How do we know that the Koran is true?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

the objective person is the one who would focus on the internal evidence of the book..whether it is for or against the divine authority....

you try (and others too) to shift from the internal evidence to other external stuff eg; The Quranic laws ,the muslims countries etc........ all such issue are not crucial for determining whether the Quran is from God or not.....

Which amounts to about the same as saying "The Qur'an is demonstrably from God, as long as you ignore all other known facts".

as before arguing whether such law belongs to God or not ,one should test the validity of the source from which comes the law ...... whether it is inerrant,miracelous or not.....
discussing the Laws of a book before discussing its claims to be miracelous ,is just as putting the cart in front of the horse......

A snake eating its own tail might be a better visual simile, as your argument is completely circular.

What reason could any non-Muslim possibly have for accepting these arguments?

Peace

 

[muslimapoclyptc]

But nobody ever interpreted it to apply to heliocentrism ... until the Europeans proved heliocentrism.

That doesn't mean anything, as they had no reason to believe in heliocentrism at the time. What exactly would they have observed that would've made them think of heliocentrism as opposed to geocentrism?

But you just said the Quran could "easily be interpreted" to support heliocentrism. Now you're saying there is "nothing to support it" in the Quran?

Your two statements seem contradictory to me.

It's not contradictory. The Qur'an can easily be interpreted to support heliocentrism, because there's nothing to explicitly support geocentrism, and vice versa.

Also, most ancient myths use the same language the Quran does to describe the movement of the sun and stars. Do you make these same arguments about how to interpret these texts? (Do you think, for example, that the Greek myths about Apollo driving the Sun across the sky are "unspecific" about being geocentrist or heliocentrist and could be interpreted either way?)

It depends on what those texts are based on. If it were God's words that they were interpreting to mean geocentrism, then yes. If it were there own words, then no.

Since the belief is that the Qur'an is the verbatim word of God, it is beyond error. Therefore, if there's a conflict, then the error would either be in its interpretation or what it is in conflict with, and not in the text itself.

 

[Keltoi]

My point is not about your belief in Jesus being the Word, but the Bible being the "inspired" Word. How do you rationalize that God inspired a book, but not that God's Words are a book (the Qur'an)?

Again, it is a matter of faith. A Muslim accepts that Muhammad had the entirety of the Qu'ran spoken to him from an angel, making it a divinely authored text.

As a Christian, I do not accept or believe that. Since that is the case, I do not begin with the assumption that the Qu'ran is the dictated Word of the Creator. It isn't that I don't believe God has the ability to author a book if He so chose, obviously, but since I accept and have faith in the Old and New Testaments, I do not see that as God's nature. I say that because, as a Christian, I put my faith in Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ, who Christians believe was the "Word made flesh" didn't feel the need to write a book, it wouldn't make sense to a Christian if such a book was written so long after Christ was among us.

 

[Imam]

Greetings,

Which amounts to about the same as saying "The Qur'an is demonstrably from God, as long as you ignore all other known facts".

Peace

Greetings,


Are you one of those who would prefer to accept a book as divine based on its moral codes and laws?

or before verifying its laws,you would better verify its claims to be miracelous, inerrant?

for me I prefer the second approach ......

 

[Qingu]

the objective person is the one who would focus on the internal evidence of the book..

Okay. There's absolutely nothing in the "internal evidence of the book" to suggest a god wrote it. And certainly the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim that a god wrote it.

I provided you with a simple,straight forward Quranic description of the celestial bodies as swimming each in its orbit with its own motion.... something that none the time the Quran was revealed could ever verify without advanced scietific equipments....

Nonsense. The Quran's language here is exactly the same as every other myth. The Greeks also described the sun, moon and stars as going in orbits. So did the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Hindus—everyone.

"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"

All this verse claims is that the sun moves.

Again, so does pretty much every mythological and philosophical text in existence.

The Enuma Elish, an ancient Babylonian creation myth from 1400 B.C.:
"At the time of disappearance approach the course of the sun"

The Iliad:
"The sun was beginning to beat upon the fields, fresh risen into the vault of heaven from the slow still currents of deep Oceanus, when the two armies met."

Aristotle:
"The movements of the sun and moon are fewer than those of some of the planets."

The Bible repeatedly describes the sun as moving through the heavens. So do numerous Hindu myths. Why on earth do you think the Quran's claim here is "scientific" when all it's saying is the exact same thing that every ancient myth and philosopher says—that the sun moves?

Now again to your claim ,Quran portrays the a geocentric universe ....
It is you who claim so, so The burden now on your shoulder to provide internal evidence direct eg, verse(s)...

As I said, the language it uses is identical to the language every other myths use.

Are you saying that the Enuma Elish, the Iliad, Aristotle, and the Bible are not "geocentric" either?

it comes from the root ( كدر ) which means in most uses ,losing the glow and sometimes means fall...

Which does it mean in this context? My translators say "fall." Where on earth do you get the expertise to declare they're wrong?

and there is nothing called in the Quran Earth's sky ...

the verse mentions the lower sky which it defines as such space which have anything can be seen by the naked eyes even if millions, or billions of light years away.....

Really? Ancient Arabic had a word for outer space?

Surely you can produce another source that talks about outer space using this language, then.

No doubt The quran meakes a description that is unique ,simple,and conforms with present embryological knowledge.

Again, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about this description. As I've said throughout this thread. Please respond to the arguments I've already posted instead of restating your position.

I remember that day when I debated the Quranic foreknowledge of embroylog with a christian professor in Arabic

Why on earth do you think I should care? You're not convincing me.

Now .... I ask you, who ever described such stage in such amazing specific way other than the Quran?

Aristotle and Galen. They also went into much more detail. Furthermore, the Quran is incorrect that man was formed from clay. That is a Mesopotamian myth dating from ancient Babylon (see, for example, the Atrahasis epic).

And Imam—I'm still waiting for you to show a single Muslim scholar who believed the earth revolved around the sun, before Copernicus. Again, I am flabbergasted that there don't seem to be any such scholars, especially if the Quran is so obviously "not geocentric." Why do you think so many Muslims misinterpreted the Quran for a thousand years? And why do you think you know better than the scholars of the Abassid Dynasty and the Rashidun Caliphate?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Greetings,


Are you one of those who would prefer to accept a book as divine based on its moral codes and laws?

or before verifying its laws,you would better verify its claims to be miracelous, inerrant?

for me I prefer the second approach ......

I'm unlikely to accept any book as being divine, since I don't believe that anything divine exists at all.

Like I said before, I can't think of any reason why a non-Muslim would be convinced by your arguments.

Peace

 

[Qingu]

It depends on what those texts are based on. If it were God's words that they were interpreting to mean geocentrism, then yes. If it were there own words, then no.

Since the belief is that the Qur'an is the verbatim word of God, it is beyond error. Therefore, if there's a conflict, then the error would either be in its interpretation or what it is in conflict with, and not in the text itself.

This is entirely circular.

If I believed in ancient Greek mythology, I could say the exact same thing about ancient Greek myths. If you interpret them as geocentric, your interpretation is wrong, not the ancient Greek myths—because obviously the ancient Greek myths must be true, since they come from the Deathless Gods.

Also, you have a double standard. You and others have argued that the few correct things the Quran seems to says about science are "evidence" that it is miraculous. But when the Quran seems to say something incorrect, it's not evidence that the book is not miraculous—it simply means we're interpreting it wrong.

 

[muslimapoclyptc]

This is entirely circular.

If I believed in ancient Greek mythology, I could say the exact same thing about ancient Greek myths. If you interpret them as geocentric, your interpretation is wrong, not the ancient Greek myths—because obviously the ancient Greek myths must be true, since they come from the Deathless Gods.

You can, if they don't specifically say that the sun revolves around the Earth, and if their whole basis for geocentrism is interpretation and observation.

The whole issue is specification, and who said what. Do the ancient myths actually say that the sun revolves around the Earth? If so, then who specifically said this, and on what basis?

Your whole reasoning, is that since everyone in the 7th century believed in the geocentric model, then when the Qur'an claims that the sun and the moon have orbits, it is simply echoing what was a common belief at the time. This of course, is based on the presumption that the authorship of the Qur'an is neither perfect, nor divine, which is also (surprisingly enough) your conclusion.

Objectively, we have what is believed to be the perfect, verbatim word of God, saying that the sun and the moon have orbits, during a time when everyone believed that the sun and the moon orbited around the Earth. Today, we now know that the moon orbits the Earth, and the sun orbits the galaxy. Since the text itself can be interpreted both ways, the statement itself is quite ambiguous.

To someone who believes in the Qur'an, they've either accepted the current galactic orbit interpretation (like I have), or rejected the current heliocentric model and stuck with the geocentric one. To someone who doesn't believe in the Qur'an, they've accepted the earlier Earth orbit interpretation of the Qur'an, and hence further justify their rejection of it (like you have). To an objective individual, however, it's ambiguous, and really doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Also, you have a double standard. You and others have argued that the few correct things the Quran seems to says about science are "evidence" that it is miraculous. But when the Quran seems to say something incorrect, it's not evidence that the book is not miraculous—it simply means we're interpreting it wrong.

Actually, what I said, was that the Qur'an is not a book of science, it is a book of divine guidance for mankind. If someone wants scientific information, they should consult with scientific sources.

The scientific proofs in the Qur'an are not science in themselves, just statements that are consistent with modern science, which may, or may not, also be consistent with outdated beliefs from the time-period of revelation.

 

[Imam]

The Bible repeatedly describes the sun as moving through the heavens. So do numerous Hindu myths. Why on earth do you think the Quran's claim here is "scientific" when all it's saying is the exact same thing that every ancient myth and philosopher says—that the sun moves?

When The Quran tells me that ALL swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion, ALL for me means ALL including the earth ...

well,for the sake of argument , let's suppose that the verse instead of saying (All) it said (both)

How does that prove your point that the sun,moon,planets orbit the earth,according to the Quran?

How much time more we should wait for a direct textual proof that the Quran teaches a geocentrism universe?

which does it mean in this context? My translators say "fall."

your original argument, that such specific verse says that stars falls on earth and that is not what the verse says ,In this context I would choose the common meaning for the word(inkadarat) which been selected by Asad and others (and when the stars lose their light)

http://islamawakened.org/quran/81/2/default.htm

Really? Ancient Arabic had a word for outer space?

Surely you can produce another source that talks about outer space using this language, then.

The word (samaa) in Arabic , if alone, means a limitless sky ,and can only be said to be limited by using qualifiers....

In the eyes of God the lower sky means such in which one can view the stars ...even if millions of years far.....
The Qur'an mentions it several times along with the heavenly bodies of which it is composed.
the others 6 skies (alsamawat) are those that can't be viewed by the naked eyes

go consult a any Arabic speaker or dictionary and it would endorse what I have just wrote...

I advise you not to go to such arena of (Arabic) till you consult dictionaries and Arabic speakers,otherwise your situation would be embarrassing , as now...

And Imam—I'm still waiting for you to show a single Muslim scholar who believed the earth revolved around the sun, before Copernicus.

your quest is as silly as someone wondering why the Muslim scholars before the invention of microscopes didn't mention that the embryo looks and functions like a leech even if it is one of the meanings of the word (alaqa)......

Again, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about this description. As I've said throughout this thread. Please respond to the arguments I've already posted instead of restating your position.

restating my position?!

who is restating his position,now?!

It is you who are at it again ,restating the absurd concept that the Quranic description is of as value as the work of Galen. ...
you asked what is specific and unique

and I showed you in what sense the Quran is unique ,and supported my claims with the classic infamous Arabic dictionaries

I hope next time if you ever restate your position,you would show me what sense makes the Quranic description is as value as the work of Galen.
Just bring the work of Galen and let's make a comparison

 

[Mustapha@]

So I'm failing to see how the Quran is special here.

Guess what?

you will always fail to see how the Qur'an is special. because you are here with an intention that the Qur'an is not the words of Allah...It's the same thing for me if you gave me, for example, the best poem in the world...but if I had formed a misjudgement about it and if I had had the concept of "mine is better", of course I wont like it. because I'm the one who does not want to like it, not because it's bad...even its meaning is so wonderful and even if its wording is breath-taking...but if I did not like from the beginning and i had made prejudices I will just go through it with boredom. Thus it wont have any impact on me...and this is your case...just to try to get rid of those prejudices and misjudgements about the Qur'an...:shade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0op5MIyG3Xg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Ak-mNpF3Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IspK651RpY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcNOaePZT68

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHuiFWYRAZM

 

[Mustapha@]

Take a look at those videos. you are not the only atheist in this world...those were ateists to and they converted to islam...and some of them are scientists and doctors...I gave them money to say this on the videos lol....(irony) did I?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

your original argument, that such specific verse says that stars falls on earth and that is not what the verse says ,In this context I would choose the common meaning for the word(inkadarat) which been selected by Asad and others (and when the stars lose their light)

http://islamawakened.org/quran/81/2/default.htm

What do you reckon this verse mans?
Walaqad zayyanna alssamaa alddunya bimasabeeha wajaAAalnaha rujooman lilshshayateeni waaAAtadna lahum AAathaba alssaAAeeri
And We had decorated/beautified, the sky/space (of) the present world with lights/stars , and We made it meteorites/shooting stars for the devils, and We prepared/made ready for them the/blazing/inflamed (inferno) torture.(67:5)

 

[aamirsaab]

What do you reckon this verse mans?
Walaqad zayyanna alssamaa alddunya bimasabeeha wajaAAalnaha rujooman lilshshayateeni waaAAtadna lahum AAathaba alssaAAeeri
And We had decorated/beautified, the sky/space (of) the present world with lights/stars , and We made it meteorites/shooting stars for the devils, and We prepared/made ready for them the/blazing/inflamed (inferno) torture.(67:5)

What translation are you using?
I just checked that verse on two seperate internet translations and they show up as this:

[67:5] We adorned the lowest universe with lamps, and guarded its borders with projectiles against the devils; we prepared for them a retribution in Hell.

Note the lack of meteorites etc.

 

[Trumble]

THIS ONE it seems, marked as 'literal'.

Surely an easy enough one for someone who knows Arabic to clarify? Missiles or projectiles (which would mean much the same thing in that context) seems the most common translation. I don't see any obvious reason not to translate as meteorite or shooting star if that is what the Arabic actually means; so why has nobody done so?

 

[aamirsaab]

THIS ONE it seems, marked as 'literal'.

Surely an easy enough one for someone who knows Arabic to clarify? Missiles or projectiles (which would mean much the same thing in that context) seems the most common translation. I don't see any obvious reason not to translate as meteorite or shooting star if that is what the Arabic actually means; so why has nobody done so?

It is most likely being used as a figure of speach or metaphorical usage (based on the many translations given in that link). Literal translations are such because they ignore the context of the verse and thus ignore metaphor completely - the translators (usually scholars) know this and thus translate the meaning so that it makes sense (i.e non literal translation), and that's why there's quite a big difference between the literal and the non-literal translations.

An example is:
meera sar nei kow (Common urdu phrase)

Literal translation:
my head, don't eat.

Non-literal translation in context:
You're giving me a head ache! (big difference between the original word!)

Yeah I know it's not arabic, but you get the point.

 

[Zamtsa]

Please write out the specific claims about embryology you think the Quran is making.

As far as I can tell, the only relevant claim these verses make is that the embryo changes form over time (that is, it doesn't start out as a "miniature human.") This is exactly what Galen says, and I did quote him.

You've asked about the Heliosentrism in the Qur'an, what Galen had not explain in detail about the human Embryo as Al Qur'an did. As in my earliers post, I challenge thee respected Qingu, to show me those details in a book other than Al Qur'an, and because those ayat are proven to be true by the 21st centuries Scientists.

Now I want to show thee, this ayat of Allahu kalam:


Ar Rahman (55):33 O ye assembly of Jinns and men! if it be ye can pass beyond the zones of the skies and the earth pass ye! not without authority shall ye be able to pass!

1420 years ago, Allahu Azza wa Jalla already said this.


Allahu kalam:

Fushilat (41):53 Soon will We show them Our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth) and in their own souls until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?

It's Allahu Tabaraka Ta'ala's power and might which created the brain of the founder of earth's rotation and the earth's rotation.

Al Qur'an in sciences are always right, Allahu 'Azza wa Jalla showed what He wills through His ayat:

1. Ayat Kauniyah (Ayat thorugh which He created)
2. Ayat Syari'ah (Ayat through His verses).

Allahu Jalla Jalaaluhu is the Witness of all things.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace, development and safe from guile be upon who follow the guidance).

 

[Zamtsa]

What do you reckon this verse mans?
Walaqad zayyanna alssamaa alddunya bimasabeeha wajaAAalnaha rujooman lilshshayateeni waaAAtadna lahum AAathaba alssaAAeeri
And We had decorated/beautified, the sky/space (of) the present world with lights/stars , and We made it meteorites/shooting stars for the devils, and We prepared/made ready for them the/blazing/inflamed (inferno) torture.(67:5)

Nothing difficult or which Muslim couldn't find for the answers. Unless it is ayat Mutasyabihat.

It is clear from Hadits such as in Shahih Al Jami' Ash Shaghir, that when Allahu Subhanahu wa Ta'ala decide something or command something, then there are Syaithan (Devil from Jin) who like to earsdrop the conversation of the Malaikat (Angels) in the 1 st Sky, so then they will be chase by the "Mashabih," which the Malaikat thrown.


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

 

[Qingu]

Your whole reasoning, is that since everyone in the 7th century believed in the geocentric model, then when the Qur'an claims that the sun and the moon have orbits, it is simply echoing what was a common belief at the time. This of course, is based on the presumption that the authorship of the Qur'an is neither perfect, nor divine, which is also (surprisingly enough) your conclusion.

I could make the exact same argument with the Greek myths. If you interpret the Greek myths as imperfect, that is only because you are presuming that they are not divine.

Recall that you are presumably trying to convince me that the Quran is perfect, divine, and true. And now it seems like you're saying that, before we can even have this debate, I should presume the Quran is perfect and divine? That's not an argument. In fact, it contradicts your argument. If the Quran is perfect and true, I shouldn't have to presume it's perfect in true to look at the evidence regarding its perfection and trueness. That's entirely circular.

Now, I happen to believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For example, take the following two claims:

1. I am wearing a sweatshirt.
2. I am an ancient Babylonian demon.

Now, either claim could be wrong. I could be lying about wearing a sweatshirt. I could be lying about being a demon. But claim #2 would probably take much more evidence to convince you than claim #1. In fact, you might be willing to believe claim #1 without any evidence at all—whereas you would be highly skeptical of claim #2.

Similarly, take the two following claims:

1. A 7th century text refers to the "orbits of the sun and moon" because the people who wrote it believed, like everyone else at the time believed, that the sun and moon orbit the fixed earth.

2. A 7th century text refers to the "orbits of the sun and moon" because an Arabian deity inspired it. This deity actually meant the sun's orbit around the galaxy (but not the moon's), despite the fact that nobody at the time had any idea what a galaxy was. Also, the deity neglected to clarify what He meant so for 1,000 years everyone reading the book thought He was referring to their orbit around the earth—until, finally, some European guy proved this view wrong.

Now, #1 seems perfectly reasonable to me. #2, not so much, and it's going to take a lot of evidence to convince me—just as it would take you a lot of evidence for me to convince you that I'm a Babylonian demon.

And in any case, if I don't believe #2 at first, it doesn't really make sense for you to say "that's because you don't presume #2 is true!" Of course I don't presume #2 is true—that's the whole point! You're supposed to convince me it's true.

Actually, what I said, was that the Qur'an is not a book of science, it is a book of divine guidance for mankind. If someone wants scientific information, they should consult with scientific sources.

The scientific proofs in the Qur'an are not science in themselves, just statements that are consistent with modern science, which may, or may not, also be consistent with outdated beliefs from the time-period of revelation.

So you disagree with your fellows on the board that the Quran's statements about "science" constitute "miracles"?

 

[Qingu]

When The Quran tells me that ALL swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion, ALL for me means ALL including the earth ...

No, these verses specify the celestial lights, not the earth.

How does that prove your point that the sun,moon,planets orbit the earth,according to the Quran?

Because this is the context of the language. It is the exact same language that every ancient text used to describe the motion of the celestial bodies.

Now, you are of course free to creatively interpret these verses to imply the sun orbits the center of the galaxy. This seems quite dishonest to me. When you interpret a text, you generally try to consider the author's intent. If Allah meant this verse to imply the sun orbits the Milky Way, why wouldn't He have said "the sun orbits around the circle of the Milky Way?" The ancient Muslims were quite familiar with the Milky Way, it was bright in the sky. It seems like for this verse to mean what you say it means, it would also mean that Allah deliberately misled Muslims for a thousand years when he could have easily said exactly what he meant.

In the eyes of God the lower sky means such in which one can view the stars ...even if millions of years far.....
The Qur'an mentions it several times along with the heavenly bodies of which it is composed.
the others 6 skies (alsamawat) are those that can't be viewed by the naked eyes

Really? Are these what these words meant in Arabic when the Quran was written?

Obviously not. Aristotle believed there were 7 heavens. Each one corresponded to the orbit (around the earth) of one of the seven visible celestial objects: the sun, moon, and five planets visible to the naked eye (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). (Picture here). This view, made popular by the Egyptian astromoner named Ptolemy, became common all across Europe and Asia, and would have been well-known to the Arabs in the 7th century.

Not surprisingly, the Quran uses the exact same language as the Aristotelian cosmology. Words have meaning. You are arguing that the ancient Arabic word for "lower sky" referred to a thing that nobody speaking at the time actually knew existed—outer space. Frankly, I think that's a dishonest argument.

your quest is as silly as someone wondering why the Muslim scholars before the invention of microscopes didn't mention that the embryo looks and functions like a leech even if it is one of the meanings of the word (alaqa)......

But Muslim scholars presumably believed that the embryo changes over time and looks like the Quran says it does at various stages. They weren't wrong about the embryo because of the way they interpreted the Quran verse.

But they were incredibly wrong about the shape of the universe, directly because of what the Quran says.

And again, words have meaning, and intent is important. The Muslims knew about the Milky Way. They had a word for it—"Darb Al-Tabana." If Allah meant the sun "swims" in its orbit in the Milky Way, why didn't he just say so?

It is you who are at it again ,restating the absurd concept that the Quranic description is of as value as the work of Galen. ...
you asked what is specific and unique

I want to know, in plain language, what exactly you think the Quran gets right about embryology.

Is it the general shape of the embryos at those two arbitrary stages?

Is it the general idea that embryos change shape over time (which was not believed by everyone)?

I mean, that's all I can think of. The verses don't really say much more than that. And, as I said, Galen and Aristotle said both of those things.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Imam]

What do you reckon this verse means?
(67:5)

Greetings Whatsthepoint

Good question from one of the non-Muslims whom I appreciate their proper style in writing and debating.....

I know how much the topic of The Quranic scientific foreknowledge ,means for you ....you had and still have curiosity about it ,and the proof your constant participation in the threads related to the topic .....

and believe me when I tell , most of those who were as you but finally adapted Islam ,are those who followed the same approach as you..... to be relaxed and not to argue with mockery and anger as some posts in the thread.....

before I explain the verse ,I would pray for God to lead you to the true path....cause you follow what God advised when getting his message ,is to listen and be relaxed without anger and to be objective.....

---------------------------------------------------------------
The matter of the verse is very simple, it doesn't need a metaphore ......

it is simple an example of how to interpret the Quran by the Quran...

Quran37: 6. We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,-7. (For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits,8. (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side,9. Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty,10. Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.



Quran 072.008
'And we (Satans)pried into the secrets of heaven; but we found it filled with stern guards and flaming fires. 'We used, indeed, to sit there in (hidden) stations, to (steal) a hearing; but any who listen now will find a flaming fire watching him in ambush.

the infamous old classic Quranic interpretation (Alqurtubi) ...... discussed the matter

In Arabic

الجامع لأحكام القرآن
سورة الملك

‏{‏ولقد زينا السماء الدنيا بمصابيح وجعلناها رجوما للشياطين وأعتدنا لهم عذاب السعير، وللذين كفروا بربهم عذاب جهنم وبئس المصير‏}‏

قوله تعالى‏{‏ولقد زينا السماء الدنيا بمصابيح‏}‏ جمع مصباح وهو السراج‏.‏ وتسمى الكواكب مصابيح لإضاءتها‏.‏ ‏{‏وجعلناها رجوما للشياطين‏}‏ أي جعلنا شهبها؛ فحذف المضاف‏.‏ دليلة ‏{‏إلا من خطف الخطفة فأتبعه شهاب ثاقب‏}‏الصافات‏:‏ 10‏]‏‏.‏ وعلى هذا فالمصابيح لا تزول ولا يرجم بها‏. ولا يسقط الكوكب نفسه إنما ينفصل منه شيء يرجم به من غير أن ينقص ضوءه ولا صورته‏

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=136&CID=249



In English
(as I didn't find online English version of such basic interpretation,I translated it ,and anyone can verify the Arabic link above to see the original text compared with the translation)

The almighty saying(we beautified the lower heaven with lamps) he called the stars as lamps (we make it shooting) means we make its flaming fire shooting,and the clue for such abbreviation of the expression is the other verse which mentions the same topic
Quran37:10 Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.
and according to that the lamp never vanish and never been used itself as shooter, it is just something comes from its body but not the body itself without affect eg; a lack in its light or its form.


Peace