The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Islam contradicts science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 770 times Debate No: 76527
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




The debate is about Islam and it's claimed scientific miracles.

First round acceptance, and second round I'll begin posting my arguments.


I thank Pro for instigating this debate, I accept his challenge, & I too hope this will prove to be an interesting debate.


- Topic:
wether Islam does or does not contradict scientific facts.

- Terminology:

> Islam = the religion founded by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) & revealed through the Qur’an.

> Contradict = deny the truth of (a statement), especially by asserting the opposite.

> Science, since the concept is broad & abstruse, I’ll define it pertinently as = scientific facts.

> Religion = scripture, law, theology.

Standard Rules

- No forfeit, no disrespect, no bare assertions & no shotgun argumentation.

- BOF:
the burden of proof is on Pro, for he is making the affirmative claim.

- Sources: authentic & authoritative. (In case they are in a foreign language, a translation should be provided in a google document, at least for the relevant parts.)

Best of luck.

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting, I will try to limit my topics in this round so you can respond to them all. I'll limit my sources to Quran, Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

1) Moon split miracle

Islam claims that the Moon miraculously split into two pieces and then put back together.
"The Hour has come near, and the moon has split"[1]
"Narrated Anas: That the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon."[2]

While NASA denied any proof that the Moon was split into two[3], also since the moon is visible to half the planet at any given time. The Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese and Indians had avid astronomers who should have seen this event and recorded it in their histories. The absence of historical record from other civilizations is a strong indication that this event never happened.

2) Mathematical error in hereditary laws

"Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate. And if there is only one, for her is half. And for one's parents, to each one of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children. But if he had no children and the parents [alone] inherit from him, then for his mother is one third. And if he had brothers [or sisters], for his mother is a sixth, after any bequest he [may have] made or debt. Your parents or your children - you know not which of them are nearest to you in benefit. [These shares are] an obligation [imposed] by Allah . Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

And for you is half of what your wives leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, for you is one fourth of what they leave, after any bequest they [may have] made or debt. And for the wives is one fourth if you leave no child. But if you leave a child, then for them is an eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you [may have] made or debt. And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants but has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is a sixth. But if they are more than two, they share a third, after any bequest which was made or debt, as long as there is no detriment [caused]. [This is] an ordinance from Allah , and Allah is Knowing and Forbearing."[4]

Let's assume the following state, 2 daughters, a wife, a mother and a father.
Each share will be:
Wife = 1/8
Daughters = 2/3
Father = 1/6
Mother = 1/6
Total = 1.125 > 1

3) Bees eat fruit

"And your Lord inspired to the bee, "Take for yourself among the mountains, houses, and among the trees and [in] that which they construct.
Then eat from all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord laid down [for you]." There emerges from their bellies a drink, varying in colors, in which there is healing for people. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought."[5]

While actually Honey Bees eat nectar and pollen from flowers.[6]

4) Earth is flat

"And the earth - We have spread it and cast therein firmly set mountains and caused to grow therein [something] of every well-balanced thing."[7]

"[It is He] who has made for you the earth as a bed [spread out] and inserted therein for you roadways and sent down from the sky, rain and produced thereby categories of various plants."[8]

"And the earth We have spread out, and excellent is the preparer."[9]

"We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do."[10]

The above verse tells all Muslims to pray towards the Ka'aba. This is only possible on a flat earth model. Due to the sphericity of the earth, a prayer in any direction will point towards the outer space (tangent to the earth's surface), not Mecca.

5) All organisms are created in pairs

"And of all things We created two mates; perhaps you will remember."[11]

So the Quran leaves asexual organisms (e.g. bacteria, protozoans, and unicellular algae and fungi), hermaphrodites (e.g. sponges, snails, the slug-like sea hare) and parthenogenetic organisms (in which growth and development of embryos occur without fertilization.) (e.g. nematodes, water fleas, some scorpions, aphids, some bees, some Phasmida and parasitic wasps).

6) We cannot leave earth

"O company of jinn and mankind, if you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority."[12]

The first space ships and travel beyond the atmosphere of earth occurred over 60 years ago. With current technology, humankind has already explored the end of the solar system. The Quran however, implies that going beyond the earth is forbidden.

7) Moon emits light

"And made the moon therein a light and made the sun a burning lamp?"[13]

The word "Noor" used in the above verse is also used in this verse to show that Allah is the "light" of the universe. Clearly the author is not implying that Allah reflects light from another source but is the source of the light.

"Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah presents examples for the people, and Allah is Knowing of all things."[14]

"Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "The sun and the moon will be folded up deprived of their light on the Day of Resurrection.""[15]


[1] Quran 54:1
[2] Sahih Al-Bukhari 4:56:831
[4] Quran 4:11-12
[5] Quran 16:68-69
[7] Quran 15:19
[8] Quran 20:53
[9] Quran 51:48
[10] Quran 2:144
[11] Quran 51:49
[12] Quran 55:33
[13] Quran 71:16
[14] Quran 24:35
[15] Sahih Al-Bukhari 2:18:158


Thanks Pro :)


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.






Debate Round No. 2


Thanks Con.

1) Moon split miracle

First of all it's very easy to come up with interpretations to any verse and change it's meaning completely.
There is no any source attached that claims that the moon splitting will happen in the future. The only opinion about that in the resources was "The verse means the moon will split at the end of time, but that doesn't deny the split of the moon the Meccan people asked." which doesn't support this claim.
The other claim that the split was actually an eclipse, the only source for that is a quote for Ibn Abbas (a companion) in a book by Al Tabarany.
Well, here is a Hadith that contradicts that.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: "The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiraa' mountain."[1]

I think it's clear that it's not an eclipse. And this is from one of the most reliable sources in Islam after Quran.

3) Bees eat fruit

Con claims that the original Arabic word "Al thamarat" also means flowers and the source attached is a book for interpretations which doesn't proof the other meaning of the word "thamarat" and can't be rely upon.
Actually the well known Arabic dictionaries like "Al Moaa'gam Al Waseet" doesn't say anything about that "thamarat" could mean flowers.[2]
Also if the meaning here was flowers it could be easily expressed using any Arabic word that really means flowers.

4) Earth is flat

Con again tries to interpret the verses and turns it into a different meaning.
Con claims that Quran talks about the gradual shift between night and day and how there are wrapping each other. The gradual shift from day to night and vice versa would still also happen on a flat earth model. The only difference is that the flat earth model would be lit up at the same time, there would be no time zones just the same night and day for everyone.
A simple experiment can be done to demonstrate the point. All that is needed is a dark room, table and flashlight. If the flashlight is slowed raised above the edge of the table (similar to a sunrise), a gradual shift from darkness to light will be observed. So the verses give no information about the Earth's shape. They are merely observations that anyone can make.
In addition, these verses erroneously refer to lightness and darkness as two different things. They are in fact the same thing. The Night does not "overlap" the Day because there is only light, and darkness is nothing but the absence of light.

Con also is giving examples about Muslims who believed in the round shape of earth. Regardless of the validity of these sources.
I can provide also examples for Muslims who believes that Earth is flat, and even until now.
Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz, the former supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, believed the earth is flat,[3][4] and so does Muslim Researcher on Astronomy Fadhel Al Saa'd, who declared in a televised debate aired on Iraqi Al-Fayhaa TV (October 31, 2007) that the Earth is flat as evidenced by Quranic verses and that the sun is much smaller than the Earth and revolves around it.[5]

5) All organisms are created in pairs

"Firstly, the verse doesn't really say ‘mates’, it says, literally, ‘pairs’."
It says "Zawgen" which in Arabic can mean mates or pairs.
Also the Arabic word for things is "shaia" which means anything can be seen or imagined[6]. That doesn't exclude organisms.

I really hoped a longer debate but I think it won't be possible. It'll be just rebuttals all along.
In this round I just want you to explain this Hadith for me which was in Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

"Narrated Anas: The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine)"[7][8]

Also there are some fatwas that claims that this is correct until now.[9]

Thanks a lot for this interesting debate.


[1] Sahih Al Bukhari 5:58:208
[4] Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ben Baz 1974, "Evidence that the Earth is Standing Still", Islamic University of Medina, Saudi Arabia. First edition, p. 23.
[7] Sahih Al Bukhari 7:71:590
[8] Sahih Muslim 16:4130


Thanks Pro.


- Reminder: Pro has the BOP.


6) We cannot leave earth

- Firstly, this verse is generally interpreted in relation to the Hereafter due to the clearly reigning theme within its context, which unambiguously imposes that the verse is related to the Hereafter, as it is preceded by: “Everyone upon the earth will perish [. . .]” (55:26) [5]. Ibn ‘Ashur [6], head of the Maliki School in his time, says in his 30-volumes Exegesis of the Qur’an at-Tahrir wat-Tanwir [7] concerning the verse: “the context of the text, anterior and ulterior, implies that the discourse is related to the Hereafter and not this life” [8]. Faker ad-Din ar-Razi, the Mujaddid of the 6th century of Islam [9], says in his 32-volumes Exegesis Mafatih al-Ghayb [10]: “Fourth question, is this discourse related to the Hereafter or to this life? We say: it is explicit and clear that it is related to the Hereafter.” [11].

- Secondly, the terminology “heaven & earth” in the Qur’an indicates the Cosmos as whole, so, in this case, it couldn’t possibly be related to the Earth or outer-space, for that would go against the linguistic limitations (of Arabic), & also the limitations of context, which wouldn’t allow it. In this case, even if we suppose the discourse concerns the actual world & not the Hereafter, “pass beyond the regions of heavens & earth”, would mean to go beyond the Universe, which is, indeed, impossible.

- Thirdly, even if we concede, for the sake of argument, Pro’s suggestion that somehow the verse is talking about the Earth (which it isn’t), then there won’t be any contradiction either. The verse doesn’t say: “you shall not pass”, it says: “you will not pass, expect by the leave of Allah”.

=> It’s pretty clear that Pro’s objection here is not just baseless, for it contradicts the linguistic & literary context of the verse, but is also thoroughly invalid.

7) Moon emits light

- Surely, this is an argument against Pro. The verse illustrates a similitude between the Sun & a burning lump, in the aspect of generating light ; & also between the moon & light, in the sense of not generating it. “In considering that the moon is ‘Nur' (light) is an allusion to the fact that the moonlight is not intrinsic [. . .]” Ibn ‘Ashur [12].

- As for Pro’s contention that the word ‘Nur' (light) is used in relation to Allah, such as in: “Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.”, well:

> One: ‘Nur' literally means ‘Light’, not ‘source of light’.

> Two: is Pro suggesting that Allah, or God, emits light, as in photons?! Of course not! ‘Light’ here is obviously NOT literal, “Informing that Allah is Light is undoubtedly allegorical, for it is restrained by the doctrinal basis of Islam in that Allah is not material nor contingent nor an essence” Ibn ‘Ashur [13]. Such as in: “[Allah] brings them out from darknesses into the light (‘Nur’).” (2:257) [14], meaning from “the darkness of ignorance & doubt” to the “light of truth & proof” [15].

- Finally, concerning the Hadith. It looks perfectly fine to me, & don’t see any arguments provided by Pro showing any contradiction.


1) Moon split miracle

- Firstly, Pro has yet to prove that the splitting of the moon never happened, which his source, NASA, does not support. No evidence for the positive does not imply evidence for the negative! Thus, the interpretation that the split happened has yet to be refuted.

- Secondly, regardless if such event happened or not. Other interpretations are available & equally supported by scholars. The moon-split being in the future is supported by scholars across history, namely: al-Hasan (d. 728), ‘Ataa (d. 732), al-Balkhi (d. 810), al-Qu’shayri (d. 1074). . , al-Mawardi (d. 1058) even mentions that this position is the majority opinion [1].

- Lastly, the event is not physically impossible. Some scholars [1] suggested that it may be an astroid occultation [16], which are extremely rare events with very tiny viewing area, which may explain why it wasn’t observed widely, which may also explain why Ibn ‘Abbas & others have referred to the ‘split’ as ‘eclipse’.

=> Pro has not been successful in refuting even one interpretation of the verse, concluding against the verse is thus invalid.

3) Bees eat fruit

- Pro is being a little unreasonable here. If the linguist says “Thamarah” refers to flowers, then it does. Pro’s contention is thus invalid. Not finding a word in a tiny Arabic online dictionary, does not imply in that it doesn’t exist! Serious Arabic dictionaries are as expanded as 40 volumes long (such as Taj al-‘Arus [17]). In fact, “thamarah” can also mean: vegetation, off-spring, wealth, date. . . & have been used to refer to ‘flowers’ by poets such as at-Tarmah (d. 743) [18] ; from the classic dictionary: Lisan al-‘Arab [19].

4) Earth is flat

- Pro here is clearly arguing a straw-man! He ignored the points I made about the global shape of the Earth & resorted to misrepresenting my argument.

- As previously established, “Yukawwiru” (meaning: ‘englobe’, or literally ‘form into a global shape’) is used in the verse, which strictly contradicts a flat-earth model, & is necessarily compatible with a round-earth model. In fact, saying “the Earth is spherical” in Arabic is “al-Ard Kurawwiya”, ‘Kurawiyya’ being the exact adjective of the verb ‘Yukawwiru’.

- The links to the sources of the quotations I mentioned:

> Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) [20].

> Abu al-Husein Ibn al-Munadi (d. 947) [21].

> Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328) [22].

- As for Pro’s false claim that Sheikh Abdulaziz Ibn Baz believed the Earth is flat! Well, Pro’s very dubious source claims Ibn Baz issued a fatwa: “The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment.”. So, if that were true, then, is Ibn Baz thereby calling all muslims, including the companions & all the great scholars who believed the Earth to be round, atheists?! He must surely be mad!!! Now, of course that’s not true. This is obviously a made up claim, especially since Ibn Baz denies ever saying that in his official website [23], & especially since there is an audio recording of him saying: “the Earth is round according to the scholars, & there is a consensus between scholars that the Earth is round” [24].

5) All organisms are created in pairs

- ‘Zawjayn’ means, literally: ‘pair’ or ‘two’, & could mean figuratively: ‘mates’.

- Pro essentially concedes this point, by admitting that the verse is referring to “all things” not “all organisms”. If we suppose that Pro’s reasoning is right, that is: all things are created as sexual mates, then what about rocks & metals & stuff!? This clearly leads to nonsensical conclusions.

The Hadith:

* Narrated Anas: “the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine)"

- I am not what’s Pro’s objection here, as he did not advance any arguments. It is known that piss of animals is used as medicine in many cases. For instance, Premarin, a drug manufactured from horse urine to treat menopausal symptoms & other conditions [25]. Camel urine also was & still is used to treat swelling, tuberculosis & other conditions [26].


- Lastly, Pro has not been successful in proving one instance where the Qur’an (or Islam) contradicts science. As I’ve established, all Pro’s objections are invalid.

=> Vote Con.
























Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by AllahoAkbar 1 year ago
I'm interested to accept the challenge, if you add " no forfeit, no disrespect, only verses from the Qur'an (Saheeh international translation or Yusuf Ali translation) only, so we are both will be on the same page, limit the facts to 5 scientific facts (you chose which you like), burden of proof on Pro, no theories but facts only with sources.
if that is ok I will take the challenge.
Posted by shalal12 1 year ago
"You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age, rank or number of debates completed criteria." That's why you survived.
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 1 year ago
Islam contradicts the Bible
Posted by Kryptic 1 year ago
no... science contradicts islam, as it does Christianity. if we accept what these holy books say about the world / universe
No votes have been placed for this debate.