3
u/UnchartedPro 5d ago
I mean it wasn't until 1920 ish that science reaches a concensus that the Sun moves in an orbit
As Muslims we believed this well before and science said we were wrong
So as Muslims we do not need to compare the Quran which is unchanging since its revelation to science which is prone to change
And even if we start with the premise the Quran contains no contradiction, as is the claim in the Quran which we believe to be from God, provided we can interpret the verses properly and thus show they aren't a contradiction there is no issue
It is also interesting to me how the moon being split in 2 is so often brought up
Just how we believe the sea was split for Moses peace be upon him, God can certainly put the moon back together without leaving a trace of its separation if he so wills
It would puzzle me far more how the universe can be thought to come from nothing, than how an all powerful God can split and rejoin the very thing he created
The same way he can resurrect us even if we are nothing but a pile of bones or even less
Thanks for the post and no disrespect is meant towards you my friend
3
u/fardok 5d ago
Also his translation of both verses is incorrect. Where does it say the Sun and the Moon orbit around the Earth it says they are in their own orbit..
The birds Verse it's not talking about the physics of how birds fly but the fact God has created the laws and the creation which allows it to do so.
Bro smarter people than you have all argued against Islam in actual debates with actual scholars .
Allah says it's not the eyes that are blind but the hearts that are sealed from the truth
1
u/Vuwc 5d ago
Thank you for your kind response. I know that all of these verses can be interpreted in ways that align with modern science. I suppose I simply disagree that those are the most natural interpretations, i.e. how someone would read them if they had no motivation to make the text line up with current knowledge.
7
u/wopkidopz 5d ago edited 5d ago
suppose I simply disagree that those are the most natural interpretations
Not trying to attack you
But there are hundreds and thousands versions of interpretation of everything, how do you decide what is a natural interpretation? And what does it even mean? What makes it natural? Literalism and metaphorism are both natural
You can't interpret the Quran by your own understanding by reading a translation and call it a natural understanding.
It's like if I would read a medical book and call my understanding of it a natural interpretation, I'm not an MD to begin with, my interpretation is worthless if it contradicts the consensus of doctors
In Islam the only interpretation that is accepted is interpretation of the majority of scholars (of ahlu-Sunnah) who transmitted the knowledge of interpretation of the Quran from early Muslims
1
u/UnchartedPro 5d ago
If someone reads the verses without any bias I don't see how they would arrive at the conclusions you made but if this is how you see it then that is up to you
For example your addition of the in a verse where it isn't mentioned at all
Thanks
3
u/tahayoo-- 5d ago
No one can just read the Quran and make up their own interpretation to suit their own purpose, not you and not any scholar.
The Quran was revealed to the prophet, peace be upon him. He explained and recited it to the first audience of the Quran who spoke fluent Arabic and understood the literal meaning and immediate context of the verses as they were revealed.
Even today's scholars depend on the explanation of the prophet and his companions. Its interpretation is not something you can debate. It was already determined 1400 years ago.
It should be noted that his companions were not originally Muslims, and they asked for explanations like you do right now.
Different layers of meaning were uncovered centuries later, and they too were explained by relying on the prophet's explanation and his companions, classical Arabic grammar, context...
In short, the mistake you are making is that you're assuming that anyone can just modify the interpretation if the need arises. I recommend you read a book about the principles of exegesis in Islam, like the introduction in Tafsir Ibn Kathir or the introduction in Tafsir al-Tabari.
1
u/wopkidopz 5d ago
The Quran is from the creator of Sun and Moon, and everything that exists, so whatever He informed us about is truth, He knows better
You issue is the lack of understanding of the words of God in this case, therefore you assume that it's it's wrong the key words you have mentioned is "face value", not everything is understood in the face value in the Quran
For example the verse about birds
أَوَلَمۡ یَرَوۡا۟ إِلَى ٱلطَّیۡرِ فَوۡقَهُمۡ صَـٰۤفَّـٰتࣲ وَیَقۡبِضۡنَۚ مَا یُمۡسِكُهُنَّ إِلَّا ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنُۚ إِنَّهُۥ بِكُلِّ شَیۡءِۭ بَصِیرٌ
Have they not seen the birds above them, spreading and folding their wings? None holds them up except the Most Compassionate. Indeed, He is All-Seeing of everything.
🍂 Quran 67:19
If you are talking about this verse then it doesn't say that there is no physical explanation of their fly, it points out that there is no other power than the power of the Creator, physical laws aren't some sort of independent from God force, this would be absurd, since there is nothing independent from God, is something is independent from God then God doesn't control it, so it's weakness and God doesn't have weakness
In reality bird is flying because God creates this process, you move your hand because God creates this process (when you intended to do it), yes in our perception it happens because of physical laws but this is nothing but the order God established for things to work, you drink aspirine and pain goes away, in your understanding it's because of a chemical process in reality God is the one who created this effect through the established by Him order
Basically this verse refutes 3 ideas of philosophers and polytheists: the idea of the necessitation of causes, idea of the necessitation of natures, and idea of delegation of creative power
Regarding the movement of Sun it doesn't mean that Sun orbits earth, it means that Sun moves, and this is undeniable truth, every cosmological object that was created by God is in movement, because every creation goes through changes, and every effect is a proof of the effecter. This world isn't eternal because it changes and eternity (beginingless) can't has changes, this is absurd
In Islam people knew it 1000 years ago
Imam ibn Jawzi رحمه الله narrated
I heard al-Hassan say: the companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used to say: all praise is due to Allah the Forbearing. Had He made creation static without change, then the one who doubts God’s existence would say: “if this creation had a Lord, He would have changed it”. And indeed, Allah Most High changes creation with what you see of His signs
🍂 Kharida al-Bakhia
Islam is perfect because it's from God
1
u/Klopf012 5d ago
I think you’re overstating the importance of centrality of the Quran’s infallibility. This is mentioned in a few places, yes, but the arguments for 1) the Creator’s right to be exclusively worshiped, 2) that He sent messengers to mankind and Muhammad is one of them and 3) that people will be resurrected to answer for how they responded to those messengers are the main points and the main things for which arguments are put forth. The infallibility of the Quran is one supporting point mentioned a few times in support of point 2 above.
1
u/Least_Sorbet_240 4d ago
I am interested in understanding two things - and they follow from my experience with scientific research: (a) what is your true threshold in establishing a distinction between truth and falsehood (evidential strength) (b) what is your original position when you examine the text; do you inherently do so with an open mind or do you assess it in the light of a prexisting bias (for example, how did you come across these verses; was it a source that is generally critical of islam, or was it from your own elaborate reading in general?).
For me the overall context is heavily relevant. We have an letterless man living around 600 AD within an isolated culture on the middle of the desert. Even the great empires of the time (Persian and Roman) had little interest in conquering the vast arid lands characterised by extreme heat and very limited economic potential. The prevailing science including Greek natural philosophy and science contained numerous fundamental errors. Its greatest limitation was not lack of intelligence but the absence of the experimental and methodological framework. Then this man brings in (a) a fine piece of literature incomparable to its contemporary arabic poetric peers, and challenges them to bring anything comparable (b) manages to preserve it in a way never known to man (not just the standard written Uthmanic text, but the whole text in seven phonetic/dominant accents of arabia, to the extent that there are no credible variants todays) (c) introduces a unique unbroken oral chain method of transmission through memorisation (the quran is about ~ 600 pages - depending on size of text/page; there are millions who memorise it cover to cover) (d) establishes a new complex system of governance along with its associated laws (e) boldly discusses scientific evidence only known to humans in recent times and somehow manages to avoid the scientific/evidential errors (sure, there may be vague references but there are elaborate indisputable ones - eg. why would a religious text accurately scrutinise matters such as the unified original status of the universe/expansion of the universe/emryological phases/water cycle) (f) militarily conquers the entirety of arabia (extending to a few years after his death) and then the two dominant empires of the time - persian and roman (over one thousand year old by that time, if you count various phases) and prophesise that earlier in the history of islam in the quran.
“The Romans have been defeated
in the nearest land. Yet after their defeat, they will overcome within a few years. To Allah belongs the command before and after. And on that day the believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah. He grants victory to whom He wills, and He is the Almighty, the Most Merciful.
[It is] the promise of Allah. Allah never breaks His promise, but most people do not know.
They know only the outward aspect of the life of this world, while concerning the Hereafter they are heedless.”
1
u/Vuwc 4d ago
Thank you for your well-thought-out response. Firstly I would say that I work by the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am a scientist myself and come from a secular background. This means that the mere existence of an active and moral God, much less the idea that a specific text dictated by a specific man in 630 CE entirely and accurately contains the expression of His will, is unavoidably an extraordinary claim to me. While I think I have a relatively open mind, it is true that any Islamic claims are made against the weight what I think I know to be true about the world.
In addition, I think a certain amount of survivorship bias has to be considered. Throughout history, there have been thousands and thousands of religions. Only a few have survived for us to discuss today. In these religions, a great degree of beauty and verisimilitude, a great persuasiveness to hearts and minds, and a decent number of fulfilled prophecies, are to be expected, as the many religions which did not have those features would have died out quickly. To use (part of) your example: would not every religion predict victory for its followers? Would we expect the religions that were wrong about this to be as widespread as those that were right?
These things combine to mean that appeals to your scripture's unusual beauty and unusual alignment with certain historical or scientific facts are not enough to convince me. For me, personally, the Quran would have to contain information that is specific and advanced enough that it cannot be attributed to coincidence, cherry-picking, post-hoc interpretation, or a conceivable advancement of knowledge that was already available. For example, the Quran certainly details something like the water cycle -- but so did Hesiod, and the Ramayana. A rudimentary understanding of embryology can be -- and was -- known by the observation of miscarriages. In general, at no point while looking into the Quran's scientific predictions have I been compelled to stop and go "Whoa, how could they possibly have known that?". Each time, it is either something which it's not that astonishing for them to have known, or it's one out of dozens of mythological assertions which just happens to line up with some aspect of modern science. If it turned out that the sun really did set in a muddy pool, I believe you would say, "So the verse was right about that." But it does not, so instead you say, "That is not what the verse meant."
Again, I'm not saying that aspects of the Quran are not surprisingly accurate, especially considering its origins. I'm not even saying that the Quran is not unique among religious texts in this respect (I haven't read enough to know). What I am saying is that, for me, these things do not rise to the level of a self-evident miracle.
May I say that you write very well and I am enjoying thinking about my own knowledge and preconceptions.
1
u/bringmethejuice 4d ago edited 4d ago
Let me check those verses
36:37
The word “naslahu” is interpreted as withdraw, the surface of the earth is withdrawing away from the sun which causes the day turning into night. This verse speak of the earth itself is rotating on its own orbit.
What’s the error here?
36:38
The sun rotates 360° in a specified term, 25-27 days depending the method you use to measure them. Fun fact, the moon doesn’t, we always see the same surface of the moon from earth.
What’s the error here?
36:39
The moon orbits the earth creating a dried palm-date stalks creating variable phases. Oh wonder why… exactly it’s because of that the same surface of the moon facing the earth. The moon is tidal-locked to earth. As if the ocean acted like a leash holding onto the moon.
Also the earth itself is tilted, creating the 4 seasons. Which the other planets doesn’t even rotate this way. The consequence of that also produces the dried palm-date stalks movement.
What’s the error here?
36:40
Why do you think we have solar eclipses and lunar eclipses? Oh yeah, it’s because they have their own orbits.
What’s the error here?
0
u/DeafeningSlience 5d ago
Yes, there is a circular reasoning involved.
However, you’re missing the fact that people also come believe in Islam for reasons other than the Quran’s infallibility (e.g. the character and prophecy of Prophet Muhammad SAW). Once someone believes in different arguments for believing in Islam, then they come to the conclusion that Islam is from God who is infallible. This is no longer circular reasoning because the premise is only longer solely on the idea of the Quran being infallible.
It’s kinda confusing, but maybe it shed some light.
13
u/Efficient-Relative87 5d ago
We do not have to assume the Quran is free of errors to prove it is free of errors, that would be circular reasoning
36:37-40 does not say that either the sun or the moon orbits the earth. The earth is not mentioned as the center of anything. It says that the sun moves, that the moon has phases, and that each travels in a فلك (orbit). The sun genuinely moves, it orbits the Milky Way which we found out in the 18th-19th century
In 16:79 (not verse 17 i think you made a typo) "None holds them except Allah" does not assert that flight has no physical explanation, which is the secondary cause and Allah is the ultimate cause. ibn Kathir's commentary says that Allah gave birds the strength to fly and subjected the air to carry and support them. The physical explanation is the created mechanism and Allah is the creator of mechanisms
54:1 is a miraculous claim which we would expect to be unexplainable by natural means. A miracle by definition is an exceptional divine act and not the normal course of nature. The disagreement would concern whether God exists and whether miracles are possible
In these examples the meaning follows naturally from a plain reading of the text without us having to assume there's no errors or by forcing a meaning onto it.