This text presents a debate between Dr. William Campbell and Dr. Zakir Naik regarding the compatibility of the Quran and the Bible with modern science. Campbell argues that both texts contain scientific inaccuracies, citing examples from embryology, geology, and astronomy. Naik counters by asserting that the Quran aligns perfectly with established scientific facts, while acknowledging potential interpretive issues in the Bible. The discussion includes detailed analyses of specific verses and scientific findings, with both speakers referencing historical and contemporary sources to support their positions. The debate also touches upon the different approaches to interpreting religious texts in light of scientific knowledge, with Campbell advocating a conflict approach and Naik preferring a concordance approach. The audience participates by asking questions related to these themes.

A Comprehensive Study Guide on Science and Religion

Quiz

Instructions: Answer each question in 2-3 sentences.

1. According to the source, what is the main problem with using modern definitions to understand ancient religious texts?
2. What is the Quranic word for clot, and what are its various possible translations according to the provided text?
3. What scientific claim did Dr. Bucaille make about the Quran’s description of embryology?
4. How does the Quran describe the development of bones and muscles in the human embryo, and why is this problematic according to modern embryology?
5. What are the main stages of embryological development according to Hippocrates, as presented in the text?
6. How did Harith Ben Kalada’s medical education influence his knowledge of medicine?
7. What role did Nader Ben Hari play in the context of the Quran’s development, and what was his fate?
8. How does the Quran describe the mountains, and what did the people of Muhammad’s time understand about this description?
9. What does the source say about the Quran’s claim regarding the moon’s light?
10. What is problematic about the Quran’s statement that all animal communities are like human communities?

Answer Key

1. The main problem is that meanings of words can change over time, and applying modern definitions to ancient texts can lead to misinterpretations of the original intent. The text states that to understand the scriptures, one must use the meanings known at the time the text was written, which were based on the context of their time.
2. The Quranic word for a clot is “alaka.” It can be translated as a clot of blood, a leech-like clot, or something that clings. The translation has changed to include clinging which is meant to reflect the attachment of the fetus to the uterus.
3. Dr. Bucaille claimed that the word “alaka” should be translated as something which clings, referring to the fetus attached to the uterus via the placenta, and that previous translations as “clot” were incorrect. He also argues that no one had translated the Quran correctly before him.
4. The Quran gives an impression of the skeleton forming first, then being closed with flesh, which differs from the scientific understanding of muscle and cartilage precursors forming simultaneously. This is scientifically problematic as cartilage and muscle develop alongside the cartilage precursors of bones.
5. Hippocrates described embryology in stages: sperm comes from the whole body of each parent, coagulation of mother’s blood contains the seed embryo, flesh forms from the mother’s blood, and bones grow hard and send out branches.
6. Harith Ben Kalada was educated at the medical school of Jundi Shapur in Persia, giving him an understanding of Greek medical teachings, specifically those of Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Galen. He brought that education back to Arabia and practiced medicine.
7. Nader Ben Hari was a contemporary of Muhammad who had knowledge of Persian and music, but he was critical of some Quranic stories, which led to his execution after being taken prisoner. He was known to mock some of the stories in the Quran and was thus not sympathetic to Muhammad.
8. The Quran describes mountains as firmly placed on Earth to prevent shaking, like tent pegs or anchors. The people of Muhammad’s time likely understood this to mean the mountains prevented the Earth from violent movements and earthquakes.
9. The source argues that the Quran does not say that the moon reflects light. It uses the word “nur” (light), which, according to the source, indicates that the moon has its own light, just like Allah, and that the concept of reflected light was known well before Muhammad.
10. The source argues that the Quran incorrectly states that all animal communities mirror human communities. It then cites examples of behaviors in some animal communities which are not present in human communities such as cannibalism of mates, the death of non-mating males, and the killing of offspring by invading males.

Essay Questions

Instructions: Please answer each question in essay format.

1. Analyze the various interpretations of the word “alaka” within the Quran, and discuss how these interpretations highlight the intersection of linguistic analysis, scientific understanding, and religious interpretation.
2. Compare and contrast the embryological theories of Hippocrates and the depiction of embryology in the Quran, and evaluate the claim that the Quran’s description of embryology was influenced by the Greek tradition.
3. Discuss the significance of historical context and common knowledge when interpreting religious texts, using the Quran’s statements about embryology, mountains, and the moon as case studies.
4. Evaluate the arguments for and against the notion that the Quran contains scientific miracles, focusing on claims related to embryology, the water cycle, and the moon’s light.
5. Analyze the different approaches of Dr. William Campbell and Dr. Zakir Naik in their interpretation of both scientific and religious texts. Discuss the significance of methodology for the study of both religion and science.

Glossary of Key Terms

Alaka: An Arabic word from the Quran, often translated as “clot,” “leech-like substance,” or “something which clings;” used to describe an early stage of human embryonic development.

Embryology: The study of the formation and development of embryos.

Jundi Shapur: A historical city in Persia that had a major medical school which was a center for the translation of Greek medical texts.

Concordist Approach: An approach that seeks to harmonize or reconcile different interpretations or perspectives, usually in reference to science and religion.

Conflict Approach: An approach that views science and religion as fundamentally at odds with each other.

Nuta: A Quranic term referring to a sperm drop.

Mudgha: A Quranic term referring to a piece of chewed meat.

Adam: A Quranic term referring to bones.

Siraj: An Arabic word, used in the Quran, which translates to “lamp.”

Munir/Nur: Arabic words, used in the Quran, which translate to “light” and are argued by some to indicate the reflection of light.

Rasia: An Arabic term used in the Quran to describe the mountains as stable features of Earth.

Barzakh: An Arabic word used in the Quran for a barrier which separates salt and fresh water.

Plate Tectonics: The scientific theory describing the movement and interaction of Earth’s crustal plates.

Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon that is yet to be proven.

Falsification Test: A scientific test that seeks to disprove, rather than prove, a hypothesis.

Quran, Bible, and Science: A Comparative Analysis

Okay, here is a detailed briefing document summarizing the main themes and important ideas from the provided text.

Briefing Document: Analysis of “Pasted Text” Excerpts

Introduction:

This document analyzes excerpts from a transcript of a presentation and subsequent discussion, primarily focused on the relationship between the Quran, the Bible, and modern scientific understanding. The core arguments revolve around interpreting religious texts, specifically regarding scientific claims, and whether these texts are consistent with current knowledge. Key figures include the speaker (presumably Dr. William Campbell), Dr. Zakir Naik, and various scientists and scholars referenced throughout.

Main Themes and Ideas:

1. The Importance of Historical Context in Textual Interpretation:

• The speaker argues that interpreting religious texts, like the Bible and the Quran, must consider the original meaning of words at the time of their writing, within their specific historical context.
• Quote: “if we are going to follow the truth we may not make up new meanings. If we are seriously after truth there are no permissible lies here.”
• He uses the example of the word “pig” and how its meaning has evolved, demonstrating that modern interpretations should not be applied retroactively. He argues that “pigs” in the Quran cannot be interpreted to mean “police officers”.
• This principle of contextual interpretation is applied to the embryological descriptions within the Quran.

1. Analysis of Quranic Embryology:

• The speaker analyzes the Quranic verses that describe the stages of human development, focusing on the word “alaka.” He highlights various translations of “alaka” (clot, leech-like clot, etc.), noting the scientific inaccuracy of the ‘clot’ translation
• Quote: “…this word alaka has been translated as follows… three are in French where it says and or a clot of blood… five versions are English where it’s either clot or leech-like clot… as every reader who will study human reproduction will realize there is no stage as a clot during the formation of a fetus.”
• He points out that current understanding of embryology does not support a ‘clot’ stage, highlighting what he sees as a major scientific problem in traditional Quranic interpretation.
• He critiques Dr. Maurice Bucaille’s claim that “alaka” should be translated as “something which clings” to better align with modern embryology noting that even this interpretation does not align with the full process.
• The Quranic description of bone formation followed by muscle development is also presented as inaccurate. He uses statements from Dr. Sadler and Dr. Moore to refute the notion that bones form before muscles.
• He argues that these embryological ideas in the Quran mirror the common medical knowledge of the Greek physicians, such as Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen at the time of Muhammad.
• He argues that people in the 7th century AD understood these ideas as common knowledge. He suggests that these descriptions were understood by Muhammad and his contemporaries based on the Greek medical concepts that they were exposed to, not based on divinely revealed knowledge.
• He provides a detailed history of Harith ben Kalada, a physician trained in Jundi Shapur, who was a contemporary of Muhammad to demonstrate the Greek medical knowledge that was available at the time. He suggests Muhammad sent people to Harith when he was unable to treat them, showing the influence of the medical knowledge.

1. Critique of the ‘Scientific Miracles’ Claims in the Quran:

• The speaker challenges the claims of scientific foreknowledge in the Quran, specifically regarding the moon’s reflected light and the water cycle.
• He highlights the arguments of those who claim that the Quranic description of the moon’s light as “reflected” is a scientific miracle because it was supposedly only recently discovered by science.
• He then demonstrates that Aristotle knew and discussed this concept almost a thousand years before Muhammad and that the Quranic verses themselves do not actually support the claim that the moon reflects light.
• He also notes that the Quran’s language describing the moon is used to describe Muhammad himself, which further muddies this interpretation.
• He points out that the Quran does not describe the evaporation stage of the water cycle, although a biblical prophet Amos did at least a thousand years before the Quran, and this means there is no claim to scientific miracle on this topic.

1. Analysis of Quranic Statements about Mountains:

• The speaker examines Quranic verses that state that mountains are firm and immovable and were created to prevent the earth from shaking.
• He argues that this view is not supported by modern geology, which shows that mountains are formed by tectonic movement and often cause earthquakes.
• He states that the formation of mountains does not bring stability but is rather an evidence of instability.
• He states, that like the embryology description of the Quran, the claims about mountains in the Quran are based on the common, but incorrect beliefs at the time the Quran was written.

1. Critique of Other Quranic Concepts

• The speaker then challenges other statements in the Quran, including a story about King Solomon that is historically improbable, as well as that milk is derived from intestines (when in fact it comes from mammory glands), and that all animal communities live like humans.
• He refutes these points arguing they do not correspond with modern biological understanding.

1. Dr. Zakir Naik’s Counterarguments:

• The text then shifts to Dr. Zakir Naik’s counter-arguments, which included citing verses of the Quran describing the water cycle in detail, claiming that “many” geologists say that mountains provide stability to the earth.
• He focuses his counter-arguments on the interpretation of “alaka”, claiming modern embryology reveals the early embryo looks like a leech. He also claims the embryo looks like a blood clot when blood is in closed vessels, and quotes Dr. Keith Moore, an embryologist, as evidence.
• Dr. Naik argues that the Quran is for all of humanity and should be interpreted in the light of ongoing understanding, not just the understanding of the 7th century. He uses the analogy that the scientific description of “alak” in the Quran may not have been comprehensible until the scientific advancement of the current era.
• He also argues that the descriptions of moon light as “munir” mean reflected light in arabic.
• He also points out that the Quran does not say mountains prevent earthquakes, but that they prevent the Earth from shaking.
• He argues that all scientific errors are with the Bible, not the Quran.

1. The Role of Prophecy and Witnesses:

• The speaker provides his explanation about his choice not to attempt the Bible’s test of faith, he argues that such a request would be tempting God.
• The speaker turns to fulfilled prophecies as a key criteria for verifying scripture, referencing figures like Elijah, Isaiah, and Jesus.
• He presents a mathematical probability analysis of 10 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, claiming that they cannot be explained by chance.
• He contrasts the “good news” of the Gospel with the “hard news” of the Quran, which he claims offers only a “maybe” of salvation.

1. Dr. Naik’s Response to Prophecy:

• Dr. Naik argues that prophecy is not a valid test and challenges the speaker by mentioning unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible,
• He states that there is no value in comparing the Bible and Quran as if they both are equal. He argues that the third source from outside should be the one that decides. He states that it is not logical that if Bible says A and Quran says B, that Quran is wrong. Both can be right or wrong.

1. The Mark 16 Test:

• The speakers also disagree on the interpretation of the test of faith in Mark 16 (speaking in tongues, drinking poison, etc). Dr. Naik considers this a “falsification test” and challenges Dr. Campbell to perform it.
• Dr. William Campbell states that he would never tempt God and points to his friend who kept his promise and drank poison but suffered, as evidence to his commitment to his faith.

Conclusion:

The text reveals a fundamental debate on the nature of religious texts and their relationship with science. The speaker emphasizes historical context, the limitations of ancient knowledge, and the need for consistency with modern science. Dr. Naik, on the other hand, emphasizes the eternal nature of the Quran, re-interpreting certain aspects to align them with modern scientific understanding. There is a debate about the meaning of key verses, and the validity of claims of scientific foreknowledge in religious texts. Both figures have strong opinions on the veracity of their own faith and the fallibility of the other’s. Ultimately, the debate centers on two fundamental questions: 1) How should religious texts be interpreted in light of scientific advancement, and 2) What are the criteria for determining the truth of a religious text?

This briefing document is intended to provide a thorough overview of the arguments and themes presented in the source text and does not endorse either of the two conflicting positions.

Science, Scripture, and Interpretation

Frequently Asked Questions: Science, Scripture, and Interpretation

1. How should we approach interpreting religious texts like the Bible and the Quran, particularly when they touch upon scientific matters?

It’s crucial to understand these texts within their original historical and linguistic contexts. We must use the meanings of words as they were understood by the audiences at the time of revelation (e.g., 1st-century AD for the Gospels, the first century of the Hijra for the Quran). Imposing modern meanings or interpretations, especially when they contradict established scientific knowledge or even historical facts, can be misleading and inaccurate. New interpretations and meanings not present at that time are impermissible if we seek truth.

2. The Quran uses the Arabic word “alaka” to describe a stage of embryonic development. What does this term mean, and how has it been interpreted?

The word “alaka” has been translated in multiple ways including a clot of blood, a leech-like clot or something which clings. The original meaning of this word from the period in which the Quran was revealed was “clot or leech.” The Quran used this term which reflected the common understanding of embryology of that time, based on the teachings of Greek physicians. While some modern interpreters try to use “something that clings” to align with modern science, it is more accurate to understand the term within its original context, which is not scientifically correct, as there is no point where the embryo is a clot of blood.

3. Does the Quran present a scientifically accurate picture of embryological development?

The Quran describes stages like sperm, clot, a lump of flesh, bones, and muscles. However, this sequence aligns with the theories of Greek physicians like Hippocrates and Galen that were popular during that era not with modern science. Specifically the Quran gives the impression that bones are formed first, and then covered with muscles. This is scientifically inaccurate, as muscles and cartilage precursors of the bones develop at the same time. Modern interpretations of the Quran that attempt to claim scientific accuracy misrepresent the science of the time and rely on out-of-context interpretations.

4. How does the Quran describe the moon’s light, and does it align with modern scientific understanding?

The Quran uses words derived from the root “nur,” which can mean both light and reflected light when speaking about the moon. Some claim the use of these words shows a scientific miracle, by indicating the moon reflects the sun’s light. However, the Quran also describes the moon itself as “a light,” and “Allah” as “the light of the heavens and the Earth”. Furthermore the idea of the moon reflecting light was known long before Muhammad, through the study of lunar eclipses. The Quran’s primary emphasis isn’t scientific accuracy but using the knowledge of the time as a sign for the believer. These words should not be interpreted as proof of scientific prescience, as they are used in different contexts in the Quran with meanings specific to the text.

5. The Quran describes mountains as “stakes” to prevent the Earth from shaking. How does this align with geological science?

The Quran depicts mountains as anchors or tent pegs, intended to stabilize the earth and prevent earthquakes, and this was the common understanding during the time of the Quran’s revelation. However, this contradicts modern geological understanding where mountains are formed by the movement of tectonic plates, which cause earthquakes rather than prevent them. The folding process of mountains is evidence of instability not stability, and this scientific understanding is in contradiction with what was understood in the 7th century.

6. How does the Quran describe the water cycle, and does it demonstrate scientific insight?

The Quran describes rain coming from clouds but omits the crucial first stage of evaporation. While the Quran’s later stages of the water cycle were commonly understood, its lack of mention of the early stage makes it seem to be a description of known phenomena, not as evidence of pre-scientific knowledge.

7. The Quran claims that communities of animals are “like” human communities. Does this claim hold up to scientific scrutiny?

The Quran states that animals form communities “like” human communities. However, animal communities display different behaviors than humans do, with examples given of spiders consuming their mates and lion cubs being killed. The implication that all animal communities operate under social structures “like” humans is not supported by what is observed in the natural world.

8. What are some of the major issues or problems related to the claims of scientific miracles in religious texts and how should we approach such claims?

Claims that religious texts contain scientific miracles are often based on selective interpretation and imposition of modern scientific concepts onto ancient language and ideas. These claims tend to ignore the historical and linguistic contexts of the texts, as well as the common knowledge of the time. Such claims can also misrepresent current scientific findings. It’s more fruitful to approach these texts as spiritual and ethical guides, while recognizing that scientific understanding evolves and changes.

Quranic Embryology: Science, Interpretation, and Historical Context

The Quran describes the stages of embryological development using specific Arabic words, which have been interpreted and translated in different ways. The key terms and concepts related to Quranic embryology include:

• Nutfah This word translates to a minute quantity of liquid, like a trickle, and is understood to refer to sperm [1, 2]. The Quran states that humans are created from nutfah [1]. It is also described as a mingled fluid [1, 3].
• Alaq This word is translated as something which clings, leech-like substance, or a clot of blood [2, 4-6]. It is the second stage in the Quran’s description of embryological development [4]. The Quran also mentions that humans were created from Alaq [5].
• Some translators and scholars interpret alaq as a blood clot [4, 7]. However, others argue that the word means “something which clings,” referring to the attachment of the fetus to the uterus [5]. It has also been described as a leech-like substance, or a clot of blood [6].
• It has been argued that in its early stages, an embryo looks like a leech, and also behaves like a leech, receiving its blood supply from the mother [2]. It has also been described as looking like a clot of blood in its early stages where the blood is clotted within closed vessels and blood circulation does not yet take place [2].
• Mudghah This term translates to a lump of flesh or a chewed-like substance [2, 4]. The Quran states that the alaq is then transformed into mudghah [2].
• ‘Adam This refers to bones [2, 4]. According to the Quran, bones are formed after the mudghah stage [4].
• The final stage In the final stage, the bones are clothed with flesh [3, 4]. The Quran also mentions that after the bones are formed they are covered with muscles [4].

The Quranic verses describing embryology [4]:

• State that humans are created from dust, then a sperm drop, and then a leech-like clot (alaq) [4].
• Mention a process of development from a sperm drop to a clot, then to a lump of flesh (mudghah), then to bones and then the dressing of the bones with flesh [3, 4].
• Describe the stages of development in order as: nutfah, alaq, mudghah, ‘adam, and the dressing of bones with muscles [4].
• The Quran emphasizes the stages of creation and transformation of one state to another including the darknesses of the membranes [8].

Interpretations and Scientific Perspectives:

• Some modern interpretations of the Quranic verses on embryology claim they are in line with modern scientific understanding [5, 6].
• Some argue that the word alaq should be translated as something which clings, referring to the fetus being attached to the uterus through the placenta [5].
• Some scholars note the similarity in appearance between an early-stage embryo and a leech, in addition to its leech-like behavior in receiving blood from the mother [2].
• It is also argued that during the third week of the embryo’s development, the blood circulation does not take place and therefore it assumes the appearance of a clot [2].
• There are those who argue that the Quranic description is based on appearance. The stages are divided based on appearance, not on function [9].
• It has been noted that the precursors of the muscles and cartilage, or bones, form together [9].
• Some believe that the stages of embryological development as described in the Quran are superior to modern embryology’s stages [9].

Historical Context:

• The speaker in the sources argues that the Quran’s description of embryological development is not unique, as similar ideas were present in the writings of ancient Greek physicians like Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen [3, 10].
• The speaker says that these Greek physicians believed that the male sperm mixes with female menstrual blood, which then clots to form a baby. They also believed that there was a time when the fetus was formed and unformed, and that bones formed first and then were covered with muscle [11].
• The Quran’s description of embryology is said to be similar to the theories of these physicians, and it is argued that the people of Muhammad’s time were familiar with these ideas [11, 12].
• The speaker notes that Arab physicians after Muhammad continued to adhere to the embryological ideas of Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Galen up to the 1600s [8].
• There is an argument in the source that no confirming examples have been provided from the Arab use in the centuries surrounding the “haera” that the word “alaq” can mean a 3mm embryo or “the thing that clings” [13].

Points of Contention:

• Some argue that the Quran is in complete error in describing the stages of embryological development [13].
• One argument against the Quran’s description of embryology is that there is no stage during fetal development where it is a clot [4].
• It is argued that the Quran is incorrect because bones do not form first before the muscles [13].
• There is a debate about whether the word alaq should be translated as a clot, leech-like substance or something that clings [5, 6].
• The translation and interpretation of these terms has led to various claims about the scientific accuracy of the Quran [4, 5].

It is important to note that the scientific understanding of embryology has advanced significantly since the time of the Quran, and there are different viewpoints on whether the Quranic descriptions are consistent with modern science [5, 12].

Scientific Claims in the Quran and Bible

The sources present a discussion of alleged scientific errors in both the Quran and the Bible, focusing on claims made by Dr. William Campbell and Dr. Zakir Naik. The discussion covers topics such as embryology, astronomy, zoology, and other scientific concepts.

Quranic Errors (as claimed by Dr. Campbell):

• Embryology:The term alaq, which is translated as a clot, leech-like substance or something that clings, is a major point of contention. Dr. Campbell argues that there is no stage in fetal development where it is a clot, and that the word should be translated as ‘clot’ because that was the understanding of the word at the time the Quran was written [1-6]. He also argues that there is no evidence from the time of the Quran that the term alaq was understood to mean “a 3mm embryo or the thing that clings” [4].
• Dr. Campbell states that the Quran is in error because bones are not formed before muscles [3-5]. He states that muscles begin to form from somites at the same time as cartilage models of bones [5, 6].
• The Quran describes the stages as: nutfa (sperm), alaq, mudghah (a lump of flesh), bones, and then the dressing of bones with muscles [2, 7]. It has been argued that the stages are based on appearance [8].
• Moonlight:The Quran uses different words for the light of the sun and the moon, which some Muslims claim indicates that the sun is a source of light while the moon only reflects light [6]. Dr. Campbell notes that this claim is made by Shabir Ali and Dr. Zakir Naik [6].
• Milk Production:The Quran states that milk comes from between excretions and blood in the abdomen [9]. Dr. Campbell states that this is not correct because mammary glands are under the skin and not connected to the intestines or feces [9].
• Animal Communities:The Quran states that animals form communities like humans [9]. Dr. Campbell notes that many animals do not form communities like humans (e.g., spiders, bees, lions), and the statement is not true [9].

Biblical Errors (as claimed by Dr. Naik):

• Creation:The Bible says that the universe was created in six days, with light created on the first day and the sun on the fourth day [10, 11]. Dr. Naik argues this is unscientific, as the cause of light cannot be created later than light itself [11].
• The Bible states that the Earth was created on the third day, before the sun [11]. Dr. Naik argues that this is not scientifically accurate because the Earth cannot come into existence before the sun [11].
• The Bible says that vegetation was created on the third day, before the sun, which is unscientific [11].
• The Bible says that the sun and the moon are lamps and have their own light, which is in contradiction with scientific knowledge [11].
• Hydrology:The Bible states that God placed a rainbow in the sky as a promise never to submerge the world again by water [12, 13]. Dr. Naik argues that rainbows occur due to the refraction of sunlight with rain or mist, and there were likely rainbows before Noah [13].
• Zoology:The Bible says that the hare is a cud-chewer and that insects have four feet which is unscientific [14].
• The Bible says that serpents eat dust [14].
• The Bible describes ants as having no ruler, overseer, or chief, which contradicts the scientific understanding of ant societies [14].
• The Bible mentions mythical animals such as unicorns [14].
• Mathematics:Dr. Naik claims there are numerous mathematical contradictions in the Bible, listing discrepancies in numbers of people listed in different books [15-17]. For example, Dr. Naik states there are 18 contradictions in less than 60 verses in Ezra and Nehemiah [15, 16].
• Dr. Naik argues there are contradictions regarding the age of certain figures in the Bible [18]. For example, he states that the Bible says that Ahaziah was both 22 and 42 when he began to reign [18]. He also notes a contradiction that the son was 2 years older than the father [17, 18].
• There is a contradiction in the Bible about whether Michelle had sons or no sons [17].
• There are contradictory genealogies of Jesus [17].
• Medicine:The Bible gives instructions for disinfecting a house from leprosy using blood, which is unscientific [13].
• The Bible says that a woman is unclean for a longer period if she gives birth to a female child than to a male child [13, 15].
• The Bible describes a “bitter water test” for adultery [15].
• Other:The Bible says that the Earth will both perish and abide forever, which is contradictory [19].
• The Bible says that the heavens have pillars [20].
• The Bible says that all plants are food, including poisonous ones [20].
• The Bible describes a scientific test for a true believer, such as being able to drink poison and not be harmed [20]. Dr. Naik states that he has never met a Christian who can pass this test [12, 20].

Points of Contention and Rebuttals:

• Dr. Naik argues that the Bible is not the injeel revealed to Jesus, and that it contains words of prophets, historians, and absurdities, as well as scientific errors [10]. He states that a God’s revelation cannot contain scientific errors [10].
• Dr. Campbell acknowledges some of the problems in the Bible, particularly with the creation account, but says they may be long periods of time [21-23]. He also states that he does not have good answers for them [21, 23]. He also says that he believes the Bible was written by God, and it is not up to him to explain what God said [24]. He argues that the Bible has fulfilled prophecies and valid history [18, 25].
• Dr. Naik argues that the Quran does not contradict established science and that the Quran is the ultimate criteria [26]. He notes that the Quran may contradict scientific theories but not established facts [27]. He also argues that scientific facts, like that the world is spherical, are mentioned in the Quran [27, 28]. He also notes that the Quran’s description of stages of development of the embryo are based on appearance [8, 29].
• Dr. Naik emphasizes that the Quran is the textbook of Arabic grammar and therefore cannot have a grammatical error [30]. He states that the eloquence of the Quran is superior and that what may seem to be grammatical errors are actually examples of high eloquence [31].
• Dr. Naik and Dr. Campbell disagree about whether or not the Bible’s description of a barrier between salt and fresh water is accurate, with Dr. Campbell arguing there is not a physical barrier [21, 32].
• Dr. Campbell argues that he is not willing to be tested by the Bible’s statements about being able to drink poison and not be harmed, as he does not want to tempt God [33].

The sources present a debate about the scientific accuracy of the Quran and the Bible, with each side pointing out alleged errors in the other’s text and defending their own. It is important to note that the interpretation of religious texts and their relationship to science is a complex issue with diverse perspectives.

Quranic Embryology: Science and Interpretation

The sources discuss embryological stages as described in the Quran and compare them to both historical and modern scientific understandings [1-16]. There is a significant debate about the accuracy of the Quran’s descriptions of these stages, specifically focusing on the meaning of the Arabic word alaq [1-3].

Quranic Stages of Embryological Development:

• The Quran describes the stages of human development in several passages, most notably in Surah 23:12-14 [2, 15, 16]:
• Nutfa: A drop of seed or sperm [2].
• Alaq: This term is the center of much debate. It is variously translated as a clot, a leech-like clot, or something that clings. Dr. Campbell argues that the word means clot, and that the other meanings are modern interpretations that do not align with the historical understanding of the word [1-3, 5]. Dr. Zakir Naik says that it can be translated as something which clings or a leech-like substance [14, 15].
• Mudghah: A lump of flesh, or something that is like a chewed substance [2, 16].
• ‘Adam: Bones [2].
• Dressing the bones with muscles [2, 15, 16].
• These stages are presented in the Quran as a sign of God’s creation and as something to consider for those who have doubts about the resurrection [6].

Interpretations and Scientific Challenges:

• The meaning of alaq:
• Dr. Campbell argues that the primary meaning of alaq is “clot,” and that this was the understanding of the word at the time the Quran was written [1-3, 5]. He says that there is no evidence to show that alaq could mean a 3mm embryo or something that clings in the language used during the time of Muhammad [5]. He claims that the other meanings were proposed later to harmonize the Quran with modern science [3].
• Dr. Campbell quotes Dr. Morris Bucaille, who says that the majority of translations of the Quran describe man’s formation from a blood clot, which he says is unacceptable to scientists specializing in the field [3]. Dr. Bucaille suggests that alaq should be translated as “something which clings”, referring to the fetus being attached to the uterus through the placenta [3].
• Dr. Campbell disputes this by pointing out that this doesn’t explain the next stage of the chewed meat, and that the thing which clings is attached by the placenta [3].
• Dr. Zakir Naik argues that alaq can mean a “leech-like substance” or “something which clings” [14, 15]. He states that the early embryo resembles a leech, and that it receives blood from the mother like a blood sucker [15]. He also says that the embryo resembles a clot of blood because in the initial stages, the blood is clotted within closed vessels [15].
• Bone and Muscle Development:The Quran’s description gives the impression that the skeleton forms first and then is covered with flesh [3].
• Dr. Campbell asserts that this is incorrect, as muscles and the cartilage precursors of bones begin forming from the somites at the same time [3, 4, 10]. He cites Dr. T.W. Sadler and Dr. Keith Moore, who both agree that muscles are present and capable of movement before calcified bones [4].
• Dr. Zakir Naik states that the Quran is describing stages based on appearance, not function, and that the precursors of muscles and bones form together [16]. He says that bones are formed after the 42nd day, and muscles are formed later [16].
• Historical Context:
• Dr. Campbell suggests that the Quran follows earlier theories of embryology put forth by Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen [6-10]. These theories held that the fetus developed from the combination of semen and menstrual blood, and that bones formed before the muscles [6, 7].
• Dr. Campbell notes that Arab physicians after Muhammad continued to use these older theories to explain the Quran [9, 10].

Dr. Keith Moore’s perspective:

• Dr. Moore is a scientist and author on embryology, who is mentioned several times in the sources [1, 5, 13, 14].
• Dr. Moore is quoted in a pamphlet by Dr. Campbell, as saying that the idea of an embryo developing in stages was not discussed until the 15th century [1].
• Dr. Moore is reported to have proposed that alaq should be understood as referring to the leech-like appearance and chewed-like stages of human development [5].
• Dr. Naik states that Dr. Moore, after examining the early stages of an embryo under a microscope and comparing it with the photograph of a leech, was astonished at the resemblance [17]. He also says that Dr. Moore stated that the stages of embryology in the Quran are superior to the stages described in modern embryology [18]. He says that Dr. Moore accepted that Muhammad was a messenger of God and that the Quran was divine revelation [18].
• Dr. Campbell notes that Dr. Moore agreed with Dr. Sadler’s statement that there is no time when calcified bones are formed and then the muscles are placed around them [4].
• Dr. Campbell challenges Dr. Moore’s interpretation of alaq, stating that a 23 day embryo does not look like a leech [5].

Key Points of Disagreement:

• The interpretation of the Arabic word alaq and whether it is correctly translated as clot, leech-like substance, or something that clings.
• The timing of bone and muscle development and whether the Quran’s description of the sequence is scientifically accurate.
• Whether the Quran’s embryological descriptions are based on appearance, or if they are intended to be descriptions of the biological process.

The sources present conflicting views on the accuracy of the Quran’s description of embryological stages. Dr. Campbell asserts that the Quran is in error when compared with modern science, while Dr. Naik contends that the Quran is compatible with modern science and that it is the Bible that contains scientific errors.

Quran, Bible, and Science: A Comparative Study of the Water Cycle

The sources discuss the water cycle, comparing descriptions in the Quran and the Bible with modern scientific understanding [1-5].

Quranic Description of the Water Cycle:

• The Quran describes the water cycle in detail, using several verses [4, 5].
• Dr. Zakir Naik cites several verses that describe the various stages of the water cycle [6].
• The Quran describes the water cycle, including how water evaporates, forms into clouds, and falls as rain [5, 6]. It also mentions the replenishment of the water table [6].
• A key point of contention is whether the Quran explicitly mentions evaporation. Dr. William Campbell states that the Quran does not mention evaporation [3, 4].
• Dr. Zakir Naik counters that Surah 86, verse 11, refers to the capacity of the heavens to return rain, which most commentators interpret as referring to evaporation [5]. He further argues that the verse is more accurate than simply mentioning evaporation because it also includes the returning of other beneficial matter and energy [5].
• Dr. Naik also mentions that the Quran speaks of clouds joining together, stacking up, and producing thunder and lightning [6].

Biblical Descriptions of the Water Cycle:

• Dr. William Campbell presents verses from the Bible that mention parts of the water cycle [3].
• He cites the prophet Amos, who describes God calling for the waters of the sea and pouring them out over the land, suggesting an understanding of the movement of water from the sea to the land [3].
• He also cites the book of Job, which mentions God drawing up drops of water, distilling them from the mist as rain, and clouds pouring down moisture, which suggests the process of evaporation, cloud formation, and rain [3].
• Dr. Campbell emphasizes that the Bible, specifically the book of Amos, describes the difficult-to-observe stage of evaporation, more than a thousand years before the Quran [3].
• Dr. Naik argues that the biblical descriptions of the water cycle are incomplete. He notes that the description from the book of Amos refers to the “spray of the ocean” being picked up by the wind and falling as rain, without mention of clouds [5].

Points of Agreement and Disagreement

• Both the Quran and the Bible describe aspects of the water cycle [3-6].
• The key disagreement is whether the Quran explicitly mentions evaporation [3, 5]. Dr. Campbell says that it does not [3]. Dr. Naik argues that a verse in the Quran describes the returning of rain and includes evaporation [5].
• Dr. Naik contends that the Quran provides a more detailed and comprehensive description of the water cycle than the Bible, while Dr. Campbell suggests the Bible includes the difficult-to-observe aspect of evaporation [5, 6].
• Dr. Naik also claims that the Bible’s description of rain formation is based on a 7th century BC philosophy that does not include cloud formation [5].

Modern Scientific Understanding

• The sources also describe the modern scientific understanding of the water cycle, which includes four key stages:

1. Evaporation: Water turns into vapor.
2. Cloud formation: Water vapor condenses into clouds.
3. Precipitation: Water falls back to Earth as rain.
4. Plant growth: Rain allows plants to grow and replenishes the water table [3].

• The sources agree that stages 2-4 (cloud formation, rain, and plant growth) are well-known and easily observed [3].
• The main difference between the biblical and Quranic descriptions is whether each includes or implies evaporation [3, 5].

In summary, the discussion of the water cycle in the sources centers on whether the Quran and the Bible accurately describe the process of evaporation, cloud formation, rain, and replenishing of the water table. The main point of debate is the Quran’s description of evaporation, which Dr. Campbell claims is missing, and which Dr. Naik argues is implied in a verse about the “capacity of the heavens to return”. Dr. Naik presents a detailed description of the water cycle based on Quranic verses, while Dr. Campbell focuses on the biblical description that includes the difficult to observe stage of evaporation.

Naik vs. Campbell: A Debate on Biblical Inerrancy

The sources present a debate about the inerrancy of the Bible, with Dr. Zakir Naik arguing that it contains numerous scientific and other errors, while Dr. William Campbell defends its validity, emphasizing fulfilled prophecies and historical accuracy.

Dr. Naik’s Arguments Against Biblical Inerrancy:

• Scientific Errors: Dr. Naik points out numerous alleged scientific errors in the Bible [1-5].
• He argues that the Bible’s description of creation in six days is unscientific, as is the order of creation. [2, 4]
• He claims the Bible incorrectly states that the Earth has pillars and that the heavens have pillars [4, 5].
• He states that the Bible says that the light of the moon is its own light [6].
• He argues that the Bible says that all plants are safe to eat, without acknowledging poisonous plants [5, 6].
• He says that the Bible incorrectly identifies the hare as a cud-chewer and insects as having four feet [3].
• He says the Bible states that serpents eat dust [3].
• He argues that the Bible contains an unscientific method of disinfecting a house from leprosy [6, 7]
• He criticizes the Bible’s description of the rainbow as a sign of God’s promise never to submerge the world again, as rainbows are a natural phenomenon [6-8].
• He says that the Bible contains a test for adultery that is not based on science [6, 7, 9].
• Mathematical Contradictions: Dr. Naik highlights multiple mathematical contradictions in the Bible [6, 9-11].
• He points to discrepancies in the numbers of people returning from exile in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah [6, 9, 10].
• He notes differing accounts of the age of Jehoiachin when he began to reign [6, 10].
• He also mentions conflicting accounts of the amount of water in Solomon’s molten sea [6, 10].
• He says there are contradictions about the numbers of fighting men in the books of Samuel and Chronicles [12]
• He points to a contradiction about whether Michelle, the daughter of Saul, had sons or not [12].
• He also notes contradictions in the genealogy of Jesus [12]
• Unfulfilled Prophecies: Dr. Naik argues that the Bible contains unfulfilled prophecies, which, according to him, disprove it as the word of God [13].
• He claims that the prophecy in Genesis about Cain being a wanderer was not fulfilled because Cain built a city [13].
• He states that a prophecy in Jeremiah about Jehoiakim not having anyone sit on his throne was not fulfilled [13].
• He also argues that a prophecy in Isaiah about a virgin birth was not fulfilled [14].
• Other Issues:Dr. Naik argues that the Bible is not the injeel (revelation) given to Jesus, and contains words of prophets, historians, absurdities, and obscenities [2].
• He states that the Bible was only meant for the children of Israel, while the Quran is for all of humanity [15].
• He states that the Bible contains errors that appear to be plagiarized from earlier Greek writers such as Hypocrites [16, 17].
• He claims that there is no unequivocal statement in the Bible where Jesus says “I am God” or “Worship me” [18].
• He claims that the Bible contains a description of the shape of the earth as flat [19, 20].
• He argues that Jesus did not fulfill the sign of Jonah (three days and three nights in the earth), and that Jesus’ death and resurrection do not match the details of the story of Jonah [21, 22].
• He contrasts the “hard news” of the Quran with the “good news” of the Gospel [23]. He states that in the Quran, even those who have done their best can only hope that they may be among the blessed, whereas in the Bible people are promised salvation through belief in Jesus [23].

Dr. Campbell’s Defense of the Bible:

• Prophecy: Dr. Campbell emphasizes the importance of fulfilled prophecies as evidence of the Bible’s truth [24, 25].
• He presents a mathematical study of prophecies, using the theory of probabilities, to show the unlikelihood of prophecies being fulfilled by chance [25].
• He cites specific prophecies, such as the one from Jeremiah about the Messiah coming from David’s line, which he says was fulfilled by Jesus [25].
• He claims that there are 500 witnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead [19, 23]
• Historical Accuracy: Dr. Campbell highlights the archaeological evidence that supports the historical accounts in the Bible [11, 23].
• He refers to ancient texts that support the Biblical accounts, such as the Cyrus Cylinder [25]
• Interpretation: He suggests that some of the problems cited in the Bible stem from interpretation and that the days mentioned in the Bible can be long periods of time [26].
• Faith: He emphasizes his belief that the Bible was written by God, and that God put the various stories and instructions in the Bible [27].
• Jesus’ Divinity: Dr. Campbell says that Jesus did claim to be the Son of God and divine, citing specific passages where he says “I am” and “I and the Father are one” [28]. He also notes that the Bible says that Jesus is the word of God, and that the word was God [28].
• Rebuttal of Scientific Claims:He challenges Dr. Naik’s interpretation of verses about the mountains [29] and the barriers between fresh and salt water [26].
• He notes that a friend of his was protected from poison based on his trust in a verse from the Bible [30].
• Textual Evidence:He states that the current Bible is the same as the original texts, citing the existence of texts from 180 AD [31].
• He says that people alive at that time knew that the texts were based on the word of John, one of Jesus’ disciples [31].

Points of Disagreement:

• Scientific Accuracy: Dr. Naik argues that the Bible is full of scientific errors, while Dr. Campbell says that the Bible is consistent with science.
• Mathematical Consistency: Dr. Naik says that the Bible contains numerous mathematical contradictions. Dr. Campbell does not directly address these points other than to say that there are some things in the Bible that he cannot explain [32].
• Prophetic Fulfillment: Dr. Campbell emphasizes the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. Dr. Naik argues that there are unfulfilled prophecies, and also questions the interpretation and validity of fulfilled prophecies.
• Interpretation: Dr. Campbell suggests that some of the problems in the Bible stem from interpretation, while Dr. Naik suggests they are clear errors.
• Jesus’ Divinity: Dr. Naik states that Jesus never claimed to be God. Dr. Campbell claims that the Bible says he is divine.

In conclusion, the sources present a stark contrast between the views of Dr. Naik, who argues that the Bible is demonstrably flawed, and Dr. Campbell, who maintains its inerrancy. Dr. Naik uses scientific, mathematical, and historical arguments to challenge the Bible’s credibility, while Dr. Campbell relies on fulfilled prophecies, historical accuracy, and faith to support its validity.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!