Muhammad God's prophet?

[Simple_Person]

OK Simple Person here is my rebuttal.
You say that human beings because they are not perfect cannot create something that is perfect.
You say that the Qur'an (in the original Arabic) is perfect and does not contain any errors.
I disagree with both these statements and I will set out my reasons for disagreeing.
Is it true that human beings, being imperfect, cannot create something that is perfect? This may seem plausible at first but on closer examination I think it is untrue. It is for instance conceivable that a mathematician may write a thesis or a whole book on some section of mathematics, and all the equations and proofs are correct. No fault can be found with it. The mathematician as a human being may have his shortcomings and failings, but these will not necessarily prevent him from producing a perfect work of mathematics.

A perfect work of mathematics does not exist. Why do i say this? To give a perfect something of something one ought to know everything there is to know about. So is your argument that mathematicians have reached the level of knowing all there is of mathematics? To further clarify what i mean to say is i cannot say i have reached 50% of my life just because i am 50 years old. It could be that i die tomorrow which would be logically speaking already that i have reached 99% so to say. So going back to mathematics there are still things within mathematics that haven't become fact. As we in this day and age do NOT know how far we are in the ride to full knowledge of mathematics. This is indeed not only limited to mathematics, but also other scientific categories. As another example, at first science told us that drinking a glass of wine was good for the health. Now a days new research says..not drinking any alcohol whatsoever is better. So again, the research is NOT perfect, as we have no full knowledge and understanding of certain subjects.

As another example take the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Many of the best musicians in the world would agree that some of Bach's compositions are perfect and that no one would be able to improve on them. Bach was a human being like ourselves and he had his faults. In his younger years he displayed an inclination towards arrogance. His human faults did not stop him producing perfect compositions.

This is a subjective view. Just because they are impressed with somebodies work, doesn't make it perfect. Something is perfect when somebody knows all THERE IS AND ALL THERE WILL BE about something. So my question to you, do you think NOTHING more about science of music/sound will be discovered? Hearing something is subjective. It can move some people while it does not move other people. Just because certain music doesn't move me, what does that say? Am i suddenly "not a expert?". Or to give you even more ridiculous example. You look at a painting..it looks like a child has messed up their food ..some people suddenly come with argument.."ooh i feel anger and sadness and hardship in this painting"..!!?? All subjectivity.

So saying "perfect" is meaning that something in this case the Qur'an does not contradict ANYTHING..what has been branded a fact now and will stay even after 100 years as a fact. No subjectivity.

Now I'll get to your claim about the Qur'an being perfect and not containing errors. I know of many imperfections in the Qur'an. In order to prove that the Qur'an is not perfect I only have to put forward one error. One error is enough to make a piece of literature imperfect. According to Surah 18:86 Dhul-Qarnain once traveled a long way in a westerly direction and found the place where the sun sets every night in a spring of black muddy water. Can this be correct? I think you will agree with me that the sun does not set in a spring of black muddy water.

Your turn.

Are you serious? or are you just trying to screw with me? If i would tell you "I have a backyard connecting to the North atlantic ocean and every day i see the sun setting in the North atlantic ocean that makes a great view".

Please tell me that you have literally understood exactly what i just said.

Another example,

"It has been made permissible for you the night preceding fasting to go to your wives [for sexual relations]. They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them. Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He accepted your repentance and forgave you. So now, have relations with them and seek that which Allah has decreed for you. And eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinct to you from the black thread [of night]. Then complete the fast until the sunset. And do not have relations with them as long as you are staying for worship in the mosques. These are the limits [set by] Allah, so do not approach them. Thus does Allah make clear His ordinances to the people that they may become righteous." Qur'an 2:187

There is a hadith.

"In a Hadeeth (narration) on the authority of ‘Adiyy ibn Haatim, may Allah be pleased with him, he said, “When the verse in which Allah The Almighty Says (what means): {And eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the black thread at dawn.} [Quran 2:187] was revealed, I took two strings, one black and the other white, and kept them under my pillow and went on looking at them throughout the night but could not make anything out of it. So, the next morning I went to the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) and told him the whole story. He said:‘That verse means the darkness of the night and the whiteness of the dawn.’” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]"


So so far about your reply, If this is seriously the logic, rationality and reason you bring to this discussion..i can tell you that not only i am baffled but also shocked and confused about your reply. I seriously had expected that you would have brought at least a challenge that you have pondered about and the average Muslim even not know about it. Again, are you screwing with me? I am seriously asking you this, not trying to act arrogant, but i am seriously confused.

 

[Scimitar]

Scimitar, thanks for your explanation of how Muhammad's coming was foretold in the old testament. I am unconvinced and unimpressed. Just because the Hebrew word for lovely is somewhat similar to the name Muhammad, it does not therefore follow that Muhammad's coming was foretold in the old testament. Employing this kind of logic can be useful for when you want to argue that mermaids do exist or that the moon is made of cheese.

There are many issues with your reasoning, and I will explain why you are wrong and biased with your POV.

1) there is no such thing as coincidence in your theology, so you cannot put the name of Muhammad pbuh being in songs of Solomon 5:16 down to "coincidence" because this is an holy book I am referencing, the Psalms - revealed to David and Solomon (pbut) by God - is God the author of confusion in your theology?

The answer is NO. Because God ordains.

2) the etymological breakdown of the rooting is not contested by Muslims at all - in fact it is the Christians such as yourself who do not speak Arabic to know this and instead interpolate your own "out of context" bias, and I quote you with this:

Just because the Hebrew word for lovely is somewhat similar to the name Muhammad, it does not therefore follow that Muhammad's coming was foretold in the old testament.

Here is the meaning of Muhammad from the Arabic:

Most Praised, Beloved.

Here is the translation of that part of Songs of Solomon 5:16 - His mouth is most sweet: yes, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

From the hadeeth, we have the report that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh mouth emitted a sweet fragrance as well.

And the verse itself is praising who? Muhammad, upon whom be the peace and mercy of God.

Where you err is in your inability to recognise the FACT that the name of Muhammad is in the songs of Solomon 5:16 and you are unable to explain this away as the will of God while pretending this name belongs to a city of Jerusalem.

If you are truly seeking truth, then why hold onto your bias which serves to do nothing but take you away from the truth?

Why compromise your intellectual fortitude for the sake of what you've incorrectly come to believe is the correct faith?

Employing this kind of logic can be useful for when you want to argue that mermaids do exist or that the moon is made of cheese

One word for you: REVELATIONS.

God bless.

Scimi

 

[fschmidt]

So mind telling me what the name of Muhammad (pbuh) is doing in The Psalms - Songs of Solomon 5:16?

Hebrew Aramaic and Arabic are sister languages - they share the same consonant roots and have meanings attached to the letters, this tri-lateral rooting system is what makes understanding Hebrew Aramaic, for the Arab linguist, easy peasy.

This argument is weak. The Hebrew is מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים pronounced machamadim. The "ch" isn't pronouncable in English and isn't "h". Here is a Hebrew reading:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE29iz8zi34&feature=youtu.be&t=21m

 

[Scimitar]

According to Ben Yehuda's Hebrew to English dictionary, מַחֲמַדִּ֑ is correctly pronounced Mahamad and not Machmadad and the ם is the royal plural suffix which translates to IM as explained earlier.

When writing Hebrew, there is no difference between the words Mahamad מַחֲמַדִּ֑ and Muhammad מַחֲמַדִּ֑.

The only difference is in the use of vowels when pronouncing this word מַחֲמַדִּ֑. Hebrew is an ancient language and there are no vowels. It is made up of 22 consonants. The vowels weren't added until the 8th century CE. Suspect timing eh?

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE29iz8zi34&feature=youtu.be&t=21m

Ashkenazi bro - that race is not semitic, and they caused many corruptions in how Judaism is understood,

Scimi

 

[Wim]

OK simple person, you have given a different definition to perfection. By your definition a book on Mathematics can only be perfect if it perfectly sets out all the mathematics that already exists as well as all the mathematics that will exist in the future. I agree that by that definition a perfect book on mathematics can never exist. My definition only required the absence of errors. Not much point stringing that one out any further.

Now to the scientific error in the Quran about the place where the sun sets. You say you are baffled, shocked and confused about my reply. Well I am confused by your reply. If the Quran had told us that the sun sets in the Atlantic ocean then my response would have been, well this is not strictly true but people may be excused for thinking this because the sun consistently appears to be setting in the Atlantic ocean. But the Quran does not tell us that the sun sets in the Atlantic ocean. It instead tells us that the sun sets in a muddy pool of water that has some people live near it. That is patently untrue and there is no excuse for anyone thinking it to be the case. The sun does not even appear to be setting in a pool. That Muhammad really thought that the sun set in a muddy pool (or a "spring of warm water") is further confirmed in Sunan Abu Dawud 3991. Muhammad definitely got that one wrong.

That particular error on Muhammad's part is in itself fairly innocuous. It is not a big deal for me. What I do find much more objectionable is that there exists this bizarre compulsion among Muslims to engage in mental contortions and feats of colossal intellectual dishonesty in order to prove that the Quran and Muhammad are right after all. I would respect it much better if you guys would simply admit that Muhammad got that one wrong.

There are other errors that Muhammad fell into that cannot possibly be regarded as innocuous. One such error concerns the moral character of Allah. That is where it really gets serious. I will not go into that here because I intend to start a separate discussion under the heading "Is Allah unrighteous?"

 

[Wim]

looks like the moon is made of cheese after all. How come I did not at first believe it?

 

[Scimitar]

looks like the moon is made of cheese after all. How come I did not at first believe it?

LOL. WIM, I'm still waiting for you to answer my replies to your posts.

Now to the scientific error in the Quran about the place where the sun sets. You say you are baffled, shocked and confused about my reply. Well I am confused by your reply.

You asked the wrong person.

Ask me. I can't blame you for not knowing this, but I studied Surah al Kahf for years. If your bone of contention is with the verse which God explains what Dhul Qarayn saw - then fine let's have it.

This is the verse:

86. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allah) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness."

This verse denotes two things. One, the initial context is third person where God is describing to Muhammad pbuh - what Dhul Qarnayn saw, what appeared to his human eyes.

"Until when he (dhul qarnayn) reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it, a people..." this is describing what Dhul Qarnayn witnessed. Not a scientific fact lol - it's a part of a story whose purpose is entirely different from establishing anything of scientific value. The context is history, not science - can you understand this?

The second denote is as follows, the verse continues with "We (Allah) said (by inspiration) : "O Dhul Qarnayn, either you punish them, or you treat them with kindness".

This narrative shift is evident first person where God is talking about how HE inspired Dhul Qarnayn. No Science Here Bro.

What is your next bone of contention? I will entertain it, but first - I replied to you already in another post - so please do return the courtesy of answering that one while you are at it.

Scimi

 

[Simple_Person]

-

I didn't get it at first but now i get it how he understands things. Like Zakir Naik says..it is a book of SIGNS not of SCIENCE. While he thinks i am saying it is a book of SCIENCE...This really has cracked me. Sub'han'Allah.

 

[Simple_Person]

OK simple person, you have given a different definition to perfection. By your definition a book on Mathematics can only be perfect if it perfectly sets out all the mathematics that already exists as well as all the mathematics that will exist in the future. I agree that by that definition a perfect book on mathematics can never exist. My definition only required the absence of errors. Not much point stringing that one out any further.

Now to the scientific error in the Quran about the place where the sun sets. You say you are baffled, shocked and confused about my reply. Well I am confused by your reply. If the Quran had told us that the sun sets in the Atlantic ocean then my response would have been, well this is not strictly true but people may be excused for thinking this because the sun consistently appears to be setting in the Atlantic ocean. But the Quran does not tell us that the sun sets in the Atlantic ocean. It instead tells us that the sun sets in a muddy pool of water that has some people live near it. That is patently untrue and there is no excuse for anyone thinking it to be the case. The sun does not even appear to be setting in a pool. That Muhammad really thought that the sun set in a muddy pool (or a "spring of warm water") is further confirmed in Sunan Abu Dawud 3991. Muhammad definitely got that one wrong.

That particular error on Muhammad's part is in itself fairly innocuous. It is not a big deal for me. What I do find much more objectionable is that there exists this bizarre compulsion among Muslims to engage in mental contortions and feats of colossal intellectual dishonesty in order to prove that the Quran and Muhammad are right after all. I would respect it much better if you guys would simply admit that Muhammad got that one wrong.

There are other errors that Muhammad fell into that cannot possibly be regarded as innocuous. One such error concerns the moral character of Allah. That is where it really gets serious. I will not go into that here because I intend to start a separate discussion under the heading "Is Allah unrighteous?"

You really cracked me up Wim. I have said scientific facts and no where have i claimed that the Qur'an is a book of SCIENCE. It is a book of SIGNS. Aya is translated as verse, but in reality to come a bit more close to the definition it means "sign"..while ayaat (multiple verses) means SIGNS.

Within those verses exist scientific facts. The verse you took, like that other brother said is from the perspective of the viewer. I ASSUMED you would also understand such language when used. That is why i used the example of mine when i said the sun sets in the North Atlantic Ocean. As it not really sets in the North Atlantic Ocean, but it looks like it if you use your eyes to look at it.

Your argument sounds a bit like the argument of a guy i know. When i try to explain something to him and there are multiple ways to explain something to a person. So in case of him to get me and him on the same wave length of understanding i use for example a method like pointing at the tv and ask him..what brand has that television? Normally you would expect the answer of brand X. He instead says "why do you treat me like a child by asking me what brand it is? I know what the brand is of that tv".

I have tried many different methods to explain something to him, yet instead of him listening and trying to focus on what i am trying to explain to him, he says you can't explain things and your methods of explaining are very bad. So with him i have left him in his ignorance. The sad part about this is, he often wants to have a conversation with me about IT, but knows and understands little about IT. Thus he uses names of program X for program Y and uses the name for program Y for program X. It is rather hard to understand what he is saying and if i ask for clarity he becomes annoyed and says it is all the same you know what i mean. :Emoji7:...well good luck with having a conversation with such a guy.

But oke, i blame myself for ASSUMING you knew Qur'an is a book of SIGNS and not of SCIENCE. Anyways, about that vers/aya do you understand it now? Or do you still treat it like science?

 

[Wim]

Scimi, I have not replied to your latest contribution to this discussion because I was unimpressed by your rebuttal saying that the context is history, not science. But does it matter what the context is? Muhammad got his assertion wrong about the place where the sun sets. He got this wrong regardless of the context in which the assertion was made. I find your reply typical of the kind of disingenuous intellectual escape artistry that so frequently characterises the reasonings of Muslims in debates of this kind. Muhammad's revelation about the place where the sun sets is just one of a number which he made which in his time would have been fairly invulnerable to falsification. We are in different times now and we now know for a fact that he got a few things wrong. Badly wrong at that. It should make Muslims wonder what other revelations he got wrong. What basis is left for trusting Muhammad's revelations? I know it goes against the precepts of your religion but you Muslims really ought to start looking critically at the prophethood credentials of your prophet. There are far more pressing issues than finding out where the place is where the sun sets. Possibly the most important issue is how can I avoid ending up in hell and ensure that instead I end up in paradise. In finding an answer to such a question should you really allow yourselves to be guided by what Muhammad had to say about this?

Simple Person, what I have written above applies equally for you. Your talk about the Qur'an being a book of SIGNS and not of SCIENCE does not address the issue.

 

[Scimitar]

Scimi, I have not replied to your latest contribution to this discussion because I was unimpressed by your rebuttal saying that the context is history, not science. But does it matter what the context is? Muhammad got his assertion wrong about the place where the sun sets.

1) Context is everything, this aint JRR Tolkein you're reading. It is the Qur'an, it is to be studied with contextual and cotextual grounding if you are not a native Arabic speaker.

2) No one got it wrong.

3) Muhammad is not the author of the Qur'an

4) the assertion in context is historical third person.

5) I am now starting to believe you aint that smart if you remain unimpressed with the rebuttal to your our of context, linear English reading of the Qur'an.

6) what you have provided is not a rebuttal, but a complaint which is founded on nothing but ignorance.

the rest of your post was regurgitating what I just quoted in at the top.

This story is fascinating, and I have the beans on it from the Jewish sources, the Historical records and Islam - you on the other hand - are a linear reader and though I gave you a chance to prove your intellectual worth, you came back with this lame ass complaint founded on nothing but your own inadequacy.

Rich bro

Scimi

EDIT: if I was to apply your standard to the bible NT, I'd actually have points to make over and over again - meanwhile heres you WIM. Thinking he had a point, most likely had a pint and left himself with a big fat giant 0.

Scimi

 

[greenhill]

I have looked up some.


I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. (Deuteronomy 18:18)

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deuteronomy 18:19)

Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, "Please read this." And he will say, "I cannot read." (Isaiah 29:12)

N.T
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me (John 15:26)

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever (John 14:16)
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear (John 16:12)

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:13)

He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you (John 16:14)
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]


eace:[/FONT]

 

[Simple_Person]

Scimi, I have not replied to your latest contribution to this discussion because I was unimpressed by your rebuttal saying that the context is history, not science. But does it matter what the context is? Muhammad got his assertion wrong about the place where the sun sets. He got this wrong regardless of the context in which the assertion was made. I find your reply typical of the kind of disingenuous intellectual escape artistry that so frequently characterises the reasonings of Muslims in debates of this kind. Muhammad's revelation about the place where the sun sets is just one of a number which he made which in his time would have been fairly invulnerable to falsification. We are in different times now and we now know for a fact that he got a few things wrong. Badly wrong at that. It should make Muslims wonder what other revelations he got wrong. What basis is left for trusting Muhammad's revelations? I know it goes against the precepts of your religion but you Muslims really ought to start looking critically at the prophethood credentials of your prophet. There are far more pressing issues than finding out where the place is where the sun sets. Possibly the most important issue is how can I avoid ending up in hell and ensure that instead I end up in paradise. In finding an answer to such a question should you really allow yourselves to be guided by what Muhammad had to say about this?

Simple Person, what I have written above applies equally for you. Your talk about the Qur'an being a book of SIGNS and not of SCIENCE does not address the issue.

You see Qur'an as some black and white something. I have tried to explain that Qur'an is a book of signs ..not science. It does however contain scientific facts that was which i was referring to. But you see everything as "science" and LITERALLY. I gave you the verse about the white and black thread with hadith about that not everything is to be understood literately..but SOMEHOW you haven't digested that. This book is to be understood in the way how people should understand things. In our daily life if i want to talk to you i use all kind of examples and sayings. However you don't say..ooh that saying is LITERALLY. Like if i would say.."you reap what you sow". Well if i would judge you according to these comments i would say you would say..well i haven't sowed any seeds..so i have no plants to reap.. =_=!.

But this is also a confirmation for something else.

"Indeed, Allah is not timid to present an example - that of a mosquito or what is smaller than it. And those who have believed know that it is the truth from their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did Allah intend by this as an example?" He misleads many thereby and guides many thereby. And He misleads not except the defiantly disobedient," Qur'an 2:26

If you were here LITERALLY to come to learn how come we see that Muhammad was a messenger of God, then you would also have understood our arguments. However that we seriously are discussing that there are things that shouldn't be seen literally shows the state of your heart. As understanding of some knowledge comes from the Creator not from me even if i would use the MOST eloquent words there are. You have already confirmed to yourself that Islam is false. Rather you think by coming here to spread doubt as you "know" it is false that the Qur'an is from the Creator.

I wish you a good day and may the Creator lead you to the right path. Ameen.

 

[Scimitar]

You see Qur'an as some black and white something. I have tried to explain that Qur'an is a book of signs ..not science. It does however contain scientific facts that was which i was referring to. But you see everything as "science" and LITERALLY. I gave you the verse about the white and black thread with hadith about that not everything is to be understood literately..but SOMEHOW you haven't digested that.

This is the reason why he hasn't:

It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding. - Qur'an 3:7

Scimi

 

[OmAbdullah]

I know of many imperfections in the Qur'an. In order to prove that the Qur'an is not perfect I only have to put forward one error. One error is enough to make a piece of literature imperfect. According to Surah 18:86 Dhul-Qarnain once traveled a long way in a westerly direction and found the place where the sun sets every night in a spring of black muddy water. Can this be correct? I think you will agree with me that the sun does not set in a spring of black muddy water.

Your turn.

1. You must tell all of the imperfections that you think are in the Holy Quraan.

2. Setting of the sun in.......


Let us read the translation of the verse and its explanation:


(18:86) until when he reached the very limits where the sun sets,[SUP]63[/SUP] he saw it setting in dark turbid waters;[SUP]64[/SUP] and nearby he met a people. We said: "O Dhu al-Qarnayn, you have the power to punish or to treat them with kindness."[SUP]65[/SUP]
‏ 

Exp. notes 63---65:


63. “The setting place of the sun” does not mean the place of the setting of the sun. According to Ibn Kathir, it means that he marched to the west conquering one country after the other till he reached the last boundary of the land, beyond which there was ocean.


64. “He found it setting in a muddy spring”: If Zul Qarnain was Cyrus, then that place would be the western limit of Asia Minor and the black waters would be the Aegean Sea. This interpretation is supported by the use of the word ain instead of bahr in the Quran.


65. “We said” does not necessarily mean that Allah directly revealed to him these words, and that Zul-Qarnain was a Prophet or was the one who received inspiration from Allah, and the same is the reasonable conjecture. This concerns the time when Zul-Qarnain had taken possession of the land as a conqueror and the conquered people were utterly at your mercy. Then Allah posed a question
before his conscience, as if to say: Now is the time of your trial. These people are utterly at your mercy, and you have the option either to behave unjustly towards them or to treat them generously.

*************************************************************************


Again here is a link of surah Al-Kahf in another commentary named dawatul Quraan:


http://www.islamicstudies.info/quran/dawat/surah18.htm


You can read more details of the same verse of surah Al-Kahf i.e. (18:86)


Now I will try to make the things clear on the bases of human mind:


I had read a hadeeth of the Prophet Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wa sallam. According to that Allah (The Creator) shall judge human beings on the bases of brain/wisdom, as near Allah brain /wisdom is the most important/valuable thing among all of Allah's creations.


This was a very beautiful hadeeth but now I have lost the book and also don't remember it in full. May Allah, the Mighty, forgive me. But I am trying to remind all mankind that whatever ideas and intentions pass in your mind, Allah knows them very well. For example, now I don't know if you are truthful and sincere in your words and that you are truly trying to find guidance or if you are trying to belie the Final Prophet Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wa sallam. But Allah surely knows your intention. And you shall be judged on the bases of that intention. The Day of Judgment is not far. It is only waiting to the death of every person!!! I hope you all believe in the coming and happening of death. Then there shall be no escape from Allah's punishment. This was only to remind you sincerely your weaknesses, and your helplessness in front of the All-Mighty Allah!!!



Now about the setting of sun:


Do you know where does the sun really set???


Does anyone else know where does it set???

In this scientifically advanced era, does any of the greatest scientists know exactly where does the sun set???


If you have the correct answer then bring it with proof!!!


Only Allah, the One Who created the Sun and has been managing its cycle knows best about its course.


As the commentary has explained it, Dhul-Qarnain reached the last limit of the dry land, so he could not proceed any further and then it seemed to him as if the Sun was setting in the dark muddy water which was in front of him and he had to stop there. Also Dawatul Quraan gives more explanation about the falling of a canal of muddy water there in the gulf. You should read that commentary, the link is given above.


Again I ask you a question. Whenever I stand on a beach (facing towards west) at the time of the Sunset, the sun appears to be setting in the same water whatever its name be. It may be the Atlantic ocean or the Arabian Gulf!!! Does the same appear to you??? Your answer will be "yes"!!! And the same will be the answer of every such person standing near an ocean/sea etc. facing west at the time of sunset!!!


But does the sun set there in front of you??? No! No! It appears to you like that!!!


In this verse (18:86) the real purpose is to tell us that Dhul-Qarnain travelled towards west conquering country after country until the dry land came to end and then in front of him was water so he couldn't travel any more. If you think that the Qurann says about a small spring of water then it is your misunderstanding. Think:

If it was merely a spring then; 1. Dhul-Qarnain would have easily crossed it and his journey to the west would continue. 2. The sun would not appear to be setting in that spring of water, rather he would see it setting near the horizon. But Dhul-Qarnain had to stop because of such a huge body of water (whatever it was) that he couldn't see land beyond that and thus the sun appeared to him as setting in that huge body of water!!!


Remember that the Holy Quraan is a Book and the Final Book of admonition to all mankind. There are many points of admonition in the story of Dhul-Qarnain. In the same surah Al-Kahf there is the story of the sleepers in a cave who only to protect their faith of Tawheed from a cruel oppressor king went and took refuge in the cave in mountains. Allah kept them sleeping until 309 years and then made them wakeup. People saw them and got a lesson to believe in the Day of Resurrection.


These stories of surah Al-Kahf were found in the history of Jews and had happened far away from Saudi Arabia. So the Arabs had no knowledge about them. As the Makkan idolators wanted to test the prophet-hood of Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wa sallam, they demanded very hard questions from the Jews. The Jews gave them these three questions i.e about As-haabi Kahf, the story of Khidhar and Musa alaihim salaam and about Dhul-Qarnain. As Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wa sallam,was a true Prophet of Allah, so Allah revealed to Him the whole surah Al-Kahf with full answers to the three questions. This surah is a proof of His Prophet-hood but you, instead of taking admonition, are trying to accuse the Book of Allah to be having errors. May Allah guide you otherwise I think you are far astray person!!! You are also trying to stray others from the right path of Islam. I inform you clearly that if you died in that state of faith and struggle, your punishment shall be double. Therefore I advise you very sincerely that you shouldn't go to the anti-Islamic sites. You must try to read and understand the Holy Quraan yourself. You can go to tafheem.net and choose any commentary for your understanding. Insha-Allah you will get proof of the Truth of Islam.


All must remember that Quraan is the proof of the Prophet-hood of Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wa sallam, It is a self-witness-Book that it cannot be the statement of human beings. It is a Divine Book, and THEREFORE Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wa sallam is the Prophet of Allah (The Only One, Single and Unique God Allah)!!!

 

[Wim]

Thanks for your response nbegam.
I cannot begin to tell you all the imperfections in the Quran. This would take too much time. I did however do a separate post under the title “is Allah unrighteous?” This deals with a very important issue which show up a serious error in the Quran with regard to how the Quran understands God’s moral character. Maybe you can have a look at that and respond to what I have written there.

You have a lot to say in defence of the Quran’s statement about the place where the sun sets. As far as I can see the issue is straightforward. The Quran tells us that the sun sets in a spring of black muddy water. That Muhammad actually thought that the sun sets in a spring of black muddy water is further confirmed in Sunan Abu Dawud 3991. Muhammad was obviously mistaken about that. If Muhammad had thought that the sun sets in the sea or in the ocean then we could be a lot more understanding of why he thought that. If you are saying that “a spring of black muddy water” really refers to the sea then my objection would be that the choice of words is enormously misleading. Why should the sea or the ocean be described as “a spring of black muddy water”? That makes no sense to me either. What I really find irksome is that you muslims have such difficulty admitting to the obvious. A reasonable person would not argue the kind of things that Muslims habitually argue. This is not something that I can respect.

 

[Scimitar]

You have a lot to say in defence of the Quran’s statement about the place where the sun sets. As far as I can see the issue is straightforward.

As far as we can tell, you entertain your cognitive bias so profusely, we wonder what asylum refused your treatment

Still awaiting your debunk to my posts

Scimi

 

[Wim]

You're getting a bit insulting there Scimi. I suggest you leave it out.
We are clearly not going to make much progress on the sunsetting issue so best move on.
Any other reasons why M. should be regarded as a prophet, apart from the Quran being so perfect?

 

[MidnightRose]

You're getting a bit insulting there Scimi. I suggest you leave it out.
We are clearly not going to make much progress on the sunsetting issue so best move on.
Any other reasons why M. should be regarded as a prophet, apart from the Quran being so perfect?

In Islam, there are no Prophets named M. The irony of your message above isn't lost on me.