Merged What the quran really says.

[Scorpion]

when the quran says, at sura 21.33 and 36.40 and 36.38 that the sun has an orbit, Imams claim this is a great revelation, because Muhammad knew the sun had an orbit in the galaxy. But the quran is actually saying the sun orbits the flat earth and is reset every dawn , and I can prove it with the following hadith.

Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421:
Narrated Abu Dhar:

The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." (36.38)

As can be seen it says that if the sun changed direction it would rise in the west. But if the sun changed direction in its orbit in the galaxy it would make no difference to the sun rising in the east, because it is the rotation of the earth that causes the appearance of the sun in the east. So this proves that the claim the quran says the sun has an orbit in the galaxy is wrong. The quran is clearly saying the sun orbits the earth.

 

[angrysoba]

Heliocentricity is only a theory^TM.

 

[eight bits]

What the quran really says.

I can prove it with the following hadith.

So, the Koran doesn't say it, really or otherwise. You can read something into it, via a later story told by somebody else, and supplemented with what you think the astronomy is.

"It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, ..."

That doesn't ring any bells from astronomy...

because it is the rotation of the earth that causes the appearance of the sun in the east.

That does ring some bells. Got a verse in the Koran for that?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

https://controversy.wearscience.com/img300/geocentric.png

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlink to regular link; please see Rule 5.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I don't know how accurate the translations are, but his argument makes sense.

 

[Scorpion]

Heliocentricity is only a theory^TM.

Its a pretty good theory, considering they have used it to land probes on Venus and Mars.

 

[Scorpion]

So, the Koran doesn't say it, really or otherwise. You can read something into it, via a later story told by somebody else, and supplemented with what you think the astronomy is.

The hadith Bukhari is well reputed, and it quotes Muhammad elaborating on what he says in the quran.

That does ring some bells. Got a verse in the Koran for that?

The quran is very simplistic and obscure, which is why Imams can make false interpretations to try and validate it. All it says in the quran is that the sun and the moon each have an orbit. My point is that they falsely claim these verses are refering to the sun having an orbit in the Galaxy, but an analysis of the above hadith proves this is not so.

 

[TERMINA]

Even the hadith you quote has undergone convoluted interpretation from later muslim theologians. I've seen a long piece of justification where they attempted to claim there are no inconsistencies as Sun is constantly prostrating under the Throne.

 

[msore]

What is the purpose and context
of scripture?

Nothing to do with planets or astronomy.

So what is the proper context for interpretation
of anything in scripture?

Nothing to do with planets and sun.

 

[Craig B]

What is the purpose and context
of scripture?

Nothing to do with planets or astronomy.

So what is the proper context for interpretation
of anything in scripture?

Nothing to do with planets and sun.

Quite so. This, for example, can't be literal:

Qur’an 18:83-86—And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. 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.

When popes or imams look in the holy books and claim to find astronomical truths, they cause no end of grief and trouble.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Quite so. This, for example, can't be literal:

Why not?

 

[Craig B]

Why not?

Mmm. Yes. Maybe I should have said: this surely isn't an astronomical truth. Perhaps indeed Muhammad, who was unlettered, and untrained in the material sciences, did literally believe that the sun set into a muddy pond, and that it was visited in this humble location by Alexander the Great, if that's who Dhu'l-Qarnain is. All the less, then, should we take our astronomical ideas from the Quran!

 

[A'isha]

Dhu'l-Qarnayn is also Moses (yes, at the same time...and also sometimes a third figure entirely - books can be, and have been, written about this Qur'anic personage and who or what he represents).

At any rate, the notion that scripture contains Scientific Knowledge That Was Unknown At The Time And Therefore Could Not Have Been Written By Man is relatively recent (and not limited to the Qu'ran, either).

People always try to interpret their Holy Books to fit with the times they live in.

 

[Scorpion]

What is the purpose and context
of scripture?

Nothing to do with planets or astronomy.

So what is the proper context for interpretation
of anything in scripture?

Nothing to do with planets and sun.

The quran contains references to the sun and moon, and to the stars.
Therefore it is inviting critical analysis of what it says. For example it says the stars are lamps to throw at devils.

Sura 67.5 And verily we have beautified the worlds heaven with lamps. And we have made them missiles for devils.

Such statements show the limitations of Muhammads astronomical knowledge, and they show that he was not getting a message from God.

 

[angrysoba]

For example it says the stars are lamps to throw at devils.

Ah! Yes, but the Qu'ran 'twas written in Ancient Arabic which forwent the use of vowels: "Lmps" could very well be "lumps" which the stars are if you think about it, lumps that can be thrown at dvls.

[/sagacity]

 

[eight bits]

Scorpion

Such statements show the limitations of Muhammads astronomical knowledge, and they show that he was not getting a message from God.

Your heart is in the right place. But as you know, militant Islam finds all manner of "science" in its verse sermons (well, maybe not in the parts about how to divide the loot from a successful caravan raid, or why Big Mo gets extra wives beyond the standard ration of four). There are claims as ludicrous as the dicovery of the stages of embryological development in the Koran.

It is dangerous, in my view, to concede that the Koran says anything literal about natural phenomena in passages which feature the Sun prostrating itself before some throne. It is dangerous because what you concede is that the projection of authentic knowledge onto a crude fairy tale is a legitimate interpretation of the text. That your opponent sees correct science and you see something different is reduced to "he says, she says."

I also think such concession is strategically ineffective. The capacity for projection is limitless. If the faithful have found astronomy, embyology and hydrodynamics in the poems, then they can find anything, as little drips of authentic knowledge trickle down from the civilized world to the squalid backwaters of Koranic "scholarship." Emphasis instead on the faulty psychological process that spews up the fantasy talking points just might raise awareness that those points come from the preacher and not the Prophet. That may help contain, if not cure, the contagion.

Just my view, of course.

 

[Craig B]

The quran contains references to the sun and moon, and to the stars.
Therefore it is inviting critical analysis of what it says. For example it says the stars are lamps to throw at devils.

Sura 67.5 And verily we have beautified the worlds heaven with lamps. And we have made them missiles for devils.

Such statements show the limitations of Muhammads astronomical knowledge, and they show that he was not getting a message from God.

Maybe it's the devils that do the throwing. On a clear night you often see thrown "stars" streaking across the sky. And the inhabitants of the Ural region got a visit from a big one which many of the more pious among them - Christian or Muslim - probably interpreted as an act of Old Nick.

 

[A'isha]

The whole "modern scientific knowledge is accurately reflected in the Qu'ran" thing really only started in the 19th century. Before then, scholars generally though of quranic discourse and science as mostly separate things that did not influence each other.

 

[Craig B]

The whole "modern scientific knowledge is accurately reflected in the Qu'ran" thing really only started in the 19th century. Before then, scholars generally though of quranic discourse and science as mostly separate things that did not influence each other.

Does that mean that, unlike in Christian Europe, scientific activities were not inhibited by religious interference in the pre-19th century Muslim world? I doubt that, and my grounds for doing so are the stonishing and protracted resistance to the introduction of printing into Muslim countries. It is quite remarkable that this art was not practiced by Muslims in the Ottoman Empire even in the eighteenth century, when that polity was a great European power.

 

[A'isha]

Does that mean that, unlike in Christian Europe, scientific activities were not inhibited by religious interference in the pre-19th century Muslim world?

No, just that most classical quranic commentators freely accepted or rejected scientific developments as they related to interpretation of verses in the Qu'ran as they saw fit. They generally considered science to be helpful, but not determinative in any way, when writing their exegeses - for example, saying stuff like "Yes, this verse of the Qu'ran could be interpreted to fit with Scientific Theory X, but it's just one of the interpretations that fit" (and often the scientific theory would be listed alongside many of the other, more nonscientific, interpretations).

This, of course, conveniently allowed them to maintain the "truth" of the Qu'ran despite the changing nature of scientific inquiry.

I doubt that, and my grounds for doing so are the stonishing and protracted resistance to the introduction of printing into Muslim countries. It is quite remarkable that this art was not practiced by Muslims in the Ottoman Empire even in the eighteenth century, when that polity was a great European power.

The Ottomans in that case are a separate beast entirely because of the weird role religious calligraphy played when it came to written work (and science influencing the interpretation of scripture is likewise a different beast than religion influencing science in general).