Have you ever found a single bug in Islam?

[InvestigateTruth]

.... so we are the same in heaven,we are made as males and females for the purpose of reproduction but we are actually the same soul which is genderless....

Which is precisely why heaven is not a physical place. We do not go there with our physical bodies, otherwise our physical bodies are different and have organs for male and female. But since only the Soul continues to live in the hereafter, then it has no gender
Good point!

 

[Debater Slayer]

There is also a rule for converting masculine to feminine,let me show you some examples.

مؤمنين is masculine,to convert it to feminine then it becomes مؤمنات
so letters ن & ي changed to ت & ا , that is a general rule,other words which are similar معلمين converted to معلمات , and صالحين converted to صالحات so we can't invent new words or new rules,now regarding the word of discussion "المتقين" to convert it to feminine it should be "متقات" and that can never be correct in the Arabic language.

See sura 2 ,verse 2 which says ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ , so do you understand that the holy book is only for men and not for both,so it is very clear to me and with no doubt that the word "المنتقين" is used for both men and women.

ِAlso i may add that we are actually souls "انفس" and the soul "النفس" in arabic has no gender similar to the word "الله" , so we are the same in heaven,we are made as males and females for the purpose of reproduction but we are actually the same soul which is genderless.

Your creation and your rebirth [happen] only as with a single soul. God is Alert, Observant. (31:28)

Mankind, heed your Lord Who has created you from a single soul, and created its mate from it, and propagated so many men and women from them both. Heed God through Whom you hold one another responsible, as well as any ties of kinship. God is Watching over you. (4:1)

It's incorrect because متقي is a different kind of noun than مؤمن and معلم or صالح; it's an ism manqoos, which means that it ends with a ya' vowel that is omitted except when the word is preceded by the ال definite article, followed by a genitive, or is the object of a verb (or is in any part of a sentence that makes it an ism mansoob, but that's a different story because I'm not sure all cases of nasb have equivalents in English, so there would be no point in explaining them here in Arabic only).

The rules for deriving the plural form of nouns that fall under the category of ism manqoos differ depending on whether the noun being derived is masculine or feminine: in the case of the former, the last vowel (the ya') is omitted and replaced with ون or ين, so it's متقين and not متقيين, and متقون rather than متقيون. In the examples you gave, two letters are added to derive the plural, but the difference here is that it's required to omit a letter before adding the two that form the plural noun.

In the feminine case, the vowel at the end of the word isn't omitted, which is why متقات is incorrect, as you said; it's متقيات because the vowel isn't omitted before adding the two letters to derive the feminine plural form.

I didn't say that the Qur'an addressed men only; the point I'm making is that in that particular verse, beautiful women are indeed described as one of the rewards pious men will have in Heaven, and saying that the word couldn't be addressing men is inaccurate because it is in the masculine form and so there's nothing indicating that it wasn't meant to specifically address men (especially given the kind of reward mentioned afterward, i.e., heavenly women).

 

[1robin]

Which is precisely why heaven is not a physical place. We do not go there with our physical bodies, otherwise our physical bodies are different and have organs for male and female. But since only the Soul continues to live in the hereafter, then it has no gender
Good point!

Then where is Jesus. He made it emphatically clear he was raised with a physical body. It was if God thought "one day there will be those that will insist that heaven will not include a physical dimension" so "let me make it very very clear that Jesus and the apostles did not teach that". I am not making any gender claims, only that the bible teaches a physical as well as spiritual dimension to the after life.


New Living Translation
Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it's really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don't have bodies, as you see that I do."

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Then where is Jesus. He made it emphatically clear he was raised with a physical body. It was if God thought "one day there will be those that will insist that heaven will not include a physical dimension" so "let me make it very very clear that Jesus and the apostles did not teach that". I am not making any gender claims, only that the bible teaches a physical as well as spiritual dimension to the after life.


New Living Translation
Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it's really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don't have bodies, as you see that I do."

Bible has many figurative and symbolic verses as well as literal verses, and Baha'is believe the story of his appearance and eating with disciples is of the symbolic verses. But that is whole different subject for debate...let's keep here for Islam and Quran. But I have recently posted here regarding this:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/160986-how-will-christ-return-2.html

 

[1robin]

I am not sure why you think the quote is saying that "The idea that the sun is the center of the solar system is from the 1600AD" I don't see this is what it says. Perhaps you want to quote the part that you think it says that.

My pleasure.

"before the observations of modern times—that is to say, during the first centuries and down to the fifteenth century of the Christian era—all the mathematicians of the world agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun moved. The famous astronomer who was the protagonist of the new theory discovered the movement of the earth and the immobility of the sun.*

A great many of the worlds mathematicians indeed believed the sun was the center and the earth revolved. Helio-centrism goes all the way back to Greece. It did not show up in the 16th century. I could have easily let go the claim that most believed the earth was the center (though I suspect that is not even true). However the writer for some bizarre reason made hyperbolic claims about everyone that are simply not true.

In my view what Abdulbaha is saying is very clear. He is saying that even though many centuries before Muhammad some few scientists had discovered that the earth is not the center, and that the earth moves around the Sun, but this idea was completely forgotten, and everyone at the time of Muhammad believed that the earth is the center and everything moves around it. In such circumstances Muhammad among ignorant Arabs stated in Quran that earth moves around the Sun. Now the point that Abdulbaha is making, in my view is that, it is noteworthy, while Muhammad lived among ignorant people who believed in false theories about the movement of earth and the sun, yet He through the divine knowledge knew these things without having teacher.

He said everyone, not a few. There had been Christians that had argued emphatically that the bible taught no such this a an earth centered universe long before Muhammad's great grandfather was born. I just cannot see that he meant anything about us knowing X then forgetting X. He says from the first centuries (with an s) not first century (without an s). That easily reads from the beginning of history until the 1500's. However even that is completely false. All kinds of people between the first century (without an s) and the 1500's believed and argued against an earth centered universe. Muhammad existed 2000 years after crude and later much better ways to evaluate the local heavens had existed. Astrology was an old science long before he existed. Now if you can find him predicting the quantum then alright but not where the earth and sun belong (that was old news). However ignorant bronze age men who even lived a long way from the place where the methods for studying he stars were later invented getting cosmology right is impressive (as the bible does).

I don't think at the time of Muhammad, the Bible was understood in accordance with current science.

I did not suggest that though I do think it was substantially the case. I said he got much of his doctrinal claims from his Christian uncle. It appears his uncle had some understanding of the bible but much of it was distorted. That is why Muhammad made so many historical mistakes when he illustrated biblical events of the past. However it is reasonable to assume he got much accurate information form Christians. In fact this is well known to be the fact. The only issue is whether he got specific cosmological views from them or it.

the sun within the solar system moves in a fixed space and this is the context of the quote, but yes, the whole Solar System moves through space in the Milky Way, relative to other nearby stars.

In what way is a fixed space consistent with barreling through the universe at 828,000 Km/hr? It is not even on a perfectly predictable nor consistent trajectory.

Islam was the cause of sudden rise in Arab civilization within the several centuries after Muhammad. In those days, Europe was in darkness, so it couldn't be the cause of rise in Arab civilization.

Any consolidating influence will improve a fractional war like tribal system. This is not mysterious or remarkable. I do agree that Catholicism did plunge Europe into some dark times but not Christianity. It was Christianity that propelled Europe out of the dark ages and has never looked back, unlike Islam which peeked and then receded significantly. Islam's breakthroughs are not even solely attributable to Islam but were a byproduct of their keeping Greek and Roman science alive. However Christianity caught up to and eclipsed Islam scientifically and still does so.

It is easy to say that....

Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. It being consistent with history is.

Think of it this way: A Tree in Spring becomes alive and green and gives leaves. In summer it gives its fruits. In fall it starts to become yellow and looses its leaves and in winter finally dies and given no fruit and no leaves. Same is about Islam, or even other religions such as Christianity (sorry to say that).

I get the concept. I was asking for the specifics. In what way is Christianity or Islam in it's fall or winter. Each outnumber Baha'i by factors in the thousands. Both are growing. Christians are as scientifically prevalent as always and societies based in Christianity still dominate in almost every category. Please apply your analogy to something. BTW how do you explain Jewish dominance then it's laps into obscurity and it's modern dominance? Doesn't fit your narrative.

By set time, is meant, that there is a spring time and there is a winter time. The winter of the Tree of Islam came to pass after 1000 years period. The Winter of Tree of Christianity came to pass after 600 years.
It is also stated in Bible that Jesus cursed a Tree because it wasn't giving fruits anymore. That Tree was the symbol of Mosaic Religion.

What are you talking about? Both of those you place in winter are growing and are far far larger than when you state they receded.

Well, in terms of ranking, Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God in this Age, and Abdulbaha is the infallible interpreter of the verses of God. Therefore in Baha'i belief whatever Abdulbaha wrote including Some Answered Questions, is an infallible explanation of the holy Books (including Quran and Bible)

That is not a ranking. That is a declaration that cannot be justified. I was afraid for your sake you were going to claim what I have shown is extremely faulty was believed to be faultless. I was hoping you would say something far more rational like it was a guide or used as a resource. I see no hope if you think it is infallible.

 

[1robin]

Bible has many figurative and symbolic verses as well as literal verses, and Baha'is believe the story of his appearance and eating with disciples is of the symbolic verses. But that is whole different subject for debate...let's keep here for Islam and Quran. But I have recently posted here regarding this:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/160986-how-will-christ-return-2.html

Of course it does. However most are crystal clear as to which they are while some are not. This verse is among the most certain and emphatic of the crystal clear group. Statements do not get any more emphatic or clear. It was as if he knew the Baha'i would claim what you are and he set out to make sure that in no way it would ever be justifiable, and it isn't. In fact almost every Baha'i claim that I have run across draws the exact opposite conclusion of thousand year old doctrines held by most scholars in Islam and Christianity. I would literally hate to have to defend your position. Even if I believed it I would never even attempt to defend something so irrational and contradictory to clear teachings. You are either brave or like futility.

 

[England my lionheart]

You are right,at the first glance the verse looks bad but if we investigate it very well then we will find it not.

Let me show you the previous verses so we can understand what God's target.

Give orphans their property and do not substitute something bad for something good nor swallow up their wealth along with your own wealth. It would be a great outrage. (4:2)

If you are afraid you will not deal fairly with orphans, then marry off such women as may seem good to you, in pairs, or three or four [at a time]. If you [still] fear you will not act justly, then [marry] one woman [only] or someone your right hand controls. That is more likely to keep you from committing an injustice. (4:3)

Test orphans as soon as they reach a marriageable age. If you are sure of their maturity, then turn their property over to them; do not use it up extravagantly, over-anxious lest they should grow up. Anyone who is rich should restrain himself, while anyone who is poor may live off it in decency. Whenever you hand their property over to them, have it witnessed for them. God suffices as a Reckoner! (4:6)

So it is about orphans and their rights.

Now if a man have to take care of some orphans but can't do it himself then God give him the allowance to marry up to 4 and also he should be fair with the 4 otherwise stay with one or bringing a helper (right hand possess)

The problem i think is with interpretation of the verses of the quran or maybe men prefer to neglect the orphan issue in order to marry more than one.

Maybe that's only part of the problem,there are hadith that support this neglect,imo there are more bugs in Islam than there are holes in a honeycombe,for something that promotes itself as perfect and right the physical manifestation looks very wrong to me.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

My pleasure.

I will only go through debate regarding parts that are related to the OP, and for the rest I may place only some links.

A great many of the worlds mathematicians indeed believed the sun was the center and the earth revolved. Helio-centrism goes all the way back to Greece. It did not show up in the 16th century. I could have easily let go the claim that most believed the earth was the center (though I suspect that is not even true). However the writer for some bizarre reason made hyperbolic claims about everyone that are simply not true.



He said everyone, not a few. There had been Christians that had argued emphatically that the bible taught no such this a an earth centered universe long before Muhammad's great grandfather was born. I just cannot see that he meant anything about us knowing X then forgetting X. He says from the first centuries (with an s) not first century (without an s). That easily reads from the beginning of history until the 1500's. However even that is completely false. All kinds of people between the first century (without an s) and the 1500's believed and argued against an earth centered universe. Muhammad existed 2000 years after crude and later much better ways to evaluate the local heavens had existed. Astrology was an old science long before he existed. Now if you can find him predicting the quantum then alright but not where the earth and sun belong (that was old news). However ignorant bronze age men who even lived a long way from the place where the methods for studying he stars were later invented getting cosmology right is impressive (as the bible does).

"It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution"


Heliocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did not suggest that though I do think it was substantially the case. I said he got much of his doctrinal claims from his Christian uncle. It appears his uncle had some understanding of the bible but much of it was distorted. That is why Muhammad made so many historical mistakes when he illustrated biblical events of the past. However it is reasonable to assume he got much accurate information form Christians. In fact this is well known to be the fact. The only issue is whether he got specific cosmological views from them or it.

I am not aware Muhammad made any mistakes.

In what way is a fixed space consistent with barreling through the universe at 828,000 Km/hr? It is not even on a perfectly predictable nor consistent trajectory.

The Sun has a movement around its axes, and I am thinking that is what the movement in a fix place refers to. Movement in a 'fix' place as opposed to 'orbiting' like the earth or the moon.

Any consolidating influence will improve a fractional war like tribal system. This is not mysterious or remarkable. I do agree that Catholicism did plunge Europe into some dark times but not Christianity. It was Christianity that propelled Europe out of the dark ages and has never looked back, unlike Islam which peeked and then receded significantly. Islam's breakthroughs are not even solely attributable to Islam but were a byproduct of their keeping Greek and Roman science alive. However Christianity caught up to and eclipsed Islam scientifically and still does so.

What we should consider is, the fact that 'after Revelation of Muhammad', the Arab civilization rose in sciences.

I get the concept. I was asking for the specifics. In what way is Christianity or Islam in it's fall or winter. Each outnumber Baha'i by factors in the thousands. Both are growing. Christians are as scientifically prevalent as always and societies based in Christianity still dominate in almost every category. Please apply your analogy to something. BTW how do you explain Jewish dominance then it's laps into obscurity and it's modern dominance? Doesn't fit your narrative.



What are you talking about? Both of those you place in winter are growing and are far far larger than when you state they receded.

It has nothing to do with the number of Muslims or Christians growing. The concept is how those teachings can transform a people to become more civilized both in sciences and in human virtues. That is meant by fruits of a Tree. When a religion becomes merely based on imitations, dogmas and fanaticism, and only outward acts, and when so many sects and denominations are made and each interprets the Scriptures according to their own imagination, then that religion looses its true influence in a positive way that originally was intended. Of course that is precisely one of the main reasons that when the set time of a religion is reached, God reveals the Truth again. It is like the Process of Spring time that brings life again and again every year. It is like when the Death of Winter Comes, then Spring follows it. It is like the Night that is followed by the Day. it is Like the Sun that appears in every Morning to resurrect the Dead in Sin.

 

[gnostic]

The Sun has a movement around its axes, and I am thinking that is what the movement in a fix place refers to. Movement in a 'fix' place as opposed to 'orbiting' like the earth or the moon.

The word "orbit" doesn't mean rotational movement of object on its axis, like that of the Earth or Sun spinning on its axis.

You should understand that "orbit", especially in the realm of astronomy, is the movement of object circling around another object.

But the word translation to "orbit" in Qur'an, do not suggest the moon an sun rotating on their axes, but that they are literally both circling around the Earth on their orbits. While it is true that the moon do orbit around the Earth, it is not true about the Sun orbiting the Earth.

So that's the false (or error) of that Qur'anic verse.

 

[FearGod]

It's incorrect because متقي is a different kind of noun than مؤمن and معلم or صالح; it's an ism manqoos, which means that it ends with a ya' vowel that is omitted except when the word is preceded by the ال definite article, followed by a genitive, or is the object of a verb (or is in any part of a sentence that makes it an ism mansoob, but that's a different story because I'm not sure all cases of nasb have equivalents in English, so there would be no point in explaining them here in Arabic only).

The rules for deriving the plural form of nouns that fall under the category of ism manqoos differ depending on whether the noun being derived is masculine or feminine: in the case of the former, the last vowel (the ya') is omitted and replaced with ون or ين, so it's متقين and not متقيين, and متقون rather than متقيون. In the examples you gave, two letters are added to derive the plural, but the difference here is that it's required to omit a letter before adding the two that form the plural noun.

In the feminine case, the vowel at the end of the word isn't omitted, which is why متقات is incorrect, as you said; it's متقيات because the vowel isn't omitted before adding the two letters to derive the feminine plural form.

I didn't say that the Qur'an addressed men only; the point I'm making is that in that particular verse, beautiful women are indeed described as one of the rewards pious men will have in Heaven, and saying that the word couldn't be addressing men is inaccurate because it is in the masculine form and so there's nothing indicating that it wasn't meant to specifically address men (especially given the kind of reward mentioned afterward, i.e., heavenly women).

Let me assume that the word is masculine,then how to explain the other verse which says (2:2) ذلك الكتاب لا ريب فيه هدى للمتقين, so is the book for men only since the word is masculine,you have to explain this verse as well which says فانجيناه واهله الا امراته كانت من الغابرين 7:83 so the verse included Noah's wife as to be among the غابرين which is masculine,so it is clear and beyond doubt that المتقين was meant to be for both males and females

 

[FearGod]

The word "orbit" doesn't mean rotational movement of object on its axis, like that of the Earth or Sun spinning on its axis.

You should understand that "orbit", especially in the realm of astronomy, is the movement of object circling around another object.

But the word translation to "orbit" in Qur'an, do not suggest the moon an sun rotating on their axes, but that they are literally both circling around the Earth on their orbits. While it is true that the moon do orbit around the Earth, it is not true about the Sun orbiting the Earth.

So that's the false (or error) of that Qur'anic verse.

Where did the quran say that the sun orbit earth ?

 

[FearGod]

Which is precisely why heaven is not a physical place. We do not go there with our physical bodies, otherwise our physical bodies are different and have organs for male and female. But since only the Soul continues to live in the hereafter, then it has no gender
Good point!

I don't agree that we will be as ghosts in the paradise.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't agree that we will be as ghosts in the paradise.

We won't be as ghosts. That's only in the movies.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Where did the quran say that the sun orbit earth ?

(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion. ~ Sura 21: 33

 

[InvestigateTruth]

(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion. ~ Sura 21: 33

Well, it could be this:

"The galactic year, also known as a cosmic year, is the duration of time required for the Solar System to orbit once around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.[1] Estimates of the length of one orbit range from 225 to 250 million terrestrial years.[2] According to NASA, the Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 828,000 km/h (230 km/s) or 514,000 mph (143 mi/s) relative to the galactic center,[3] which is about one 1300th of the speed of light—a speed at which an object could circumnavigate the Earth's equator in 2 minutes and 54 seconds."
Galactic year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole solar system is traveling in an orbit. This is what the verse says:

"And He it is Who created the night and the day; and the sun and the moon. All (these) move swiftly in an orbit (in space)" 21:33

 

[FearGod]

(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion. ~ Sura 21: 33

Thats it exactly,each moves in its own orbit and revolves around the galactic center.


[youtube]SbK34NaMnQ4[/youtube]
TRUTH! The Earth does not revolve around the Sun - The exposure of hiding - April 2012 - YouTube

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

As far as the Abrahamic religions are concerned, Islam is the most interesting to me, and the one where the view of god seems most logical. With that said, I find belief in god in and of itself to be quite illogical. That, and following a book based on one person's religious experiences seems to me to be quite irrational. There does seem to be a bit more internal consistency in the Quran than in the Bible, but in my mind, the god who created all things should love his creation, especially his crowning creation (humans), no matter what, yet the Quran is clear that Allah hates disbelievers. I'd much rather prefer an all-loving god with no power and little knowledge over any alternative.

 

[gnostic]

Well, it could be this:

"The galactic year, also known as a cosmic year, is the duration of time required for the Solar System to orbit once around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.[1] Estimates of the length of one orbit range from 225 to 250 million terrestrial years.[2] According to NASA, the Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 828,000 km/h (230 km/s) or 514,000 mph (143 mi/s) relative to the galactic center,[3] which is about one 1300th of the speed of light—a speed at which an object could circumnavigate the Earth's equator in 2 minutes and 54 seconds."
Galactic year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole solar system is traveling in an orbit. This is what the verse says:

"And He it is Who created the night and the day; and the sun and the moon. All (these) move swiftly in an orbit (in space)" 21:33

I see that a Baha'i is not above twisting words of verse on any scripture. You may say your name or alias to be InvestigateTruth, but you are more interested in the "truth" than FearGod, who posted "galactic centre" in post 798:

Thats it exactly,each moves in its own orbit and revolves around the galactic center.

What does the 1st part of the verse 21:33 say?

And He it is Who created the night and the day...

While it is true that our entire solar system, including our Earth and our Sun, orbiting around the centre of our galaxy, it is a matter of understanding the verse as it stand. The entire verse should be in context with each other.

This can only mean that the verse is talking about night-and-day on Earth, not night-and-day of the Milky Way. There is no night-and-day in the galaxy.

The middle part also talk of only the Sun and Moon:

...and the sun and the moon.

Why do you think it is talking about "the sun and the moon"? What give sunlight during the day-time? Why do the other side of the earth have night or darkness?

You know it...FearGod knows it...and I know it, that the sun is what give us sunlight, but due to the Earth rotating on its axis.

This is what connect the sun (as well as the moon) to the Earth. And the middle part of the verse (ie. sun and moon) is what connect to the first part of the verse (night-and-day).

The last part of the verse talk of "they" as in "the sun and the moon" orbiting something, and that something is the Earth:

They float, each in an orbit.

I think it is very dishonest that you (and FearGod) would claim, baselessly, that they were orbiting around the galaxy's centre, when it clearly make no mention of galaxy.

The middle part of the verse, make no mention of Allah creating the galaxy or the Milky Way. In fact, this verse make no mention of god creating the stars (other than the sun). If the verse wanted to say "galaxy", it would have and should have mentioned cluster of stars, but it doesn't.

And because it mention god creating "the night and day", then it mentioning sun and moon, then it would be safe to say that the Qur'an is talking about these 2 heavenly bodies orbiting the Earth, not the galactic centre.

Hence, the Qur'an is claiming geocentric planetary motion.

You are simply twisting the verse so that it is saying this faulty scripture meet with modern astronomy, but in doing so you have taken the verse out-of-context. Speaking of galactic centre in this verse, only demonstrate that you are less than honest. Why do you do that?

The verse should be read with all contexts of it 3 parts, together. If one part, relate to the Earth (like night-and-day), then the other parts are related to the Earth.

 

[gnostic]

The last part of 21:33, say that "they" - as in the sun and moon - "float", like this Pickthall translation.

It is common primitive myth that the sun and moon "float" across the sky.

Some believed, like the Greeks and Romans, that the deities ride in chariots, pulled by horses, moving from one horizon to the other horizon, from east to west.

While others, like the Egyptians for example, believe that sun float across the sky, on a solar boat, captained by the sun god Ra, while Thoth steered the lunar boat.

The Sahih International and Yusuf Ali translations, used the words, suggest the sun and moon "swimming" or "swim", respectively. Neither words are accurate, astronomically, and give us faulty images about movements of celestial bodies.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The word "orbit" doesn't mean rotational movement of object on its axis, like that of the Earth or Sun spinning on its axis.

You should understand that "orbit", especially in the realm of astronomy, is the movement of object circling around another object.

But the word translation to "orbit" in Qur'an, do not suggest the moon an sun rotating on their axes, but that they are literally both circling around the Earth on their orbits. While it is true that the moon do orbit around the Earth, it is not true about the Sun orbiting the Earth.

So that's the false (or error) of that Qur'anic verse.

In the Writings of prophets the terms 'Sun', 'Moon' and 'Stars' have various meanings, and it is not always the outward sun, moon and stars.

For example, in a Muslim prayer:

Where is the course (to Allah) after a course?
Where is the best after the best?
Where are the rising suns?
Where are the shining moons?
Where are the brilliant stars?
Where are the authorities of the religion
Source: Prayer of nudba

In the above prayer, these terms are referred to Messengers, Prophets and Saints.

In fact, such traditions dates back to Christianity and Jewish Texts.
For example in Jewish Text:

Psalms 148:3 "Praise him, sun and moon! Praise him, all you shining stars!"
Daniel 12:3 "Those who are wise shall shine as the brightness of the expanse; and those who turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever. "


In many of the verses of Quran also, by stars, moon and Sun is meant Religious Leaders. For example:

"The sun and the moon to a reckoning" Quran 55:5

In this case, by the moon and the sun were meant Jewish and Christian religious leaders who were reckoned for their deeds.

Likewise:

Job 25:5 "Behold, even the moon has no brightness, and the stars are not pure in his sight;"

By 'stars are not pure' is meant, the religions leaders are not pure.




"He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical;" Quran 3:7