IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Islam for non-Muslims
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - What is Islam?  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

What is Islam?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
Message
schmikbob View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 526
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote schmikbob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2010 at 8:15am
Truth seeker, I am trying to understand your statements.  You write "For example, in seventies (less than 50 years ago), the scientific theory taught in the classroom with regards to the Sun was that it was stationary and the planets revolved around it, whereas the modern theory describes that the Sun is also moving along with other bodies in the space that confirms to Islamic position "  I am not sure what schools you are referring to but in the United States the stationary sun theory has been relegated to the dustbin centuries ago.  Also after reviewing Dr Keith Moore's article it appears to me that he goes far out of his way to stuff meaning into very nebulous/vague Quranic verses.  I become suspicious when he say things like "This could mean this or this might mean this."  Very true statements but, logically, then they could or might mean something very different.  I seem to be getting farther away from what I was after here and not closer.   
Back to Top
schmikbob View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 526
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote schmikbob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2010 at 11:39am
samirfaithful, I tried to go to your link but was unable to open it.  Any ideas?
Back to Top
truthseeker100 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Female
Joined: 12 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthseeker100 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 September 2010 at 8:59am
Originally posted by schmikbob schmikbob wrote:

Truth seeker, I am trying to understand your statements.  You write "For example, in seventies (less than 50 years ago), the scientific theory taught in the classroom with regards to the Sun was that it was stationary and the planets revolved around it, whereas the modern theory describes that the Sun is also moving along with other bodies in the space that confirms to Islamic position "  I am not sure what schools you are referring to but in the United States the stationary sun theory has been relegated to the dustbin centuries ago.  Also after reviewing Dr Keith Moore's article it appears to me that he goes far out of his way to stuff meaning into very nebulous/vague Quranic verses.  I become suspicious when he say things like "This could mean this or this might mean this."  Very true statements but, logically, then they could or might mean something very different.  I seem to be getting farther away from what I was after here and not closer.   
 
Well, that is what many people I know learned during their schooling in seventies. When did they revise the stationary sun theory in the US? And even if I accept the US educational system centuries ago, the fact is that the Qur�an was revealed much earlier, more than 14 centuries ago.
 

With regards to Dr. Keith�s article, please see his statement for more clarity:

�The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. Undoubtedly there are other verses in the Qur'an related to human development that will be understood in the future as our knowledge increases.�



Edited by truthseeker100 - 14 September 2010 at 9:01am
And, behold, with every hardship comes ease:
Qur'an 94: 5
Back to Top
schmikbob View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 526
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote schmikbob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 September 2010 at 10:30pm
William Herschel was the first to discover and prove that not just our sun but our entire solar system was moving through space and he actually defined it's direction in 1785.  This has been known, at least in the
West for that long.  I'm not quite sure why you feel this discovery would have been lost for the last two centuries but I assure you, it wasn't.  Also, I still see nothing in the Quranic verses you have quoted to indicate that in says or even intimates anything about the sun and solar system moving through the galaxy, or anything about the discoveries of modern embryology.  I see a few very vaguely worded suras that could mean a multitude of things, and just because you and the source you are quoting have chosen to interpret them to fulfill a modern agenda doesn't mean they are any more valid than another interpretation.  Dr Keith's statement adds no more clarity than his 'rabbit out of the hat' interpretation of the Quran.  I originally commented on this link because I thought someone might actually be able to show me something in the Quran that truly was prenscient or miraculous.  I am now getting the feeling that all I'm going to get are obfuscations and hand waving. 
Back to Top
truthseeker100 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Female
Joined: 12 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthseeker100 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 September 2010 at 5:37am
Originally posted by schmikbob schmikbob wrote:

William Herschel was the first to discover and prove that not just our sun but our entire solar system was moving through space and he actually defined it's direction in 1785.  This has been known, at least in the
West for that long.  I'm not quite sure why you feel this discovery would have been lost for the last two centuries but I assure you, it wasn't.  Also, I still see nothing in the Quranic verses you have quoted to indicate that in says or even intimates anything about the sun and solar system moving through the galaxy, or anything about the discoveries of modern embryology.  I see a few very vaguely worded suras that could mean a multitude of things, and just because you and the source you are quoting have chosen to interpret them to fulfill a modern agenda doesn't mean they are any more valid than another interpretation.  Dr Keith's statement adds no more clarity than his 'rabbit out of the hat' interpretation of the Quran.  I originally commented on this link because I thought someone might actually be able to show me something in the Quran that truly was prenscient or miraculous.  I am now getting the feeling that all I'm going to get are obfuscations and hand waving. 
 

I have lived and taught in many countries, and at least in one country, the educational system in the schools followed the stationary sun concept in the seventies. I am not aware of the US educational system as to when they included the latest research in the school system.

The main point here is that the Qur�an clearly refuted the stationary sun concept more than 1400 years ago.

Being able to comment on the work of the top embryologist requires advanced knowledge of embryology. He has written the article after meticulous investigation and experimentation. To counteract that would require similar or even higher level of effort. Just calling something �vague� that you don�t understand doesn�t mean that the theory is necessarily wrong. It only means further study is required to study the theory.

Regardless of what the theory means, as I said in the beginning, the Qur�an is primarily the book of guidance. The Muslims believed in the Qur�an more than 1400 years ago, they do so now, and they would do in the future. It is not the science that proves the Qur�an. It is the Qur�an that can be a guiding source for science.

And, behold, with every hardship comes ease:
Qur'an 94: 5
Back to Top
schmikbob View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 526
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote schmikbob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 September 2010 at 10:02pm
Truthseeker, "clearly refuted the stationary sun concept" to me means "clearly refuted" and not simply introducing one more interpretation of these words of which there are many interpretions, even among Islamic scholars.
You have also stated "

Being able to comment on the work of the top embryologist requires advanced knowledge of embryology. He has written the article after meticulous investigation and experimentation. To counteract that would require similar or even higher level of effort. Just calling something �vague� that you don�t understand doesn�t mean that the theory is necessarily wrong. It only means further study is required to study the theory."

This would be true if Dr Moore's statement was about embryology where he is a top notch scholar.  However, his statements are clearly not about his chosen field of expertise but rather about his chosen religion and therefore commenting on them is not only easily done but justifiably done.
Lastly, when religion becomes a "guiding source" for science we get outrages like the heresy trials of Copernicus and Galileo.  Religion and science shouldn't mix without serious trepidation. 
Back to Top
truthseeker100 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Female
Joined: 12 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthseeker100 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 September 2010 at 5:52am
Originally posted by schmikbob schmikbob wrote:

Truthseeker, "clearly refuted the stationary sun concept" to me means "clearly refuted" and not simply introducing one more interpretation of these words of which there are many interpretions, even among Islamic scholars.
You have also stated "

Being able to comment on the work of the top embryologist requires advanced knowledge of embryology. He has written the article after meticulous investigation and experimentation. To counteract that would require similar or even higher level of effort. Just calling something �vague� that you don�t understand doesn�t mean that the theory is necessarily wrong. It only means further study is required to study the theory."

This would be true if Dr Moore's statement was about embryology where he is a top notch scholar.  However, his statements are clearly not about his chosen field of expertise but rather about his chosen religion and therefore commenting on them is not only easily done but justifiably done.
Lastly, when religion becomes a "guiding source" for science we get outrages like the heresy trials of Copernicus and Galileo.  Religion and science shouldn't mix without serious trepidation. 
 
Let us take one thing at a time. With regards to the sun, see the verse here:
 

036.038

YUSUFALI: And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.
 
PICKTHAL: And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.

SHAKIR: And the sun runs on to a term appointed for it; that is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knowing.
 

Where is the doubt here? I see none. All translations clearly state that the sun is in motion. How was the Qur�an able to state it more than 1400 years ago without any advanced astronomical instrument of the modern science?



Edited by truthseeker100 - 17 September 2010 at 5:53am
And, behold, with every hardship comes ease:
Qur'an 94: 5
Back to Top
schmikbob View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 526
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote schmikbob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 September 2010 at 11:00pm

OK, lets move very slowly.  The Ptolemaic model of the universe, which is generally regarded as the start of astronomy was an Earch centered model.  That is it put the Earth at the center of the universe and had the planets and the sun revolving around it in there own orbits in epicycles.  This tortuous system was used because it explained previously unexplained observations like retrograde motion and changes in planetary brightness.  We can go back even further than this to see the first inklings of Earth centered thought but for now this will suffice.  Now, as you can see, this system had the sun orbiting about the earth in about the first century of the first millenium.  So, as you can see, your statement that the Quran predated the modern discovery of solar motion "more than 1400 years ago without any advanced astronomical instrument of the modern science" is not really accurate at all.  The solar motion that was observed in 1785 by Herschel was the motion of our entire solar system through space.  I hope this is not what you are trying to say these Quranic verses actually indicate because that would stretch my imagination to it's breaking point.   

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.