Creation of the night in the Qur'an

[Iman]

Why would you be happy with diversity regarding evolution within Islam?
Would you be happy with diversity about other conclusions from science?
For example, would you be happy with diversity with Islam as to whether the Earth was flat or not? or whether the Earth orbits or the sun ? Why treat evolution in any different way?

I don't get my science from the Quran or the bible. I get my science from science books that change with more findings everyday. I use my holy book as a spiritual guide to tell me about metaphysics while the physics are taken care of through science. I also have a hard time with you equating an evolving theory like evolution with hard facts such as the shape of earth or its place within the universe.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I also have a hard time with you equating an evolving theory like evolution with hard facts such as the shape of earth or its place within the universe.

What makes you think that the place of the earth within the universe is not an evolving topic? Actually the whole universe with its form, shape, age, behaviour etc. is an evolving topic for science.

 

[skydivephil]

Response: The absurdity gets even better. First you say that an insult is an insult whether it's true or not. Then you provide links to back up your claim, and even your own evidence doesn't say that. Then after saying that my claim of the layers of the atmosphere is nonsense (despite the fact that you've proven nothing even remotely to being wrong), you close the post with a strawman. No where does the verse talk about Norway. No where does it say that the night doesn't last for months. No where. Yet once again, your building an argument on what's not there. Classic strawman. I'm beginning to think that perhaps someone is paying you to sound so illogical because it's hard to believe that someone can be this absurd out of their own free will with no catch.

Can you actually back up your claims or do you just like shouting phrases like "straw men" and "illogical" and hope people will believe you?Lets just take a look at the dictionary you say doesnt back up my claim. This is what it says for insult.

1. to treat or speak to with scorn, insolence, or great disrespect; subject to treatment, a remark, etc. that hurts or is meant to hurt the feelings or pride
2. Obsolete to attack; assail

Why dont you tell me where in the above two deifnitions it says that the speach with scorn they describe has to be false?
You have provided not a single resource to back up your claims on the atmosphere, I have provided five, all professional atmospheric scientists.
Your only argument was looking stuff up in the dictionary . But dictionary definitions dont match scientific definitions or do you think a jelly fish is a fish? I cant wait to hear your answer to that one. After all it has the word fish in it right?

Why does the verse need to speak about Norway? My point is that different countries experience day and night differently, Norway is just an example of that. But the Qur'an does not recognise this, it doens't need to specfically mention Norway for the point to be valid. It doesnt say the night doesnt last for months?Really?
Can you read?
27:86 See they not that We have made the Night for them to rest in and the Day to give them light? Verily in this are Signs for any people that believe!
It says the night is made to rest. Yet in countries like Norway the night can last for months. Do you know any countries where the people sleep for months on end? Can you understand a logical inference?

 

[skydivephil]

I don't get my science from the Quran or the bible. I get my science from science books that change with more findings everyday. I use my holy book as a spiritual guide to tell me about metaphysics while the physics are taken care of through science. I also have a hard time with you equating an evolving theory like evolution with hard facts such as the shape of earth or its place within the universe.

Theoreis of gravity are evolving, in fact we probably understand gravity less than we understand evolution. People are still trying to come up wih a theory of gravity that is consistent with fundamental physics (ie quantum mechanics). There nothing in evolution thats inconsistent with known physics. So do have an equally hard time accepting gravity?
I think you need to distinguish between working out the finer details of a theory and accepting the basic principles. Humans evovled, we might not know all the details of this, but we know the basic point is true . Similarly mass attract mass, again we might not know all the details of that but we know the basic point is true.
Now heres the rub, the Qur'an says humans were created form clay, sceince says thats not true, so which do you accept?
I can only see three options, either the Qur'an is true, science is true or the Qur'an is not to be taken literally.

 

[Iman]

What makes you think that the place of the earth within the universe is not an evolving topic? Actually the whole universe with its form, shape, age, behaviour etc. is an evolving topic for science.

Yes, there are facts and there are interpretations for facts forming theories. The shape of earth is a fact because we see it via sattelites with our senses, therefore it is a fact. The fact that the earth is a part of a solar system and revolves around the sun and orbits around itself are also facts because they are observed and measured. There are many theories about the workings of the universe, its begining and what laws govern it, these are evolving theories. Now the facts say that there are fossils of humanoid beings. How you interpret them with regard to the origin of humanity is a theory that is evolving. No matter what the result of this theory, I don't see it as contradicting faith or religion, just modifying the way we read or interpret it.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

There are many theories about the workings of the universe, its begining and what laws govern it, these are evolving theories. Now the facts say that there are fossils of humanoid beings. How you interpret them with regard to the origin of humanity is a theory that is evolving. No matter what the result of this theory, I don't see it as contradicting faith or religion, just modifying the way we read or interpret it.

The facts also say that you can create new species and that new species have evolved from older ones.

As for the last sentence of yours, i would disagree.
If it doesn't matter what the result looks like since you will interpret simply in a way that fits the truth then this would not really indicate a text where truth is found. It rather indicates that the text is arbitrary or that its readers do not follow a consistent standard for measuring its truth versus the truth of other texts.

 

[Iman]

Now heres the rub, the Qur'an says humans were created form clay, sceince says thats not true, so which do you accept?
I can only see three options, either the Qur'an is true, science is true or the Qur'an is not to be taken literally.

I addressed your initial point in my response to ThereIsNoSpoon. With regard to your point about human beings and clay, in fact this very verse is used by the Muslim scholars who support evolution to assert that God created the first organic cell from the earth and it evolved to be a humanbeing. Another verse in the Quran that they often cite is one that states that God grew humanbeings from earth like plants or vegetation. Another one refers to the process of creating man taking place in stages rather than at once. All of these references are in fact compatible with the more natural evolutionary view of creation. So men were made out of fermented soil or clay if you take the more gradual and evolutionary view of creation which started with the first living cell from the matter of soil or earth. If you looked at the second article I cited, you'd see many of these references to support the view of evolution. Again it is how you read and interpret the text rather than a fixed reference that does not change with further understanding. Muslims today do not understand the Quran the same way ancient Muslims did because their understanding of the world and the universe changed. The way future generations will understand it will also be different. However, it helps if you are familiar with the literary style of the Quran which is unique and has many layers of meaning.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Again it is how you read and interpret the text rather than a fixed reference that does not change with further understanding. Muslims today do not understand the Quran the same way ancient Muslims did because their understanding of the world and the universe changed.

I think this is the important point.
Perhaps you would reread this paragraph and think about the possible implications. Then you might understand the problem many have with that explanation of yours.

 

[Iman]

The facts also say that you can create new species and that new species have evolved from older ones.

As for the last sentence of yours, i would disagree.
If it doesn't matter what the result looks like since you will interpret simply in a way that fits the truth then this would not really indicate a text where truth is found. It rather indicates that the text is arbitrary or that its readers do not follow a consistent standard for measuring its truth versus the truth of other texts.

I'm afraid you equate religion with an encyclopedia that is suppoed to inform us of scientific truths about the physical world. I believe we were given the faculties that enable us to find these truths ourselves. Religion tells us about what we cannot know like the world of the spirit and what happens after death. It is not any of the objectives of religion to form our scientifuc opinions and I differ with religious people who shut out scientific facts to protect a religiously perceived worldview. I think the two domains of science and religion are separate in that each tackles a different aspect of reality. If you choose to believe, it won't be because an ancient book told you about the shape of the earth or a progressive theory about the begining of life on earth. It would be because your mind sees purpose and higher intelligence in the workings of the world and within your own consciousness. The Quran has the added advantage of fluidity and ambiguity in matters of no direct relationship to tenets of belief , which include strict monotheism and life after death. I am not a big fan of the scientific interpretation of Quranic text, but knowing the Quran well, it affirms to me that the Speaker( God) knows with authority what He is talking about. The Fluidity and ambiguity is part of the universal and eternal appeal of the Quran and is consistent with its higher goals which do not include forming our knowledge of the physical world.

 

[Iman]

I think this is the important point.
Perhaps you would reread this paragraph and think about the possible implications. Then you might understand the problem many have with that explanation of yours.

So do we as adaptable continuously evolving human beings and societies expect God's words to be less adaptable and evolving than our own existence? I think the opposite. If this text is truly from God, then it will be able to accomodate our evolving existence and understanding of the world while preserving its core tenets just as we preserve our own core as humanbeings across time and place, if it does not evolve and adapt, it would simply be too regid and eventually irrelevant.

 

[Fatihah]

Can you actually back up your claims or do you just like shouting phrases like "straw men" and "illogical" and hope people will believe you?Lets just take a look at the dictionary you say doesnt back up my claim. This is what it says for insult.

1. to treat or speak to with scorn, insolence, or great disrespect; subject to treatment, a remark, etc. that hurts or is meant to hurt the feelings or pride
2. Obsolete to attack; assail

Why dont you tell me where in the above two deifnitions it says that the speach with scorn they describe has to be false?
You have provided not a single resource to back up your claims on the atmosphere, I have provided five, all professional atmospheric scientists.
Your only argument was looking stuff up in the dictionary . But dictionary definitions dont match scientific definitions or do you think a jelly fish is a fish? I cant wait to hear your answer to that one. After all it has the word fish in it right?

Why does the verse need to speak about Norway? My point is that different countries experience day and night differently, Norway is just an example of that. But the Qur'an does not recognise this, it doens't need to specfically mention Norway for the point to be valid. It doesnt say the night doesnt last for months?Really?
Can you read?
27:86 See they not that We have made the Night for them to rest in and the Day to give them light? Verily in this are Signs for any people that believe!
It says the night is made to rest. Yet in countries like Norway the night can last for months. Do you know any countries where the people sleep for months on end? Can you understand a logical inference?

Response: This play on words is amusing. How can a person be scorned if they are speaking the truth? Is the truth disrespectful? You make no sense. Then you say that dictionary definitions don't match scientific definitions. Then that means that the "scientific definition" is wrong if it contradicts the dictionary. Then you produce this "jelly fish" example. Newsflash. That is a name of an animal. It's not meant to define the animal. Nor did I say that every name must define what it's labeled. I know someone named Bob. His name doesn't define him. So your whole analogy is flawed as usual. Lastly, it is your lack of comprehending english that's the problem. Not specifying something is not the definition of "wrong" or "error". So the fact that the qur'an doesn't speak of Norway is not an error. This is simple english. You've never specified that your not an idiot, so can we assume that you area? And if you say that you are not, then that's an error. After all, according to your logic, if it's not specified, it must be wrong.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I'm afraid you equate religion with an encyclopedia that is suppoed to inform us of scientific truths about the physical world.

No actually i am not.
But I do think that descriptions of the physical world should be accurate. And descriptions that are not ones of the physical world should be clearly visible as such.
Else you would run into the problem of not being able to discern the false revelations from the true ones.

Religion tells us about what we cannot know like the world of the spirit and what happens after death.

Of course by that reasoning any religion is equally valid. They all make claims about something we suposedly can't know.
How then would you choose between the different revelations?
Obviously objective truths seem to be out of the question

I think the two domains of science and religion are separate in that each tackles a different aspect of reality.

I would formulate it differently.
Science is a method of knowing the world.
Religion is a claim about it.

If you choose to believe, it won't be because an ancient book told you about the shape of the earth or a progressive theory about the begining of life on earth. It would be because your mind sees purpose and higher intelligence in the workings of the world and within your own consciousness.

You do not say why one would choose exactly your religion and not others

The Quran has the added advantage of fluidity and ambiguity in matters of no direct relationship to tenets of belief , which include strict monotheism and life after death. I am not a big fan of the scientific interpretation of Quranic text, but knowing the Quran well, it affirms to me that the Speaker( God) knows with authority what He is talking about. The Fluidity and ambiguity is part of the universal and eternal appeal of the Quran and is consistent with its higher goals which do not include forming our knowledge of the physical world.

And you do not think that others believe the same is valid for their religion?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

So do we as adaptable continuously evolving human beings and societies expect God's words to be less adaptable and evolving than our own existence? I think the opposite. If this text is truly from God, then it will be able to accomodate our evolving existence and understanding of the world while preserving its core tenets just as we preserve our own core as humanbeings across time and place, if it does not evolve and adapt, it would simply be too regid and eventually irrelevant.

As I said before.. a truth doesn't evolve.
If for example the shape of the earth is like this and that then you do not need to "reinterpret" a religious text that tells you so. You obviously need to reinterpret one that doesn't.
All false texts would state the wrong shape.
How would you differ between a false text and a correct one that supposedly evolves?
All correct ones should state the correct shape OR not speak about it.

How about the creation of the universe?
If wars are fought over the question if this happened in 6 days or 6 periods, should then not be clear how long it took? What does it mean to have an "evolving" text seen from the perspective of someone who knows what will happen because of that "abstractness"?
A perfect text doesn't need to depend on the people reading it.
A perfect text states the truth regardless of what people think.
Remember: [FONT=_PDMS_Saleem_QuranFont]

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ


[/FONT]

 

[skydivephil]

Response: This play on words is amusing. How can a person be scorned if they are speaking the truth? Is the truth disrespectful? You make no sense. Then you say that dictionary definitions don't match scientific definitions. Then that means that the "scientific definition" is wrong if it contradicts the dictionary. Then you produce this "jelly fish" example. Newsflash. That is a name of an animal. It's not meant to define the animal. Nor did I say that every name must define what it's labeled. I know someone named Bob. His name doesn't define him. So your whole analogy is flawed as usual. Lastly, it is your lack of comprehending english that's the problem. Not specifying something is not the definition of "wrong" or "error". So the fact that the qur'an doesn't speak of Norway is not an error. This is simple english. You've never specified that your not an idiot, so can we assume that you area? And if you say that you are not, then that's an error. After all, according to your logic, if it's not specified, it must be wrong.

Are you suggesting to tell George W Bush he is stupid would not simulataneously be an insult and true? Or how about telling the singer Susan Boyle , she is ugly, many people have done this and she said she was hurt by this insult. But look at the pictures, do you think she is attractive?
Sharon Osbourne Says Sorry To Susan Boyle After Insulting Her On A US Radio Show | Showbiz News | Sky News

So according to you, people that write dictionaries are more of an authority over the subject matter on atmospheric physics than atmospheric physicists, you really do live in a fantasy world. You said the name of something doesn't define it .
"Nor did I say that every name must define what it's labeled. "
the problem is this is not consistent with what you said about atmospheric layers being defined by temeprature, you said the tmeperature wasnt in the name layer so it couldnt be defined by temeprature. Ill ask you again, how do you define the word molecule then?

Why dont you learn a little a bit about logic?Imagine I have this statement:
"all men wear eyepatches" I only need to find one man not wearing eye patch for this not be true, lets suppose the man is called Mr Smith. The fact that the statement never mentioned Mr Smith is irrelevant. The statment implies something about Mr Smith without needing to mention him. So it is with Norway. Its called a logical inference, a little learning might help you.

 

[skydivephil]

I addressed your initial point in my response to ThereIsNoSpoon. With regard to your point about human beings and clay, in fact this very verse is used by the Muslim scholars who support evolution to assert that God created the first organic cell from the earth and it evolved to be a humanbeing. Another verse in the Quran that they often cite is one that states that God grew humanbeings from earth like plants or vegetation. Another one refers to the process of creating man taking place in stages rather than at once. All of these references are in fact compatible with the more natural evolutionary view of creation. So men were made out of fermented soil or clay if you take the more gradual and evolutionary view of creation which started with the first living cell from the matter of soil or earth. If you looked at the second article I cited, you'd see many of these references to support the view of evolution. Again it is how you read and interpret the text rather than a fixed reference that does not change with further understanding. Muslims today do not understand the Quran the same way ancient Muslims did because their understanding of the world and the universe changed. The way future generations will understand it will also be different. However, it helps if you are familiar with the literary style of the Quran which is unique and has many layers of meaning.

Do you not think that all these different interpretations are somehwat of a retrofit? f you redfine what a passage means to make it fit what you want it to men,n Then the passage has no meaning at all.

 

[Caladan]

In these verses and indeed in many other places in the Quran, God reminds people of the magnitude of His creation and how He provided the utmost circumstances for human beings to survive and thrive. Among such living conditions that He provided is the night/day division. Daylight is appropriate for work and toiling while night is most suited to sleep and rest. There are exceptions and has always been those who work at night as guards, soldiers, even worshippers, but the general rule is the peaceful nature of night conducive of rest and sleep to rejuvinate in preparation for the day's work ahead. He also mentions in the Quran that if He wanted us to live in perpertual dark or perpetual day, no one can undo His will. The existence of places in which there is perpetual day or perpetual night only proves His ability to do both and His mercey in providing most inhabited areas on earth with the day/night blessing most suited to their mental and physical wellbeing.
Creation as most believers will tell you take on different manifestations in reality including natural and physical laws that we have come to know only in recent years. Creation in this sense is making it possible by providing the circustances and laws and foreseing that this phenomenon takes place in this specific way.
God mentions in the Quran in Surat AlRahman that He created everything based on a scale or a balance and that people should never try to tip that balance. To me this is indeed a reference to the physical laws that govern physical existence of life, micro and macro phenomena that all are subject to the same basic laws.

Actually it is presumed that during the times of the dinosaurs mammal were nocturnal, as the dinosaurs ruled the days of the world, mammals secured their existence by operating during night time. this of course shakes the foundation of your Qur'anic interpretation of having Allah prove his might and reign through magnificent natural phenomena tailored to our human life. our world is filled with amazing natural phenomena, and just as amazingly there is no need for a creator to set these in motion, this is were natural selection and physical realities come into play.

 

[Fatihah]

Are you suggesting to tell George W Bush he is stupid would not simulataneously be an insult and true? Or how about telling the singer Susan Boyle , she is ugly, many people have done this and she said she was hurt by this insult. But look at the pictures, do you think she is attractive?
Sharon Osbourne Says Sorry To Susan Boyle After Insulting Her On A US Radio Show | Showbiz News | Sky News

So according to you, people that write dictionaries are more of an authority over the subject matter on atmospheric physics than atmospheric physicists, you really do live in a fantasy world. You said the name of something doesn't define it .
"Nor did I say that every name must define what it's labeled. "
the problem is this is not consistent with what you said about atmospheric layers being defined by temeprature, you said the tmeperature wasnt in the name layer so it couldnt be defined by temeprature. Ill ask you again, how do you define the word molecule then?

Why dont you learn a little a bit about logic?Imagine I have this statement:
"all men wear eyepatches" I only need to find one man not wearing eye patch for this not be true, lets suppose the man is called Mr Smith. The fact that the statement never mentioned Mr Smith is irrelevant. The statment implies something about Mr Smith without needing to mention him. So it is with Norway. Its called a logical inference, a little learning might help you.

Response: You'll get credit perhaps for producing the longest strawman in this post but that's about it. And there's too many in just this post alone to point out without one point being overshadowed by the other. So like always, I'll break them one at a time.

First one, you claim that I've said:

"So according to you, people that write dictionaries are more of an authority over the subject matter on atmospheric physics than atmospheric physicists, you really do live in a fantasy world."

Now the fun part. Quote any post of mine in which I say that dictionaries have more authority over the subject matter on atmospheric physics than an atmospheric physicist", if you are truthful.

 

[McBell]

:biglaugh:

 

[Iman]

As I said before.. a truth doesn't evolve.
If for example the shape of the earth is like this and that then you do not need to "reinterpret" a religious text that tells you so. You obviously need to reinterpret one that doesn't.
All false texts would state the wrong shape.
How would you differ between a false text and a correct one that supposedly evolves?
All correct ones should state the correct shape OR not speak about it.

How about the creation of the universe?
If wars are fought over the question if this happened in 6 days or 6 periods, should then not be clear how long it took? What does it mean to have an "evolving" text seen from the perspective of someone who knows what will happen because of that "abstractness"?
A perfect text doesn't need to depend on the people reading it.
A perfect text states the truth regardless of what people think.
Remember:

[FONT=_PDMS_Saleem_QuranFont]الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ[/FONT]

I will address the two fairly new points raised in your last two responses. First why one religion and not another? In the context of this discussion I am building a case for religion in general as opposed to atheistic materialism that you and skydivephil seem to stand for. In general, religion is not measured in the same way as science or emerging scientific facts because the realm of religion is metaphysics rather than physics. That being said, I stated in my previos posts that the facts that there has been a string of prophets with a fairly consistent, simple and logical message is in itself proof that God is communicating with us. I do believe in all the revealed messages of God including Judaism and Christianity. Islam is the culmination of all revelation and the Quran is the most authoritative and direct communication between heaven and earth. Unlike all other holy books, it is given in the first person, so God is speaking to us word for word in a sacred preserved unchanging text in the same language inwhich it was revealed 14 centuries ago. If you want details about why Islam and not Christianity or Judaism or Budhism, then that's another topic for another discussion but it is not because it gives me scientific knowledge for future generations, but for other profound and holistic criteria that may in themselevs vary from one person to another. I think I am right in following Islam but I respect other people's choices. In addition, the examples you cite including the creation of the earth or the universe are actually compatible with the Quran as interpreted by early Muslims who were the first to adopt the view that the earth was round and that the universe was all connected and started to expand after a cosmic tear. It is not that the Quran talks about scientific facts, but when you read it (properly) you realize the level of depth, authority and knowledge with which it articulates natural phenomena.

The second point is whether a text needs to be either true or false if it carries truth or falsehood. The Quran never speaks explicitly about the shape of earth or the big bang, but speaks about God's creation in highly literary language, yet you can find plenty of evidence to support recent findings such as the movement of the earth which is mentioned unequivocaly in the Quran" And you see the mountains and think that they are still, while in reality, they are moving like clouds". This kind of authority that does not shock 7th century audience is to me extremely effective and prudent.
As for the completion of the Quran, yes it is self endowed, and complete. Its words will not change, but the meanings they carry will evolve as we evolve our understanding of the world and as our societies and needs also evolve. The Prophet Mohammad says" Oh Muslims,God will send you someone every one hundred years to renew your religion for you". Yes it is complete and the text will not change, it is our understanding and application of it that should.

 

[Iman]

Actually it is presumed that during the times of the dinosaurs mammal were nocturnal, as the dinosaurs ruled the days of the world, mammals secured their existence by operating during night time. this of course shakes the foundation of your Qur'anic interpretation of having Allah prove his might and reign through magnificent natural phenomena tailored to our human life. our world is filled with amazing natural phenomena, and just as amazingly there is no need for a creator to set these in motion, this is were natural selection and physical realities come into play.

Why go that far back , there are still some nocturnal mammals living among us. Desert people know that too well, yet God speaks to them through one of them( Mohammad PBUH) to affirm that the night/day divide is a blessing for human beings . His assertion is so simple and common sensical even to those desert people who also stay up, go to war, and travel at night and see all kinds of nocturnal desert animals. Whetheror not you believe it was caused by an intelligent and present force, namely God, is a persoanl question for your mind and heart to ponder.