You did not provide evidence from the Qur'an that Islam and science are incompatible, you jackass. One generally accepted interpretation of the word "spread" is that what's intended is from our perspective.
Shaykh ash-Shanqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
If the scholars of Islam affirm that the earth is round, then what would they say about the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Do they not look at the camels, how they are created?
And at the heaven, how it is raised?
And at the mountains, how they are rooted and fixed firm?
And at the earth, how it is spread out?”
[al-Ghaashiyah 88:17-20].
Their response will be the same as their response concerning the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water” [al-Kahf 18:86] – that is, as it appears to be in the eye of the beholder, because the sun sets on one country, but remains up in the sky for another, until it rises from the east on the following morning. So the earth looks flat in every region or part of it, because of its immense size.
I don't think I've ever come across a scholar who's used these ayahs as a basis for supporting the flat earth theory (though I believe the earth is flat). In reality, to believe whether the earth is flat or not is not a matter of faith in Islam; a Muslim is free to hold whatever opinion they want in this regard, like every other matter that does not pertain to faith.
As for the supposition that the Qur’an claims semen emanates from between the backbone and ribs, this is simply a lie. This is the problem with Europhiles; they don’t understand the Arabic language but they want to give tafseer of the Qur’an for us. You need to study nahw, sarf, balaagha, ma’anaa, etc. for 20 years at least before you can interpret verses, you kalb.
The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”
…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.
Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one.
If Islam and science are incomparable, how did the Muslim world surpass their non-Muslim peers in scientific discovery and advancement? I'll wait.
I’ve explained why Islam, instead of handicapping scientific progress, will actually encourage us to further investigate matters; we’re literally ordered to do so in the Qur’an.
Get this through your thick skull: what’s meant by evolution (in a nutshell) is genetic mutations, as in organisms acquiring new genetic information. This has never been observed, ever. How can they acquire new traits without new genetic information? How can speciation in it’s truest sense occur if no new genetic information is added?
It’s well-known that genetic information can be destroyed; there’s evidence for this; but there’s NO evidence that information can be added… lol lol lol. If you’re claiming this is an acquired trait, surely it must reflect on the subjects’ genome. Why don’t scientists use this to settle this matter for good? Because there’s no evidence for it.
I ask you for evidence for evidence of evolution on a genetic level and this is the best that you can give me? Dameer waxid.
What the actual f*ck? How is any of this relevant? Empty rhetoric! This is not about opinion(s), this is about the fact that no biologist, including Dawkins can provide evidence for a case of genetic mutation.
Maybe you’re the one with reading problems, because I’ve merely mentioned that there’s many different versions of evolution, I did not say that majority scientists are in disagreement regarding the validity of evolution (though the word evolution is quite vague). Go back and read what I wrote.
Scientists generally accept a theory until it’s proven wrong, that still doesn’t make the theory right; they may also believe in different versions/narratives of these theories. "Theories are like toothbrushes... Everyone has one, and nobody wants to use anyone else's."
There were many outrageous theories that were once accepted in the scientific community, until they were proven wrong.
You repeat the same shit like a broken record, even though most of what you vomit is utter garbage. I’m waiting for the next pile of crap you will plagiarise from WikiIslam.
It appears any dose of medication we're providing for this patient is only exacerbating his already near-fatal condition.
Descartes is still my nigga though
You did not even specify where you was going with those verses, I assumed you was trying to push a flat-earth narrative for Islam because you’ve done the exact same thing using the same verses on Inquistive’s thread, you absolute moron.
. Even if we say it was real for argument's sake, there's no evidence that the so-called radiation is a left-over of something that happened (supposedly) billions of years ago!
