How do we know that the Koran is true?

[Qingu]

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.

But how should we consider the context of the verses in the Quran?

It's my belief that we should consider them in the historical context in which they were written, and the culture in which the Quran was received. This culture really believed, like all cultures at the time, in geocentrism. They really believed that stars were tiny points of light set into a solid dome or sphere of the sky. So it seems to me that it makes a great deal of sense to interpret these words and verses in the way that they would have been understood by the culture that first read the Quran. This is also how scholars interpret ancient historical and religious texts across the board.

Now, some have suggested that we should not interpret the Quran in its historical and cultural context—that we should not interpret the Quran the same way as we interpret every other ancient historical/religious text. Instead, we should interpret the Quran in the sense that "everything the Quran says must be right no matter what," and that anything that seems wrong means you are interpreting the verse wrong. Which is all well and good if you're a Muslim who already believes the Quran. But this doesn't seem to be a very useful context in a debate about whether the Quran is true in the first place. It also seems to be special pleading, frankly.

 

[muslimapoclyptc]

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.

Of course you can. And if I wanted to counter that, I wouldn't bother with ambiguous statements that neither prove nor disprove anything.

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.

I'm actually not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just countering your argument that the Qur'an says that the sun orbits around the Earth, when in fact the Qur'an says no such thing.

If anything, it would in fact be you that is trying to convince me that the Qur'an is imperfect, man-made, and false.

I'm also not trying to say you should be anything. What I was trying to say, was that you are not objective, and are as biased as I am on this issue. You believe that the Qur'an is imperfect, man-made and false, while I believe that the Qur'an is perfect, divine and true.

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



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.

Actually, with claim #1, I wouldn't really care if it were true or not. With claim #2, however, I would be considerably more curious about.

Similarly, take the two following claims:



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 would say, is that you presume #1 to be true. The actual statement itself is actually ambiguous on the exact details. Hence, the argument against geocentrism being promoted in the Qur'an, is in fact a strawman.

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.

In spite of the fact that text itself never actually says that the orbits are around the Earth, and basically says of itself, that it's divine guidance for the whole of mankind.

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.

Well, given that people could observe the sun and the moon as celestial objects at the time, it would make sense that God would mention them as his creation, and that he gave them both fixed orbits. Going into the exact details of those orbits is unnecessary to that point.

The fact that no one had any idea what a galaxy was at the time, is another good reason not to go into excessive details about it. Then you'd have to unnecessarily introduce new concepts, go into an unnecessary tangent and completely fly over everyone's heads with it.

The view that the sun orbits the Earth is just that; "a view". As popular as it may be, that's all it was. It's not in the Qur'an, nor does the Qur'an even go into the issue, since its emphasis was the fact the God created them with orbits, not the fact that they have orbits.

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

No, I don't disagree. The Qur'anic statements can be seen as miraculous, since it's from the 7th century and is consistent with modern science. But that doesn't make the them science in themselves. The wording itself certainly isn't scientific, nor does it go into all the excessive details that scientific texts tend to do.

 

[aamirsaab]

But how should we consider the context of the verses in the Quran?....

For starters, don't cherry pick ayats from it. Read the surrounding verses and any others that relate to it (at the minimum) to gain a fuller understanding.

Your best bet is to ask a scholar or Imaam. Their job is to aid our (laymen) understanding of the Qur'an since they usually have a better understanding of Arabic AND are able to convert that message into English (or w/e language).

Visit a masjid, ask the imam, reflect on the answer. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Imam]

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

no it doesn't specify the celestial lights ...it mentions the sun and the moon ........afterwards it says All swimming in orbits ,it doesn't say both swimming....... and if one can safely include Mars etc.. under (all) so why to exclude the earth?


problem: The quran doesn't portrays the stars and planets as orbiting the earth.

resolved: a direct verse(s) to support otherwise.

and the fact you will never find a verse that way,
you should consider the discussion in that point to be over.....

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

you assume much,prove less ,preach to excess your (author intent) theory

till this moment , apart from 2 verses which I already refuted ,you provided nothing that could support your claims .

in geocentrism. They really believed that stars were tiny points of light set into a solid dome or sphere of the sky.

God the almighty, we already knew why you the only time in the whole Quran describing an oath to be very great while swearing by the locations of the stars

Holy Quran[056:075] Nay, I swear by the positions of the stars ,And most surely it is a very great oath if you only knew;

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). .

you know how to be dishonest ? is when you give Arabic word a Greek flavor without linguestic proofs
where does it say in the Quran that the lower sky is a solid dome ?
you obviously mixing your cards here ,qingo...
one shouldn't feel wonder if Aristotle believed the lower sky is an orbit of the moon and the second orbit is for venus and so on till he finishes the seven celestial objects...
he choose the orbits 7 according to the number of the objects he knew
The quran is obviously different:

1- The lower heaven is which one can view with naked eyes the stars and planets.....

2- Aristotle's choice of the number 7 for the orbits based on the number of the objects Sun,Moon ,Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn , but the Quran doesn't say heaven means orbit neither the number 7 has something to do with the objects already mentioned....
the other heavens, according to the Quran can't be viewed ,and none knows what is therein,and the 7th heaven God and his angels ........ God choose the heavens to be 7 just cause he wanted them so...and he choose the week seven days just cause he wanted so ......
If Aristotle believed that the lower sky is the sky which one can view the stars, then his words are welcomed
but if he defined the lower sky as the moon orbit around the earth,then he is mistaken ,we judge the man by his own words ,not his own intention ,the same case in the Quran
certainly...... the word lower sky , is defined in the Quran as such sky which one can view stars therein........
If you still insist that in Arabic the qualifier( lower ) if added to ( heaven) would denote a specific size ,lenghth,wideth
prove it linguestically, if not .consider our discussion in such silly matter to be over.

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

I not only think the Quran gets right about embryology but also gets it specific and unique........
If you want to skip the issue pretending that you didn't get my last post on the issue,as you wish..
but my post was clear in plain English and Arabic......... showing what is specific and what is unique .

I'm not such naive person who would believe a text to be unique without verifying the other texts too...... till this moment I never found a text that described embryology the same way the Quran does.....

the Quran indeed,has a unique description on embroyology and a strong witness that such description not based on human source....
before I would show you what other verses shows clearly scientific foreknowledge ....It is now your duty,to show what is not unique is the Quranic description compared with the work of Galen.
.

 

[back_to_faith]

Where is in the work of Aristotle or Galen the embryo been described as a something has leech looking, that cling,stick to the womb, getting blood as nourishment from the womb?....and such thing becomes looks like a chewed substance as the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine...
Just where it been described such unique way outside the Quran?

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

[/QUOTE]


Qingu lost the debate hands down

and that is the fate of the die-dard atheists who whenever fail to quote the source for their allegations or understand its language ,resort hopelessley to
place the burden of prrof !

Thanx Imam for your great posts

peace

 

[Trumble]

Qingu lost the debate hands down

Really? I think quite the reverse is true. None of his most pertinent points were answered convincingly and several were not answered at all.

However, I appreciate that's probably impossible to see from your perspective and I'll accept aamirsaab and Imam's posts might be rather more convincing to someone with a perspective other than mine. That's the trouble with this sort of discussion, the actual subject matter is overwhelmed by the starting assumptions people bring with them, often totally without realising it. That's why, at the end of the day, muslims who accept the Qur'an contains 'miraculous knowledge' are amazed this doesn't convince others of its truth, while non-muslims are totally baffled some see 'science' in the text that, to them, simply isn't there. In other words, it convinces only those who are already convinced.

 

[Imam]

None of his most pertinent points were answered convincingly and several were not answered at all.

empty assertion.... but I can guess why

That's why, at the end of the day, muslims who accept the Qur'an contains 'miraculous knowledge' are amazed this doesn't convince others of its truth

I never feel amazed at those who deny the signs,as a matter of fact, I feel yawn anytime a non-muslim would deny such signs....

the same way I no longer feel amazed finding lots of new muslims who were amazed by the Quranic scientific pre-knowledge...
If you concentrate more,you would find out easily that my posts except one(which he skipped ) ,weren't discussing the scientific pre-knowledge but refuting some allegations ,and the substance he offered showed me obviously he is a reader of science but not qualified yet in the field of the Quran and its language.....

 

[Qingu]

Hm. I could have sworn I responded to Imam a week ago. Oh well.

no it doesn't specify the celestial lights ...it mentions the sun and the moon ........afterwards it says All swimming in orbits ,it doesn't say both swimming....... and if one can safely include Mars etc.. under (all) so why to exclude the earth?

Because it doesn't say the earth.

problem: The quran doesn't portrays the stars and planets as orbiting the earth.

resolved: a direct verse(s) to support otherwise.

You have supplied no such verse.

In fact, you simply posted a verse that talks about the sun, moon, and other lights in the sky ... and then assumed it was talking about the earth for no reason whatsoever.

Your logic is entirely circular. The Quran is true, so it's talking about the earth in this verse that doesn't mention the earth. How do we know the Quran is true? Because it's talking about the earth in this verse that doesn't mention the earth!

God the almighty, we already knew why you the only time in the whole Quran describing an oath to be very great while swearing by the locations of the stars

Holy Quran[056:075] Nay, I swear by the positions of the stars ,And most surely it is a very great oath if you only knew;

Relevance?

How does this show the Arabs did not believe the stars were tiny points of light?

Are you seriously arguing that the Arabs swore by the light-years coordinates and parsecs of Alpha Centuri?

you know how to be dishonest ? is when you give Arabic word a Greek flavor without linguestic proofs

Both texts talk about seven heavens.
Both texts refer to celestial objects' orbiting in those heavens.
The concept of "seven heavens" was popular and accepted across the region at the time the Quran was written.

I don't know what else you're looking for. Again, it seems your argument is "The Quran is true, so it can't mean what it seems to mean, because that would mean it is false."

1- The lower heaven is which one can view with naked eyes the stars and planets.....

Quote a verse to support this?

2- Aristotle's choice of the number 7 for the orbits based on the number of the objects Sun,Moon ,Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn , but the Quran doesn't say heaven means orbit neither the number 7 has something to do with the objects already mentioned....

Neither did the Jews writing at the time of Jesus (they also believed in "seven heavens," just like the Quran), but they are otherwise quite similar. I'm not saying the Quran is identical to Aristotle in every detail. I'm saying it reflects the basic belief of the time that the Earth was surrounded by seven heavens and that the celestial objects revolved around the Earth. You have not shown a single verse to dispute this claim, you've simply assumed that "lower heaven" in the Quran means visible space in the universe, which is nonsense and not an interpretation any Muslim scholar would have made for this text for 95% of Islam's history.

I not only think the Quran gets right about embryology but also gets it specific and unique........

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is specific and unique about it.

Though it's kind of funny to watch you repeatedly attempt to reverse the burden of proof:

"Why don't you tell me what's not specific and unique about it!"
"Prove these verses aren't talking about outer space!"

The difference is that one of us has supported our position with context and logic, and the other is simply repeating his assertions over and over.

 

[Imam]

You have supplied no such verse. .

that is laughable,it is you who asserted that The quran portrays the stars and planets as orbiting the earth. so the burden on your shoulder not mine ,my friend.....I'm supposed to refute you..... and you didn't provide a Quranic substance to be refuted....

Your logic is twisted. The Quran isn't true, so it's talking about the
the stars and planets as orbiting the earth but it doesn't mention that,Greeks did. hence the Quran is untrue.....

How does this show the Arabs did not believe the stars were tiny points of light? .

It doesn't need a great deal of wisdom of the reader of the Quran to know that God if swears by something is has a significance and if described to be very great while talking about locations of the star is something beyond imagination and beyong your tiny points of light......

but that is not the issue..... the issue is,How does you show that the Quran text Did believe the stars were tiny points of light?

Because it doesn't say the earth. .

and It doesn't mention the other countless similar object as well.....but one can understand that from the word (All) not (both)...
All could be stretched to everything that orbit.....

Both texts refer to celestial objects' orbiting in those heavens..

provide a Quranic text claims that heaven means orbit.....or seven heavens for seven planets.otherwise don't bother...

The lower heaven is which one can view with naked eyes the stars and planets ......
Quote a verse to support this?

I'm saying it reflects the basic belief of the time that the Earth was surrounded by seven heavens and that the celestial objects revolved around the Earth. You have not shown a single verse to dispute this claim.

another game, plz Imam place the burden of prrof !!

you've simply assumed that "lower heaven" in the Quran means visible space in the universe, which is nonsense and not an interpretation any Muslim scholar .

as long as the verse tells obviously,the lower heaven was beautified by stars then the lower sky is simply,the one that has the stars ,without making any limit ,size etc......
and as I told you before,and it seems you never learn from the lessons, before you would argue for specific size the Quran may ever teach,just give us the textual ,linguestic support ....

The difference is that one of us has supported our position with context and logic, and the other is simply repeating his assertions over and over..

The difference is that one of us has supported his position with proof text and is qualified enough (Alhamdullilah)for the issues under discusion and another failed to give textaul supports and resorted hopelessley to the Greeks to help him understand the Quran.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is specific and unique about it.
Though it's kind of funny to watch you repeatedly attempt to reverse the burden of proof:

I would show you who is joking,and shifting the burden of proofs here:

Where is in the work of Aristotle or Galen the embryo been described as a something has leech looking, that cling,stick to the womb, getting blood as nourishment from the womb?....and such thing becomes looks like a chewed substance as the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine...Just where it been described such unique way outside the Quran?

and you still fancy yourself that still you wait

still waiting for you to tell me what is specific and unique about it.

!!!

 

[Azy]

Not that I want to get embroiled in another heated argument, but...
---
See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another (71:15)
Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light (25:61)
Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge. (65:12)
It is He who created for you all that is in the earth, then He lifted Himself to heaven and levelled them seven heavens; and He has knowledge of everything (2:29)
Hast thou not turned thy vision to thy Lord?- How He doth prolong the shadow! If He willed, He could make it stationary! then do We make the sun its guide (25:45)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 418:

Narrated Salim's father:
The Prophet said, "Any person who takes a piece of land unjustly will sink down the seven earths on the Day of Resurrection."
---

How do you reconcile these with a non-geocentric view?
The heavens are above the Earth in layers, the moon and sun are in those layers above the earth, commands descend the heavens towards the Earth.
Shadows change shape throughout the day, but are guided by the sun.

Of course the cause of the shadows movement depends on your frame of reference. If it were a heliocentric reference frame then the spinning Earth would cause the shadows to change, but the Quran states that it is the Sun to blame, therefore it is using the Earth as a reference frame for the movement of the heavenly bodies, as the Sun causes shadows to change by apparently moving around the Earth.

 

[Qingu]

Imam, I'm not sure we're going to get any further, because we have fundamentally different views on how to interpret texts.

When I read a text, I interpret it keeping in mind the time in which it was written and the culture that produced it. I also operate by "Occam's Razor"—that is, the simplest explanation/interpretation is often the right one.

So when I read "seven heavens" in a text that was written at a time when everyone believed that there were seven layers of heaven that surrounded the earth like an onion, that is how I interpret that phrase.

"Assuming the Quran is false" does not enter into the equation for my interpretation. This is simply how I look at all ancient texts that I've read.

You would probably agree with my method of how to interpret texts—except for the Quran, which you have assumed is absolutely true. When you see a phrase like "seven heavens," you claim that one of the heavens refers to the entire space of the Einsteinian universe—a concept that (1) was unheard of during the time this text was written, (2) is not ever mentioned anywhere in the text itself, and (3) doesn't even make sense scientifically.

Then, when I ask you to support your claim that this is how we interpret this verse, you just reverse the burden of proof and say "prove it doesn't say that" (nevermind that you can't logically "prove" a negative assertion).

If you think your style of interpretation is intellectually honest, then I don't really know how to proceed from here. I would certainly love to see you debate a fundamentalist Christian or Hindu who interpret their texts with the same "methods" of interpretation that you use.

 

[Qingu]

I will respond to this:

Where is in the work of Aristotle or Galen the embryo been described as a something has leech looking, that cling,stick to the womb, getting blood as nourishment from the womb?

First of all, all the Quran says is that it looks like a leech. I don't see anything in the Quran about how the embryo gets blood from the womb, though I assume you can infer this from the word "leech."

But then, Aristotle explicitly says the embryo draws blood from the womb:

"The foregoing discussion will have made it clear that the female, though it does not contribute any semen to generation, yet contributes something, viz., the substance constituting the menstrual fluid (or the corresponding substance in bloodless animals)."

He also goes into much more details about the stages of the embryo's appearance than simply describing it as a "leech":

"How, then, are the other parts formed? Either they are all formed simultaneously - heart, lung, liver, eye, and the rest of them - or successively, as we read in the poems ascribed to Orpheus, where he says that the process by which an animal is formed resembles the knitting of a net. As for simultaneous formation of the parts, our senses tell us plainly that this does not happen: some of the parts are clearly to be seen present in the embryo while others are not."

....and such thing becomes looks like a chewed substance as the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine...Just where it been described such unique way outside the Quran?

Again, the Quran says absolutely nothing about "backbones" and "trunk structures." It simply says it looks like a chewed substance. That's it.

And see above—Aristotle goes into much more detail about how various parts of the embryo form.

Now, Aristotle gets a lot of stuff wrong, too. But the stuff he got right is found in the Quran—in a much simpler and vaguer form. I honestly have no idea how you can say the Quran's correct (and vague) statements on embryology are "miraculous" when Aristotle said the same things. Unfortunately, something tells me you'll keep on repeating your claim no matter what I say, though.

Just to be as clear as possible:

You are saying the Quran is miraculous because it correctly identifies embryos as

• Drawing blood from the womb
• Developing over time with organs and structures forming in stages.

So does Aristotle.

 

[muslimapoclyptc]

Not that I want to get embroiled in another heated argument, but...
---
See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another (71:15)
Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light (25:61)
Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge. (65:12)
It is He who created for you all that is in the earth, then He lifted Himself to heaven and levelled them seven heavens; and He has knowledge of everything (2:29)
Hast thou not turned thy vision to thy Lord?- How He doth prolong the shadow! If He willed, He could make it stationary! then do We make the sun its guide (25:45)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 418:

Narrated Salim's father:
The Prophet said, "Any person who takes a piece of land unjustly will sink down the seven earths on the Day of Resurrection."
---

How do you reconcile these with a non-geocentric view?
The heavens are above the Earth in layers, the moon and sun are in those layers above the earth, commands descend the heavens towards the Earth.
Shadows change shape throughout the day, but are guided by the sun.

Of course the cause of the shadows movement depends on your frame of reference. If it were a heliocentric reference frame then the spinning Earth would cause the shadows to change, but the Quran states that it is the Sun to blame, therefore it is using the Earth as a reference frame for the movement of the heavenly bodies, as the Sun causes shadows to change by apparently moving around the Earth.

The "sun guiding the shadows", obviously has to do with the sun's light, not its orbit. The "Heavens" is very general term, and really just refers to what is above the Earth. However, since the Earth is round, everything is "above" it. The fact that the sun and the moon are in the "heavens" (sky/space), doesn't really prove geocentrism. At best, it only suggests it.

 

[Qingu]

What would a text have to say to "prove" that it means geocentrism for you?

 

[Trumble]

empty assertion.... but I can guess why

I doubt it. Try actually reading my second paragraph....

If you concentrate more....

... and following your own advice.

 

[muslimapoclyptc]

When I read a text, I interpret it keeping in mind the time in which it was written and the culture that produced it. I also operate by "Occam's Razor"—that is, the simplest explanation/interpretation is often the right one.

So when I read "seven heavens" in a text that was written at a time when everyone believed that there were seven layers of heaven that surrounded the earth like an onion, that is how I interpret that phrase.

"Assuming the Quran is false" does not enter into the equation for my interpretation. This is simply how I look at all ancient texts that I've read.

You would probably agree with my method of how to interpret texts—except for the Quran, which you have assumed is absolutely true. When you see a phrase like "seven heavens," you claim that one of the heavens refers to the entire space of the Einsteinian universe—a concept that (1) was unheard of during the time this text was written, (2) is not ever mentioned anywhere in the text itself, and (3) doesn't even make sense scientifically.

The problem with your analysis of the Qur'an as just being an "ancient text", is that it is viewed (both by itself and by those who believe in it), that it is divine guidance for mankind until Judgment Day. Interpreting its texts in light of the beliefs at the time of its revelation, presumes that it isn't from God, but from man.

Furthermore, with regard to the 7 heavens:

Qur'an 41:12:
So He completed them in the form of seven heavens in two days, and He revealed to each heaven its function. And We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps for light and provided it with the means of protection. That is the decree of the Mighty, the All-Knowing.

So, clearly it says that the lowest Heaven (singular) was adorned with "lamps"/"lights"/stars (plural), hence it's clearly referring to the visible Universe.

So, reasons (1) and (2) are refuted, and as for reason (3), that's a matter of perspective.

Ultimately, what people knew about then is irrelevant. It isn't about what people knew in the 7th century, it's about what God says in the Qur'an in the 7th century.

 

[Qingu]

The problem with your analysis of the Qur'an as just being an "ancient text", is that it is viewed (both by itself and by those who believe in it), that it is divine guidance for mankind until Judgment Day. Interpreting its texts in light of the beliefs at the time of its revelation, presumes that it isn't from God, but from man.

But that's circular.

And the entire point of this thread is "how do we know the Quran is true." So "the Quran is true" cannot be our starting assumption.

Qur'an 41:12:
So He completed them in the form of seven heavens in two days, and He revealed to each heaven its function. And We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps for light and provided it with the means of protection. That is the decree of the Mighty, the All-Knowing.

So, clearly it says that the lowest Heaven (singular) was adorned with "lamps"/"lights"/stars (plural), hence it's clearly referring to the visible Universe.

It says lamps. It doesn't say stars.

And the Arabs had no idea what the "visible universe" was. I don't see "universe" anywhere in the Quran. I see a "heaven," which is the same word for "sky," that has "lamps" set into it. This is exactly what the Bible says. It is very similar to what Aristotle and every other ancient writer at the time of the Quran believed about the shape of the cosmos.

So—apart from simply assuming the Quran is from God, can do no wrong, and must match up with current science no matter what—what reason can you give for interpreting this verse to mean Einstein's visible "universe"?

Ultimately, what people knew about then is irrelevant. It isn't about what people knew in the 7th century, it's about what God says in the Qur'an in the 7th century.

Unless God didn't write the Quran.

How do we know that God wrote the Quran? Do you see how this is a problem?

And it's especially problematic because there are a lot of ancient texts that claim to be written from God. Are we supposed to interpret these texts normally, in the context of their cultures—or are we supposed to interpret them as if they were perfect and sent down from God(s)?

 

[Imam]

I will respond to this:


First of all, all the Quran says is that it looks like a leech. .

Yes it does and so it described the appearance of the embryo in such stage in a way neither aristotle nor any other source did....

where is it in Aristotle describing the emryo in such stage as a leech looking?

the same way the other stage , the appearance of a chewed substance. as The irregular surface showing somites, resembling teeth prints on a substance, which has been chewed The external appearance of this stage of embryonic development is, therefore, described as something which has no particular fixed features. It is characterised by irregularities on the surface with depressions and bulges. The only fixed feature in a "Mudghah" is the mark of a set of teeth, the row of somites which is characteristic of the embryo when it starts to show features of rapid shaping likened to the marks of the teeth.


a detailed refutation of that idea that the embryological development described in the Qur'an, has been plagiarised from the writings of ancient Greek physicians (A must read)

http://www.quranicstudies.com/artic...uran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology.html

What would a text have to say to "prove" that it means geocentrism for you? .

A text would have to say exactly as what Greek said to "prove" that it means geocentrism for me.

It says lamps. It doesn't say stars..

Quran
[037:006] We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty the stars


It seems you won't listen to my advice for you while approaching the Quran !!


Azy

I will respond to your post ,later when I have time
inshsAllah.....

 

[Qingu]

where is it in Aristotle describing the emryo in such stage as a leech looking?

Let me get this straight.

Aristotle describes the formation, at various stages, of the internal organs of the embryo, and explains that it draws blood from the mother's womb.

The Quran describes the embryo as "looking like a leech."

You seriously think the Quran's description is better than Aristotle's?

I mean, embryo's don't even look that much like leeches.

More like fishes or tadpoles—embryos have clearly defined heads and limbs, and for a time, a fish-like tail.

I thought the salient point about the "leech" comparison was that the Quran "miraculously" knew the embryo draws blood from the mother (which Aristotle also knew).

the same way the other stage , the appearance of a chewed substance. as The irregular surface showing somites, resembling teeth prints on a substance, which has been chewed

The problem with copying and pasting from websites is that you don't really know how to support what the website is saying.

Incidentally, that's the website I got my quotes from Aristotle.

Now, this is really just ridiculous. Your source is claiming that the Quran's characterization of the embryo as looking like a "chewed substance" is miraculous ... because ... wait for it ... certain indentations on the surface of the embryo look sort of like teeth marks!

I stand by my earlier statement. You've already decided to believe the Quran's statements on embryology are miraculous, and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I don't think there's much to add to this discussion, and I'm willing to let our readers decide for themselves which argument is more compelling.

A text would have to say exactly as what Greek said to "prove" that it means geocentrism for me.

But many cultures were geocentric. Not just the Greeks.

I mean, do you think the early Hindus were geocentric? Their texts are not exactly the same as the ancient Greek texts. What about the ancient Babylonians?

Quran
[037:006] We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty the stars

It seems you won't listen to my advice for you while approaching the Quran !!

Aha. On this particular point, it seems I was wrong, and I apologize.

Nevertheless, my broader point still stands—the idea of "seven heavens" in the Quran was popular in the ancient world, and it was not a heliocentric idea at all.

And lots of "seven heaven" stories put the stars and planets and moon and sun in different places. The traditional, scholarly placing (as in Ptolemy) is what I said earlier. But earlier Greeks believed that the top heavens were filled with water or flames. So did the Jews, writing during the time of Jesus—there are many apocalyptic texts that describe journeys through the seven heavens. When I was in school I even read an Islamic apocalyptic text (I believe it was an early Sufi) that described a similar journey through seven heavens.

Which is to say, I don't think the exact location of the celestial bodies in this framework is as important as the framework itself. And that framework—seven layers of heaven/sky surrounding the earth like an onion—is found in the Quran, and has always been understood to imply geocentrism.

 

[muslimapoclyptc]

But that's circular.

Not really. If you interpret the Qur'an as being subject to common beliefs at the time of revelation, you're assuming that it didn't come from God, but from man.

Likewise if you interpret the Qur'an as not being subject to common beliefs at the time of revelation, you're assuming that it is from God, and meant for the whole of mankind, from the 7th century to Judgment Day.

And the entire point of this thread is "how do we know the Quran is true." So "the Quran is true" cannot be our starting assumption.

True. But, what you are discussing is something a bit more specific. You are actually trying to interpret statements in the Qur'an based on common beliefs of the 7th century

It says lamps. It doesn't say stars.

It's still referring to illuminated celestial objects in the sky (which certainly includes stars), and it's still saying that they're in the lowest heaven.

And the Arabs had no idea what the "visible universe" was. I don't see "universe" anywhere in the Quran. I see a "heaven," which is the same word for "sky," that has "lamps" set into it. This is exactly what the Bible says. It is very similar to what Aristotle and every other ancient writer at the time of the Quran believed about the shape of the cosmos.

Everyone knows what the visible Universe is; it's everything you can see around you, hence "visible". In the sky, they would've seen a bunch of lights (some obviously bigger than others). The Qur'an says that all those lights are in the lowest heaven. These "lights", as we now know today, are a variety of different objects, such as other planets, stars, and even galaxies. Since that's basically what the visible Universe consists of, then obviously, that's what it's referring to.

So—apart from simply assuming the Quran is from God, can do no wrong, and must match up with current science no matter what—what reason can you give for interpreting this verse to mean Einstein's visible "universe"?

See above.

Unless God didn't write the Quran.

But, that in itself is a presumption. When you analyze ancient texts, you analyze them under the presumption that they're all the works of men, regardless if they claim otherwise. That's why your argument is biased, and hence flawed.

How do we know that God wrote the Quran? Do you see how this is a problem?

As I said on my first post of this thread, in reply to the original post:

We know that the Qur'an is true and divine, because of its inimitability, as the Qur'an itself says, and as history has shown to be true.

And it's especially problematic because there are a lot of ancient texts that claim to be written from God. Are we supposed to interpret these texts normally, in the context of their cultures—or are we supposed to interpret them as if they were perfect and sent down from God(s)?

You're supposed to interpret them based on their claims. If they're not claiming divine authorship or anything special like that, interpreting it in the context of its culture is only logical.

If its claiming divine authorship, then you analyze this claim, based on what it offers as proof to back it up. If it offers nothing, then the objective thing to do, would be to analyze it, while being open to both views of it being divine and of it being man-made.