45 Scientific/historical Mistakes by Skeptics Annotated Quran Refuted

Article by Yahya Snow refuting the Skeptics Annotated Quran team (Skeptics Annotated Bible)
So the SkepticsAnnotatedBible group have produced a piece on the Quran (SkepticsAnnotatedQuran).

They put forward 45 scientific/historical issues they have with the Quran. They are very brief so this article will answer their issues as briefly as possible.

Generally much of their material is repetitive and the themes of their material are ignorance and ridicule. These answers show the sceptics were being unreasonable and even ignorant in bringing these forty five points up.

1. And He taught Adam all the names.”
Allah taught Adam all the names of the plants and animals, which must have taken a while since there are 1.7 million species that are known today, with probably another 10 million or so that are yet to be discovered. And this only includes those that are alive today. If extinct species are included (~99%), then Allah must have taught Adam a billion or so names. 2:31

 

The sceptics are being flippant and using manipulative exaggeration.
They say it must have taken a long time; not so, if they read Tafsir Al-Jalalayn they would note that the belief is that Allah taught Adam the names by “placing knowledge of them into his heart”.
So if the sceptics thought a little laterally (or just read the Tafsir) they would not have made the claim of taking a lot of time.

2. Humans created from a single man. 4: 1

 

Well, if this sceptical team had read the verse in full they will note the Quran elaborates on this point in the same verse.
It teaches that Adam was created first and from him Eve was created and then the rest of humanity come through the procreation of Adam and Eve. Thus it is reasonable to say that humans were created from a single man as Adam was the first and then Eve was created from Adam and then through procreation the rest of humanity came. So Adam was a starting point and the Quran is completely correct.

If they had read the verse in its entirety they would have understood the point about the “single person”. Sure, the sceptics may not agree with creationism but this does not make it incorrect. The question is why did they not bother to read the whole verse for a fuller explanation?

3. The Quran repeats the silly story about Cain and Abel (though they are unnamed in the Quran). 5:27-31

 

The sceptics attack the story via ridicule but they do not even attempt to disprove it. I’m not sure why they included this reference in their list as they don’t even try to disprove it.

As for story of the first murder; of course during the history of humanization there will be a human who was the first to commit the crime of murder and you would not be surprised if God told people through His Book about this story. If you read the passage all the way to verse 32 you realise that the story is told and man is taught that murder is a huge crime.

The sceptics show their anti-religion bigotry here. They ridicule this story as “silly” yet they cannot disprove it. The only reason they ridicule it is because they are naturalists. Naturalists are people who do not believe in the supernatural. Again, despite their ridicule, they cannot disprove this story. For clarification and thoroughness their reference to the story being repeated is due to the fact it is also in the Bible. It is still wise to point out the childish nature in which they dismiss a story they cannot disprove.

4. Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) But, in fact, such acts are common in many other species. 7:80-81

 

The sceptics clearly misrepresent the verses. The verses dos not teach homosexuality to be “unnatural”. Please go back and read the verses again rather than misrepresenting them.
From these verses we learn that the people of Lot are the first ones from humanity to commit such deeds, we learn it is seen as a sin. This is confirmed by the Quranic experts as “the commentators say that first they started this evil act” [1]
The sceptics should be a little more scholarly rather than jumping in and making incorrect attributions to the Quran.
In any case, even if a book did claim homosexuality to be unnatural, there is no firm proof to disprove this “unnatural” claim; if the sceptics were intellectually honest they would have noted this. However, it is wise to reiterate the fact that these Quranic verses (7:80-81) do not claim homosexuality to be unnatural but do we do learn from these verses that it is a sin. The Quran is completely correct, it is the sceptics who are mistaken.

[1] Islam on Homosexuality, Mufti Muhammad Zafeeruddin, Darul Ishaat, 1996

 
5. Crucifixion is a Roman punishment, unknown in Egypt at the time this story supposedly occurred. 7:124

 
Crucifixion was a simple method and hardly required rocket science for a society to come up with crucifixion. Have the sceptics got any evidence to show that it was impossible for Egyptians to crucify individuals? No, of course they have not. They simply made this claim up with no supporting evidence. Hardly scholarly!
To correct the sceptics; crucifixion is thought to have originated from Persia and it was also used in Egyptian, Carthaginian, Seleucid, Assyrian and other civilisations.
Smith’s Bible Dictionary confirms that the Egyptians did use crucifixion [1]. Thus the Quran is completely correct but the sceptics clearly did not research the history of crucifixion, they simply made a caim up without any supporting knowledge.

See:
[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

6. When Allah revealed himself to Moses, the mountain (Mt. Sinai?) came crashing down. 7:143

 
Actually the sceptics lack comprehension skills here, Allah revealed Him to a mountain which Moses was looking upon, this mountain collapsed to dust. There is no information given concerning the name of the mountain. I’m not too sure why they included this point in their list, it certainly does not disprove anything concerning the Quran.
Perhaps they included it because it seems implausible to the sceptics due to the fact that they disbelieve in supernatural occurrences. Again, why include this in your list when you do not even attempt to disprove it? Is it because you want your list to look lengthy?
7. Humans created from a single man. 7:189

 
Previously discussed in point 2 concerning 4:1. (Please view)
8. “They fold up their breasts that they may hide (their thoughts) from Him.”
Allah thinks (in his heart) that humans have their brains in their breasts. 11:5

It is obviously a figure of speech which we still use today. Have you not heard somebody ask “tell me what is in your heart”. It is not taken literally, it simply represents the innermost feelings/thoughts/secrets.
The commentary on this verse also shows the reference to “the breasts” is concerning the “innermost secrets”. The Quran is not saying people have brains in their hearts. The sceptics must take us for fools if they think people cannot see it is a figure of speech. The Quran is not in error but the sceptics are being unreasonable.
9. Joseph saw in a dream eleven planets. Does this mean that according to the Quran there are eleven planets in our solar system? 12:4

 
No, seeing eleven planets in a dream does not mean there are eleven planets in our solar system. If an individual sees five suns in his dream does this mean he is claiming there to be five suns in our solar system? Of course not. The sceptics lose all sense of logic here.
The Quran simply relays Joseph telling his father about his dream. The Quran is not making a claim of eleven planets in our solar system. The sceptics seem to have lost there ability to reason.
It is also worth noting that the word used represents stars (it is translated as stars rather than planets in the Hilali/Khan translation). Either way; the Quran is not claiming there are eleven planets or stars in our solar system. It simply tells you of what Joseph told his father. Nobody, intellectually honest, would believe the sceptics once they read the verse for themselves.
To be fair to the sceptics, they too do not claim this, they just ask the question. Well they got the answer here, the answer is no. Now they can remove this point from their list too.
10. “The sun … runneth unto an appointed term.”The sun (according to the Quran) orbits the earth. 13:2

 
The Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view)
It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in their when they claim “it orbits the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception.
Nowhere does it say the sun runs its course around the earth. The sceptics dishonestly made this up!
Now the question is does the sun run a course (i.e. does it have an orbit)?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate. [1]
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?

[1]http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html

More info:
https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
11. “He … spread out the earth.”Sounds like a flat earth to me. 13:3

 
Again, the earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earthen the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
More info:
https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
12 “And the earth have We spread out.”
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 15:19

 
Again, the earth (ground) being spread out over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth and the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava

More info:
https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
13 And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying … eat of all fruits.”Allah told bees to eat from all fruits, but decided to eat nectar and pollen instead. 16:68-68

 
The sceptics must take us for fools if they want us to believe Arabs at the time of the Prophet (and even after) thought bees ate all fruit such as apples, bananas, oranges etc.
Regarding the “eat of all fruits”, Zawadi says “The better translation is “eat from the fruits” and not “eat of all the fruits”. Surprisingly, only Palmer and Khalifa (the deviant) got it correct. In Arabic the word min means from” [1]. Thus we realise if the Quran is translated this way (two translated did translate it this way) it makes more sense to the English speaking audience.

The sceptics did not view all the translations they ran with what suited their agenda.
However, even if we use the sceptic’s translation it still does not disprove the Quran:
It must be said that we humans even use figures of speech such as the one used in this verse (eat of all fruit). If I tell a child to “eat from everything in this restaurant” and place him in a restaurant he will eat from the variety of food at his disposal, he will not eat the furniture, people or decorations (i.e. he will only eat from what is edible by human beings and will decide what to eat for him/herself). Likewise the bee will only choose from what is edible for a bee from “all fruit” (i.e. it will only eat from fruit/produce which contains nectar and/or pollen.
It is also useful to note that the Arabic word used (thamarat) does not refer to fruits such as apples, pears bananas etc. This type of fruit has a separate word (fakiha).The context also confirms this.
The sceptics did not realise this. Thus in this context the word (thamarat) refers to the fruit/produce from flowers rather than regular fruit (fakiha) that humans eat. Most flowers have nectar (grasses do not). So through the context we realise that “eat of all fruits” refers to eat from all plants containing nectar and/or pollen (i.e. any plant that contains bee food the bee can eat from it).
Nectar and pollen are “fruits”/produces from flowers/plants, thus the Quran is 100% accurate and the sceptics are being unreasonable again.
The verse (16:69) is not ordering the bees to eat all fruit, the understanding gained from the verse is quite simple; God simply inspires the bees to eat from a variety of flowers which contain fruit (nectar) which the bee can derive nutrition from (eat of all fruits, thamarat).
This is actually scientifically accurate because bees do travel to a variety of flowers for food, in doing so the bees partake in cross pollination. Through this cross pollination, by the bees, we get crops, nuts, fruit and vegetables which are for human consumption.
Therefore due to God inspiring bees to eat from a variety of flowers/plants we (humans) get a benefit. Perhaps, before God’s inspiration, bees only ate from one or two plants and now due to the inspiration from God humans are benefiting. This is a sign for those who think deeply.
[1] http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/surah_16_error_regarding_the_bees_
14The sun rises and sets at particular places on a flat earth. At the westernmost point on earth, the sun sets in a muddy spring. 18:86, 90

 
No, the Quran does not claim the sun sets in a muddy spring. The sceptics clearly have not read the verse in question. To a man mentioned in the Quran (Dhul-Qarneyn) the sun appears to be setting in a pool of water as “he found it set in a spring of murky water”.

Even the early commentator, Ibn Kathir, confirms this. Thus the early Arabs did not even think this meant the sun enters a pool of water. If the sceptics had read the verse they would have noticed “he found” it, thus this is a clear reference to whether was seeing and when you are looking into a pool of water it appears as though the sun is setting in the water. Ibn Kathir confirms this too.
The Quran is not wrong but the sceptics are wrong for misreading the verse.

15Most scholars consider Dhu’l-Qarneyn (“The Two-Horned Lord”) to be Alexander the Great, who is here presented as a devout Muslim. 18:83-98

 
“Most scholars”, which scholars? The first person (to my knowledge) to suggest Dhul-Qarneyn was Alexander the Great was Abdullah Yusuf Ali. This was his opinion.
In fact there is a stronger opinion that Dhul-Qarneyn is Cyrus the Great. Sceptics should note the opinion of a translator is hardly an accurate representation of the Quran.
The Quran does not even state the identity of Dhul Qarnayn. So how can the Quran be wrong here? It can’t!
If Yusuf Ali thinks it is Alexander the Great it does not mean the Quran is saying this. DhulQarnayn simply means “one with two horns”; The Quran does not confirm who this man is. The sceptics lost their sense of logic once again.
16 he Pharaoh threatens to crucify Hebrews on palm tress. (But crucifixion was a Roman form of punishment that was unknown at the time.) 20:71

 
Again, this is a fanciful claim by the sceptics backed with no proof whatsoever (it has already been discussed in point 5). We already know that crucifixion did occur in Egypt. Somebody needs to tell the sceptics; they are looking even sillier now.

17 he sun “floats” in an orbit around the earth. 21:33

 
No, the Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view)
Nowhere does it say the sun runs its course around the earth. The sceptics dishonestly made this up! It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in there when they claim it orbits “around the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception
The verse simply tells us that the sun and moon have an orbit. It does not say it orbits the earth. Read the verse!
We know the moon has an orbit but the question is does the sun have an orbit?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate [1].
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?

[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html

18 The heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them.”
The sun, stars, and earth were joined together until Allah separated them (about six thousand years ago). 21:30

 
The sceptics add their own addition here, the Quran does not teach this to have occurred 6000 years ago. The sceptics are confusing the Quran for the Bible. The Bible teaches the 6000 year claim whilst the Quran does not mention any time period. I would ask the sceptics to be more scholarly and accurate here.
As for the heavens and the earth being one piece, yes, the Quran is correct on this. It agrees with the Big Bang theory where the cosmos began from a single point, thus the earth and the heavens must have been a mono-block (joined together as taught in the Quran) during the early stage of the big bang. Thus the Quran is in agreement with science, in fact this appears to be a scientific miracle in the Quran!
I also ask the sceptics to brush up on their science as well, it would save us all some time!
Also, it is interesting to note that they do not mention the rest of the verse because the rest of the verse contains another scientific accuracy(miracle) because Allah teaches that all living things were made from water and we know all living things are comprised of water!
19 Allah created all animals. Some with no legs, some with two, and some with four. (Most animals have six legs. Did Allah forget about the insects?) 24:45

 
Again, the sceptics must be taking us for fools if they expect us to believe that the early Arabs did not know how many legs insects had. The sceptics are being condescending here. In any case let us look at their claim.
The Quran (24:45) is simply telling us that Allah “created every moving creature from water” and “of them there are some that creep on their bellies, and some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four”. [Hilali/khan]
Note the Quran does not put a limit on this, it uses the word “some”. It simply tells you some animals have no legs, whilst some have two or four. It does not claim that all living beings fit into these three categories (no legs, two or four), the word “some” is used, thus it does not close the door on beings with six legs or any different number of legs.

The Quran is not denying insects or any creatures with a different number of legs, only the most unreasonable individual would make the claim of the sceptics based on that verse (24:45)
An analogy; if I say “some people in London are from France, whilst some are from England and some are from America”, does this mean I am claiming that there are no Chinese, Polish etc in London? Of course not, I simply mentioned three different nationalities living in London, I did not close the lid on other nationalities. The same logic applies to the Quran, the sceptics should be more logical even when dealing with a thing which they hate (religion).
The sceptic’s lack of insight or bias is also highlighted by them skipping over the amazingly accurate scientific point in the same verse! The verse teaches us that Allah created every moving creature from water. This is absolutely correct, why did the sceptics fail to bring this to our attention?
20 “He sendeth down from the heaven mountains wherein is hail.”
Hail comes from mountains. 24:43

 

The sceptics have got it wrong again! The Quran is not claiming hail comes from mountains. Once again the sceptics are taking us for fools if they believe people in 7th century Arabia thought hail came from mountains, surely Arabians who did not live next to mountains could tell this by simple observation. Well, according to the sceptics, they could not. The sceptics are being foolish and amateur.
Actually the verse confirms that hail comes from the sky as it states “ He sends down FROM THE SKY hail” [Hilali/Kahn]. This scuppers and disproves the sceptics claim. Were they unable to comprehend a simple English translation of the Quran.
As for the “mountains” reference, it is explained through the commentary that this refers to the initial clouds holding the hail. Hail is a result of suspended ice in the air and hail forms in cumulonimbus clouds (which are like mountains). So the Quran is super accurate and seems to bring forward something people could view as a scientific miracle!
21 The earth is fixed and does not move. 27:61

 
The sceptics misrepresent the verse. The verse does not teach us that the Earth is fixed on a whole, in fact the verse mentions “fixed abode”, this is referring to the Earth being a fixed place to live in.
Some planets are gaseous so they are not fixed (or firm) abodes to live in, whilst the Earth is not gaseous (the Earth is solid and firm), therefore is a fixed/firm abode to live in. Remember the key word here is “abode”, the sceptics missed this. The Hilali/Kahn translation clearly mentions this word. It is also worth noting that the word for “fixed” represents “firm” too. Is the Earth firm? Yes because it is solid not gaseous.
If they read various translations of the Quran they would have realised that the Quran is not talking about the Earth’s rotation.
Yusuf Ali’s translation reads “ made the Earth firm”. Therefore it is clear that this is not referring to the rotation of the Earth but the Earth geographically. Is the Earth firm and a fixed abode? Yes! It is not gaseous (like some other planets) therefore is firm. Thus the Quran is correct and the sceptics were wrong again.
Shakir’s translation reads “made the Earth a resting place”, yes the Earth is a resting place for humans and other creatures. The reason why I bring this translation up is to further show that the verse is not denying the rotation of the Earth; it is clearly not even referring to the rotation of the Earth, thus the sceptics are wrong again.
22 “He hath subdued the sun and moon to service. Each runneth unto an appointed term.”
The sun orbits the earth. 35:13

 
No, the Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view) It simply tells us that the sun and the moon “each runs its course for a term appointed” (i.e. both have an orbit)
It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in their when they claim “it orbits the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception
We know the moon has an orbit but the question is does the sun run a course (i.e. does it have an orbit)?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate [1]. How did the Author of the Quran know this?
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?

[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html

23 “The sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him.” 36:38

 
Actually the Hilali/Khan translation states “And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed)”. This translation does not mention a “resting place”
So the sun has a fixed course? Yes it does, it has an orbit; it orbits around the centre of the Galaxy.
So we realise that the sun moves and is on a fixed course. How did the Author of the Quran know this?
As for “for a term (appointed)” well, we all believe that the sun will die one day. Even the sceptics believe this, so this is the appointed term. In simple words, Allah allows the sun to move on its course for a term ( a set time period) and Allah will make it end one day.
I’m not sure why the sceptics brought this up, did they not know that the sun does move on a course [1]?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html

24 It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.”

 
The sun and the moon orbit the earth. (Well at least Allah and Mo are half right here!) 36:40
No, the Quran is not claiming the Sun and moon orbit the Earth. The sceptics make this claim. Did they read the verse? The verse does not claim anything such. This has been discussed many times now and the sceptics are looking more and more embarrassed each time.
Nowhere does it say the sun and moon orbit the Earth. It does state “…They all float in an orbit” (“they” refers both the moon and the sun). the sceptics are adding their own bits to the translation, how dishonest!
So you can see that the Quran does not claim the sun and the moon are orbiting the Earth. The sceptics wrongly added this in there!
However one may ask, do the moon and sun float in an orbit?
Yes they do. They both have orbits. We all know that the moon orbits around the Earth but many people do not know that the sun has an orbit too. The sun orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy [1].
So the Quran is correct in mentioning the fact that they both have an orbit. The question is; how did the Author of the Quran know that the sun had an orbit?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
25 Jonah was swallowed by a fish. 37:142

 
The “fish” refers to the whale. A whale is certainly big enough and able to swallow a human. It is a story which is also mentioned in the Bible. Again, we are not sure why the sceptics include this in their list.
26 “We decked the nether heaven with lamps.”

 
Allah put “lamps” in the lower heaven to serve as lights. These are the stars that we see in the sky at night. 41:12
I’m not sure what the problem is here. The sceptics are being myopic. Stars emit their own light so describing them as “lamps” is fair as lamps emit their own light too. The Quran is perfectly accurate again. How did the Author of the Quran know that stars emit their own light?
27 “And the earth have We spread out.”The earth is flat according to the Quran. 50:7

 
Again, the earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/

28 “And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!”
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 51:48

 
The earth (ground) being spread/laid out over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/

29 All things We have created by pairs.” This is not true. Many bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants reproduce asexually. 51:49

 
Actually this verse is completely correct if you studied science and the verse you would not make the same mistake as the sceptics.
The verse mentions “of everything” so it is not simply referring to living beings therefore the verse is not concerning male-female pairs as “everything” includes stone, oxygen, water, metal etc., obviously the aforementioned (oxygen, water etc) do not come in male-female pairs. Thus the Quran is not speaking of biological pairs (male-female).
So the question is asked, does everything created (i.e. all matter) come in pairs? Yes it does, matter and anti-matter.
So the Quran is completely correct to state this. The sceptics need to be more careful when reading verses as they completely misunderstood the verse, hence their mistake
More info:
http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/male_and_female_(P1233).html
30 “The moon was rent in twain.”
Muhammad split the moon into two pieces. Beat that one, Jesus! 54:1-2

 
Yes the Quran confirms this. In fact ahadith sources do state Muhammed (pbuh) split the moon into two and this event was witnessed by a number of people [1]. Ridiculing it is easy, proving it wrong is another thing, which the sceptics cannot do. The ahadith sources saying this are strong and reliable and eye witnesses saw this event occur!
[1] Sahih al Bukhari 6/4867
31 “Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof.”
The “seven heavens” refer to the sun, moon, and five planets that were known at the time of Muhammad (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). The earth was flat and the “seven “heavens” revolved around it. 65:12

 
This is utter speculation from the sceptics. They have no proof for this claim whatsoever.
If you consult the Arabic, the word for heavens is the plural for skies/heavens (samawat),it is not a word used for planets, stars or moons. This word for heavens points to something above like the sky/atmosphere not planets or moons. So the sceptics claim is scuppered by the Arabic.

 The Arabic shows their claim to be false, it is not referring to planets, moons or suns but is referring to seven heavens. That is all.
In fact if the sceptics had bothered to cross reference this with another verse in the Quran (71:15-16) which elaborates on the seven heavens they would not be looking so silly. This verse tells us that the seven heavens are in layers “one above another”, so clearly the seven heavens do not refer to planets etc. Thus the sceptics are completely wrong.
32 “Who hath created seven heavens … Canst thou see any rifts?”
Allah asks Muhammed to examine the sky to see if it has any cracks. 67:3

 
This is pure ridicule on the part of the sceptics. It is superficial nonsense from the sceptics.
Allah is putting forward a verse which people of deep thought (not of ridicule) can contemplate upon. Nobody is expecting to find any rifts when they look into the heavens but when they do look up they realise the beauty and precision of what Allah created, the one who thinks deeper will ponder upon how beautiful the Creator of such splendour and beauty must be.
33 Allah made the stars as missiles to throw at devils. 67:5

 
Again, can the sceptics disprove this? No they cannot, they have not even Shayateen (devils) so how can they claim stars are not used to drive away devils?
Scientifically this actually makes sense as stars do MOVE and some even move as fast as 500 kilometres per second [1]. Now that is certainly quick enough to drive away devils.
The sceptics need to think deeper and brush up on their science, stars are not fixed structures, they do actually move and they move very rapidly therefore they can function as objects/missiles to drive away devils to protect God’s creatures!
[1] http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q181.html
34 At the end of the world the earth with the mountains will be lifted up and crushed with one crash. 69:14

 
I’m not sure why the sceptics include this verse either. It seems like they have a desire to make fun and ridicule without thinking things through rationally.
Even according to science our earth will have an end, thus the mountains and the earth will be destroyed one day. So how can a sceptic disagree with the Quran?
Can the sceptics disprove the verse? No, of course not, the sceptic simply wants to make fun because he/she does not believe in religion and is anti-religion. This position of theirs takes them to the path of the unreasonable. Whilst the Quran remains completely accurate.
35 “And hath made the moon a light”This verse implies that the moon produces its own light, rather than reflecting light from the sun. 71:16

 
The sceptics are wrong again, spectacularly wrong!
Actually, the Arabic word used does show that the moon has reflected light rather than its own source of light. The sceptics expose their ignorance here, the Quran is completely correct and the question must be asked; how did the Author of the Quran know that the moon was reflected light?
This is confirmed by Dr Zakir Naik here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/light_of_moon.htm
36 “Have We not made the earth an expanse, And the high hills bulwarks?”
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 78:6-7

 
No, the Quran is not claiming the Earth to be flat. “An expanse” does not mean flat. Do the sceptics not know this?
Expanse means “A wide and open extent, as of surface, land, or sky.”
The Earth is wide and open. Even fields or open land masses are described as expanses, Thus it is reasonable to describe the earth as an expanse and it does not mean flat!
The sceptics need to brush up on their English.
However, Hilali/Khan translate the Arabic word(mihada) as “a bed”. This further shows the Arabic word used does not mean flat, therefore we can safely say Allah was not claiming the earth to be flat.
Note: the word used does not represent a conventional bed which we sleep on today, that is a different word (sareer). So do not think Allah is describing the Earth to be similar to what you sleep on in your bedrooms. It is a reference to the ground in all likelihood and the comfort of the earth.
To summarize, the Arabic word used does not mean flat. “Expanse” does not mean flat either. It is obvious that it does not refer to a flat earth. The Arabic word for flat was not used, so why did the sceptics even make such a claim?
More info:
https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/

37 “He spread the earth.”The earth is flat according to the Quran. 79:30

 
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [2]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
In fact, the early scholar (Ibn Taymiyah) believed the earth to be spherical and not flat thus confirming this expert in the Quran never believed the Quran claimed a flat earth in ANY verse. Ibn Taymiyah’s authority and knowledge concerning the Quran is sufficient to show the sceptics to be incorrect.
The Quran (55:17) seems to indicate the earth is round by referring to two easts and two wests. The critics fail to mention this, I guess the truth and scholarly etiquette is of little concern [1]
More information:
[1] https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
[2] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/

38 Someday the stars will fall. 81:2

 
The sceptics seem to be scientifically illiterate here; astro-physics teaches us that ALL stars “die” eventually. None live for ever.
In any case, the Quran in this passage is talking about the Day of Judgement. Creation will be destroyed prior to this Day, so stars will also be affected; this is according to the Muslim and Christian belief.
The sceptics disagree because they are against supernatural occurrences, my question to them is do you think all this (the Earth, the Solar System etc) will last forever? There was a point when it did not exist, what has a beginning must have an end…think about it.
39 “He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs.”Semen, according to the Quran, is formed not in the testicles, but somewhere “between the loins and ribs.” 86:5-7

 
Between the loins and ribs roughly includes the testes too. So the sceptics are wrong from the word go.
However, the male ejaculate does not gush forth from the testes, in fact the testes only produces sperm, the rest of the ejaculate is semen which is produced via the seminal vesicles (amongst other organs), the sperm is carried to the seminal vesicles and it is ejaculated from this point in the body. This point fits between the loins and the ribs. So the Quran is correct again whilst the sceptics are shown to be ignorant of human biology.
A more detailed article is here:
https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/quran-got-it-right-about-semen-production/
40 “He is created from a gushing fluid.”
Humans are not created from semen, but from fertilized eggs. 86:6

 
This is a flippant point which is reckless in nature. The sceptics seem to have lost all comprehension of science here. “Fertilized eggs”, what does the egg require for it to get to a fertilized stage. Yes, you guessed it semen (sperm to be more precise).

This semen is a gushing fluid and is required for the creation of a new baby, thus we realise the Quran is correct…humans are created from a gushing fluid (male ejaculate). This gushing fluid is one of the components required for procreation – the Quran is correct
41 “And the earth, how it is spread?”
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 88:20

 
The earth (ground) being outspread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!

The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth, in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava

More info:
https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/

42 The sun … and the moon when she followeth him.”
The moon orbits the earth; it doesn’t “follow the sun.” 91:1-2

 
The sceptics are being absolutely ridiculous here. This is a clear reference to day and night.
The moon does follow the sun! During the day the sun is out and when the day passes the night follows, what comes out at night? Yes, the moon. So the moon does follow the sun!
It is so obvious that it refers to day and night. Even the NEXT two verses continue the theme on day/night! Thus proving it is referring to day and night!

43 “The earth and Him Who spread it.”
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 91:6

 
The earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!

The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth, in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/

44 Thy Lord … createth man from a clot.”
Humans were created from a clot? 96:1-2

 
Yes humans are created from a leach like clot (alaq). This leach like clot (alaq) is an early stage of the embryo. What does the embryo turn into eventually? Yes a human. Therefore it is accurate to say that humans were once an alaq (leach like clot) so the Quran is correct in teaching humans were created from an alaq (leach like clot).
This is all confirmed in detail by Dr. Sharif Kaf Al-Ghazal. It looks like the skeptics need to brush up on embryology before they start making claims against the Quran of this nature!
More info:
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm

45 Allah dealt with the owners of the elephant by sending swarms of “flying creatures”. 105:1-3

 
The flying creatures are small birds. It is clear from the Arabic. Again, they cannot disprove this event; the only reason why they disagree with it so vehemently is because it is against their naturalistic beliefs. It is not a historic or a scientific error yet the sceptics include it in their list, I’d imagine it is included for ridicule purposes.
Overall, the sceptics seem to rely on ridicule rather than logic and fair reasoning.

As you can see the sceptics brought no substance to the table, if they are intellectually honest they will remove their list from circulation.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “45 Scientific/historical Mistakes by Skeptics Annotated Quran Refuted

  1. In Quran 91:6, the Arabic word used for “Earth” is “ard,” which can also mean:

    “amphitheatre, earth, underworld, land, ground, grounds, soil, topsoil, terrain, territory, floor, site.” (Google translator, Baylon dictionary and Wikionary).

    This verse refers to the spreading of the land on Earth.

  2. May the Most Merciful Bless you for the explanations provided by you. Please continue the good work. I am a student of comparative religion – particularly about Buddhism.

  3. The word you’re looking for is ‘materialistic/ism/ists’ rather than ‘naturalists’. It’s more accurate and comes with more appropriate connotations. Good of you to go to such lengths,

    Salaam.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s