tended to be a lot of useless debate in [which] people
were trying to define what type of barrier is being used - what type of barrier
is the Qur'an referring to? Because they cannot refute the idea that the Qur'an
clearly, clearly states that there is a barrier between the seas, so they start
to try to make a controversy out of what type of barrier.
Well, anyway, I can kind of settle the debate tonight by saying that the Qur'an does not say anything as far as what type of barrier is being used - because you know, there are many different types of barriers: there's multi-layered barriers, there's radiating barriers. Basically, a barrier impedes movement of an object or a substance - something which blocks the passage of a certain substance. Different types of barriers perform different functions. Some act like an iron curtain, which completely blocks off two substances, while some barriers do the same task of blocking two substances but they do it in a more subtle fashion, by kind of slowly bringing them to a halt. So anyway, my point is the Qur'an does not speak about what type of barrier, and there is really no point in trying to guess and trying to make a controversey out of that.
Learn more about it here.
Anyway, let me move on to the next piece of evidence. Proof or evidence number four. We talked about barriers between the two different seas, which differed in temperature, salinity, density, et cetera. But science today has also told us that there is a barrier between fresh and salt water. In fact this barrier which the scientists talk about - they call it the zone of partition. So basically, on one side of the zone of partition you have salty water, and on the other part of the partition you have fresh water. And this has been also clearly, explicitly stated in the Qur'an. Let's look at chapter twenty-five, verse fifty-three:
"it is he who has let free the two bodies of flowing water, one palatable and sweet - (referring to fresh water) - and the other salt and bitter…."
Now here is the important point I would like everyone to take heed to:
he has made a barrier between them, a parition that is forbidden to be
Now again, many of the antagonists and Atheists can not refute the fact that the Qur'an is clearly talking about a barrier between fresh and salt water. That is unmistakable, and that completely agrees with modern science. But again they try to make a controversey out of "what type of barrier? what type of barrier is the Qur'an talking about?" which is really a red herring. But again, this partition that is forbidden to be passed, that is something which is vague and ambiguous. That does not still tell us what type of barrier, whether it is a radiating barrier or et cetera. Anyway, I just wanted to make that one point.
Learn more about it here.
Let me refer back to Aristotle again. Aristotle did research on oceanography in his books, in addition to bee study. And he tried to explain this phenomenon of fresh water and salt water. He had no idea that there was an actual physical barrier between them. This is what Aristotle thought: he says "the same thing happens in animal bodies. Here, too, the food when it enters the body is sweet, yet the residuum and dregs of liquid food are found to be bitter and salt." So basically what Aristotle is saying is that when you eat a twinkie, it tastes nice - yeah, it's great - but now, if you taste your own poop or your own feces, it is very bitter and salty. Now, this is what I call a very dedicated scientist, you know, who would taste his own feces. You have to give credit to the man.
Anyway, so Aristotle continues: "This is because the sweet and the drinkable part of it has been drawn away and the natural animal heat has passed into the flesh and other parts of the body according to their several natures." So basically he is saying when you eat something by a process of evaporation - animal heat, he's referring to evaporation - this is how fresh water becomes salty. Just like when you eat a twinkie, and you go to the bathroom and you defecate that twinkie, that is the same thing which happens when you see salt water and fresh water. So of course, needless to say, this is a gross scientific error. We all know this does not describe the relationship of salt and fresh water.
So my point here is, again, I do not think the author of the Qur'an was plagiarizing from Aristotle, or else he would have copied this gross scientific error in his book. Or let me ask the question again: out of all the scientific statements I have been showing in the Qur'an, what is the scientific truth over scientific error ratio? Who can tell me? It is one out of zero for every one - every single one of them, one out of zero.
Okay, let me continue. Now, we are still on the topic of oceanography. Let's look at the fifth piece of evidence. Scientists have only recently discovered that at the very bottom of the ocean it is completely dark. That is, you are going to have to travel one thousand meters, and after you have traveled one thousand meters in the ocean, it is complete pitch darkness. In fact, if you have ever seen the movie Titanic, the Titanic is actually at the very bottom of the sea, and the Titanic right now resides in complete total darkness. Now man, on the other hand, he could probably swim about - at the most - forty meters down in the ocean without special equipment. So he could only go about forty meters, but like I said, once you go down one thousand meters, that is when you see that it is complete pitch darkness. And scientists have only recenlty been able to discover these details - pieces of information about the seas.
Now let's see what the Qur'an has to say about this. Chapter twenty-four, verse forty of the Qur'an. It is talking about the disbeliever – that:
"the disbeliever is like the darkness in the vast deep sea,(and it goes on in a later verse - I mean, in the same verse:)if a man were to stretch out his hand, he can hardly see it; and for he whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light."
It says in the Qur'an:
"there is no light for him"
and it is talking about the vastest deep ocean. So the Qur'an is saying at the very deep, dark levels of the ocean it is complete darkness, and that is like the analogy of a disbeliever - he lives in complete darkness. Again, this is exactly what scientists today have told us - that the ocean, after one thousand meters, is complete death[?] darkness. I would raise a question: how did the author of the Qur'an know this type of scientific information?
Learn more about it here.
Okay, let's look at evidence number six over here. We are going to get off the topic of oceanography. I have produced for you three pieces of evidence of oceanography. Basically, that the author of the Qur'an knew that there was a barrier between the seas. Number two, he knew that there was a barrier between salt and fresh water, and the author of the Qur'an also knew that at the very depths levels of the ocean is complete darkness. Let me now move on to proof number six here. We are going to talk about geology.
If you have a topographical globe - topographical globes show the elevations and depressions of the earth - and if you look at where is the lowest point on the earth, you will see that that is around the
Learn more about it here.
Anyway, let's now jump over to the topic of astronomy. Now, we know that there are many elements in the universe today, or in our planet today - I'm sorry. Scientists today tell us that after studying the element of iron, that iron could not have been created on earth. And not only that, they say iron could not have been even created in our universe. They say that in calculating the energy required to form one atom of iron, it was found to be about four times as much energy of the entire solar system, just to create one atom of energy. Scientists go on to tell us that this kind of energy is not observable in our sun, our planets, in our solar system combined. So, what they are telling us is that iron could not have been formed on earth, neither in our solar system; rather, it should have come from some external source. That is the only place where iron could have come from.
Now, if we look in the Qur'an, we see that the Qur'an actually talks about things which were created on earth. Like, for example, inside chapter thirty-six, verse thirty-six, it says:
"glory be to Him Who has created all the pairs of that which the earth produces,"
and then it goes on to say that the human beings were also created from the earth:
"and Allah has brought you forth from the dust of the earth."
chapter seventy-one, verse seventeen. So basically, someone would look at the
Qur'an and say "well, yeah, that's reasonable, I mean how else would a man
one thousand four hundred years ago - you know, he looks around his
surroundings he sees that everything produced comes from the earth: grass grows
from the earth, pairs come from the earth, so yeah, that's very natural."
But now the Qur'an also talked about where did iron come from. Now, we would
assume that the Qur'an would say that iron came from the earth, just like human
beings, pairs, just like everything else - like any man would.
Notice what the Qur'an says about iron. Surah seventy-one, verse seventeen:
"and Allah as brought you forth from the dust"
I'm sorry, wrong verse! Chapter fifty-seven, verse twenty-five. Let me read this verse to you. Chapter fifty-seven, verse twenty-five, it says:
"We sent aforetime our apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the balance that men may stand forth in justice."
Now here is the important part I want everyone to pay attention to:
"and We sent down iron."
It says in
this verse that God sent down iron to the earth which the meaning is when
people study the Qur'an that iron could not be created by the earth; rather God
says We sent down iron from (I mispoke, I meant TO, not from)the earth. That is
exactly what modern scientists today are telling us - that iron could not be
produced by earth. The earth does not possess the type of energy, nor does our
solar system, and that is exactly what the Qur'an is stating. Okay, so the
question I would like to raise in regards to this is how did the author of the
Qur'an even know that certain elements are not from earth? What would ever make
him come to that conclusion? A man one thousand four hundred years ago in the
desert - if he was the author of the Qur'an, how would he have that type of
Learn more about it here.
Okay, let me move on to the next piece of evidence. And this is going to be my last piece of evidence here, and then I am going to give a summary. Today, we all know, and I think this is not a surprise for anyone, that the moon actually moves in an orbit - a circular path, we all know that. But the scientists also tell us today that the sun also has an orbit, which many people do not know. Yes, all the planets are revolving around the sun, but the sun has an orbit in which is revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. So both the sun and the moon have an orbit. This is what scientists have only recently discovered.
Let me now point you to chapter twenty-one, verse thirty-three of the Qur'an. It says over there:
"and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating."
clearly states that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that word, falak,
if you look in the Hans-Wehr dictionary, that word refers to a woman's chest, a
round woman's chest. So it talks about that the sun and moon have a circular
orbit. So this is a statement which clearly agrees with modern science. Now,
someone may say "maybe the author of the Qur'an was referring to the sun
and moon orbiting around the earth, like geocentricism - ah ha - that is what
is [the] meaning."My response to that is, but why didn't he say that? Why
did not the author of the Qur'an clearly and explicitly state - not according
to your interpretation, but clearly state that the sun and the moon orbit
around the earth? It does not state that. Anyway, so you would say "well,
that is a coincidence, just an amazing coincidence that the author did not
Okay, but let me show you how that coincidence keeps happening in the Qur'an. Look at this verse over here, it says, inside chapter thirty-nine, verse five:
"He coils the night upon the day and coils the day upon the night."
Now, it is a
little bit hard to visualize this, I understand. That word "coils,"
basically, you could think of it as "donut" the night upon the day
and the day upon the night. Again we are seeing that there is this roundness
about the night and the day, you see? And basically the point over here you can
see that anyone who walks away from this verse, they are going to come up with
a conclusion: "hey, you know what? there is something very circular about
the earth." That is okay - that is not the point I am trying to make.
My point here, is why didn't he say that the sun revolves around the earth, or the sun and the moon revolve around the earth, or something like that? Someone will say "well, that is another coincidence that he did not mention geocentricism." And you will find that there are like six to seven verses in which the author of the Qur'an was talking about the sun and the moon and its revolutions, but yet it never stated that they revolve around the earth. That is all coincidence I suppose? Anyway, my point is that this verse clearly agrees with modern science. The Qur'an says that the sun and the moon have an orbit - full stop, do not add anything more to that - and that is exactly what we know about science today. The sun and moon have an orbit.
Learn more about it here.
Okay, I am all done over here, and I just want to review, very quickly, the eight pieces of evidence which I have mentioned in tonight's debate: