Saudi cleric says earth doesn't rotate

[Shad]

Muslims can't drive cars, but we saw it on TV and i saw the traffic circle as well.



The meaning of rotation is explained better here

Rotation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without around, then yes, but cars in accidents will rollover and not rotating.



Yes rotating around its own axis,right



Yes orbiting is rotating around an external point and not around its own axis



No comment.

This is hilarious. Do you even read/listen to what you post? Your video and wiki prove the point against you...

 

[FearGod]

This is hilarious. Do you even read/listen to what you post? Your video and wiki prove the point against you...

I don't have respect for people who are poor in thinking, there are many students in college but the smarts among them are very few.

 

[gnostic]

This is hilarious. Do you even read/listen to what you post? Your video and wiki prove the point against you...

It is precisely point that I have tried to point out to him.

It is no use providing a link to me, if he himself didn't bother to actually read or understand the wiki article.

But regardless of whether he know the differences between rotate and orbit, Qur'an 21:33 isn't correct about the sun, and both him and union are the ones who are misunderstanding what the verse say.

Nothing in 21:33 say that the earth is "rotating", only to say god created day and night, and it suggest that the sun is orbiting the earth...and that would mean the Qur'an view planetary system is geocentric model.

 

[FearGod]

It is precisely point that I have tried to point out to him.

It is no use providing a link to me, if he himself didn't bother to actually read or understand the wiki article.

But regardless of whether he know the differences between rotate and orbit, Qur'an 21:33 isn't correct about the sun, and both him and union are the ones who are misunderstanding what the verse say.

Nothing in 21:33 say that the earth is "rotating", only to say god created day and night, and it suggest that the sun is orbiting the earth...and that would mean the Qur'an view planetary system is geocentric model.

The quran isn't for the disbelievers to understand and God himself don't want you to understand it.

God; has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and over their eyes is a veil; and awesome suffering awaits them.(2:7)

And whomsoever God wills to guide, his bosom He opens wide with willingness towards self-surrender [unto Him]; and whomsoever He wills to let go astray, his bosom He causes to be tight and constricted, as if he were climbing unto the skies: it is thus that God inflicts horror upon those who will not believe.(6:125)

 

[gnostic]

The quran isn't for the disbelievers to understand and God himself don't want you to understand it.

It is true that I am not a believer, but that doesn't mean I don't want to understand what I read, FearGod.

If you were to ask me that - Do I always understand what I read?

I would say certainly not. I would be a happier if I understood every single things I read, but I know that I have my limits.

But I think whether I believe or don't believe, wouldn't really change much of what I know or I understand. I have read a lot of things that I don't believe, and doesn't

I am (amateur) mythologist, and I read a lot of books and translations, on not religious scriptures, but myths, legends, folklore and fairytales from ancient civilisations or from medieval societies. My specialty it is Greek myths, but also in Norse and Celtic myths in the west, and in the east as far as Babylonia and Elam (or ancient Persia). I have also read a number of Egyptian myths.

They are stories (myths and legends) that I enjoyed reading, including that of the Levant region, which would include Ugaritic and Hebrew (biblical) literature. I enjoyed read them, and I tried to understand what I read. Of course, I don't always understand that won't stop me from trying.

And I don't believe in any of the myths that I have read, but that also won't stop me from understanding them. And I certainly don't have to worship any god or spirit to understand what were written.

And that included trying to understand the Qur'an. I don't have to believe the Qur'an in order to understand what I am reading.

I wasn't the one who brought up verse 21:33. I think I understand this verse very well, I just don't agree this passage is totally and scientifically correct, as Union, and apparently you, have claimed it to be.

Actually, I think it is your belief, as well as Union's belief, that make you see what isn't there; the belief is actually hampering your ability (and Union's) understanding.

You may argue that I don't read Arabic, which you have already done so, and that is possibly true; in translation sometimes - and I must stress "sometimes" - do lose meaning. But I have read a number of translations, and the context are all the same in each translation, so I don't think "lost in translation" argument is the case. Personally, I think the whole claim "lost in translation" or the claim of misunderstanding on my part, is either a ploy or just sheer sophistry.

I just think it is your interpretation (and Union's interpretation) to that passage is actually the problem of your own misunderstanding the verse. You are trying to put modern (and scientific) context into the passage, and that not going to work, because:

A) I have experience and worked with other literary texts of both mythological or religious theme, similar to that of the Qur'an.
B) I have better understanding in astronomy and physics than you do.​

So I can recognise when someone is trying to put modern context into medieval texts; that you are trying to change the meaning of the Qur'anic verse to suit your agenda.

 

[FearGod]

It is true that I am not a believer, but that doesn't mean I don't want to understand what I read, FearGod.

If you were to ask me that - Do I always understand what I read?

I would say certainly not. I would be a happier if I understood every single things I read, but I know that I have my limits.

But I think whether I believe or don't believe, wouldn't really change much of what I know or I understand. I have read a lot of things that I don't believe, and doesn't

I am (amateur) mythologist, and I read a lot of books and translations, on not religious scriptures, but myths, legends, folklore and fairytales from ancient civilisations or from medieval societies. My specialty it is Greek myths, but also in Norse and Celtic myths in the west, and in the east as far as Babylonia and Elam (or ancient Persia). I have also read a number of Egyptian myths.

They are stories (myths and legends) that I enjoyed reading, including that of the Levant region, which would include Ugaritic and Hebrew (biblical) literature. I enjoyed read them, and I tried to understand what I read. Of course, I don't always understand that won't stop me from trying.

And I don't believe in any of the myths that I have read, but that also won't stop me from understanding them. And I certainly don't have to worship any god or spirit to understand what were written.

And that included trying to understand the Qur'an. I don't have to believe the Qur'an in order to understand what I am reading.

I wasn't the one who brought up verse 21:33. I think I understand this verse very well, I just don't agree this passage is totally and scientifically correct, as Union, and apparently you, have claimed it to be.

Actually, I think it is your belief, as well as Union's belief, that make you see what isn't there; the belief is actually hampering your ability (and Union's) understanding.

You may argue that I don't read Arabic, which you have already done so, and that is possibly true; in translation sometimes - and I must stress "sometimes" - do lose meaning. But I have read a number of translations, and the context are all the same in each translation, so I don't think "lost in translation" argument is the case. Personally, I think the whole claim "lost in translation" or the claim of misunderstanding on my part, is either a ploy or just sheer sophistry.

I just think it is your interpretation (and Union's interpretation) to that passage is actually the problem of your own misunderstanding the verse. You are trying to put modern (and scientific) context into the passage, and that not going to work, because:

A) I have experience and worked with other literary texts of both mythological or religious theme, similar to that of the Qur'an.
B) I have better understanding in astronomy and physics than you do.​

So I can recognise when someone is trying to put modern context into medieval texts; that you are trying to change the meaning of the Qur'anic verse to suit your agenda.

I and Union explained it to you but you don't want to understand as expected.

The verse (21:33)is very easy to understand and has no mistakes.

وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ
and [fail to see that] it is He who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon - all of them floating through space!

And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.

It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

So there are some translations which did it correctly but you just picked up the wrong ones and don't want to believe me and Union.

In Arabic when speaking about 2 things we are obliged to use the word كليهما which means both whereas كُلٌّ is used for more than 2 things, so the verse means that day and sun and night and moon is caused by the movement of the 3 (Sun,Moon,Earth), we don't use "all" or "they" if speaking about 2 things (the sun and the moon), in Arabic we should use the word "both"

 

[Shad]

I and Union explained it to you but you don't want to understand as expected.

The verse (21:33)is very easy to understand and has no mistakes.

وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ
and [fail to see that] it is He who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon - all of them floating through space!

And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.

It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

So there are some translations which did it correctly but you just picked up the wrong ones and don't want to believe me and Union.

In Arabic when speaking about 2 things we are obliged to use the word كليهما which means both whereas كُلٌّ is used for more than 2 things, so the verse means that day and sun and night and moon is caused by the movement of the 3 (Sun,Moon,Earth), we don't use "all" or "they" if speaking about 2 things (the sun and the moon), in Arabic we should use the word "both"

No we understand it. However it is you that fail to realize that even during the era of revelation itself until a non-Muslim developed the heliocentric model not one Muslim put forward the heliocentric model nor suggested the Quran was anything but geocentric. Your interpretation is post hoc rationalization. If the Quran was heliocentric why didn't a Muslim develop the idea? Simply put the fact is it matched the geocentric model until a non-Muslim developed the idea. Celestial spheres has always referenced to non-Earth planets, look up traditional astronomy. You can say all you want but history proves you wrong and you excuses are fallacious. You are inserting words which are not present thus making up a translation as you go along. "They" is already a point of reference from Earth so does not include Earth. Same with "all" Learn how to spot parameters in sentence...

 

[Shad]

I don't have respect for people who are poor in thinking, there are many students in college but the smarts among them are very few.

I have no respect for people that ignore history and that use fallacious ad hoc rationalization to save their holy book from falsification. Find me 1 tradition before the Heliocentric was developed from a Muslim stating the Quran was heliocentric. Just one.

If you can not understand what you link do not link it. Again you are linking a orbit and revolution not rotation....

 

[FearGod]

No we understand it. However it is you that fail to realize that even during the era of revelation itself until a non-Muslim developed the heliocentric model not one Muslim put forward the heliocentric model nor suggested the Quran was anything but geocentric. Your interpretation is post hoc rationalization. If the Quran was heliocentric why didn't a Muslim develop the idea? Simply put the fact is it matched the geocentric model until a non-Muslim developed the idea. Celestial spheres has always referenced to non-Earth planets, look up traditional astronomy. You can say all you want but history proves you wrong and you excuses are fallacious.

Again the quran doesn't mention the geocentric or the heliocentric model, the verse says all of them are moving, so earth isn't stationary according to the quran which is opposing the geocentric model.

 

[Shad]

It does not need to, it is called an analysis and reading comprehension. More so Quran 25:45 has the sun causing shadows and the moment of shadows. However it is the Earths rotation that does this not the sun, ie the sun is the guide of shadows. The Sun does not cause the movement but the Earth does. The shadow's light just creates the shadow, not both as the verse says. This verse only makes sense if the sun is moving not the Earth.

Find me one tradition, one interpretation before the heliocentric model was developed by Copernicus agreeing with you. Until you do so you are only putting forward post hoc rationalization. It may work for you but it is fallacious no matter how much you think your argument is valid and sound.

 

[FearGod]

I have no respect for people that ignore history and that use fallacious ad hoc rationalization to save their holy book from falsification. Find me 1 tradition before the Heliocentric was developed from a Muslim stating the Quran was heliocentric. Just one.

If you can not understand what you link do not link it. Again you are linking a orbit and revolution not rotation....

The heliocentric model thought of the sun as a stationary object and that was wrong from the beginning as the quran says the sun is steadily moving which is a proof that the quran was correct.

So the history that you are talking about was as stupid as those who still use it as an evidence against the quran.

 

[Shad]

The heliocentric model thought of the sun as a stationary object and that was wrong from the beginning as the quran says the sun is steadily moving which is a proof that the quran was correct.

So the history that you are talking about was as stupid as those who still use it as an evidence against the quran.

So what? The model put forward a sun centric model which is correct with the Quran put forwards no such claim, nor is there a tradition of such a view until after the heliocentric model was published. Ie Post hoc, after the fact.... You are trying to straw man the heliocentric view in order to defend the geocentric Quran. Again you display fallacious thinking.

In the geocentric model the sun does move, hence geo, Earth, is the center point of orbits. You provide more proof that the Quran supports geocentric models and you require even more fallacious reasoning to get around this fact.

Quran 18:84-90 has a setting place of the Sun at a muddy spring. However there is no place where the Sun actually sets. If one were to keep going west for a year from their point of view the Sun would never set in a place as there is no such event. Certain it does not set in a muddy spring...

 

[FearGod]

So what? The model put forward a sun centric model which is correct with the Quran put forwards no such claim, nor is there a tradition of such a view until after the heliocentric model was published. Ie Post hoc, after the fact.... You are trying to straw man the heliocentric view in order to defend the geocentric Quran. Again you display fallacious thinking.

In the geocentric model the sun does move, hence geo, Earth, is the center point of orbits. You provide more proof that the Quran supports geocentric models and you require even more fallacious reasoning to get around this fact.

LOL, But the quran says the earth also moves and not only the sun, looks like as if you have an Iranian mind.

 

[Shad]

No it does not. It says the Moon and Sun does, it says other planets does. It never says the Earth. Hence why I told you celestial objects references non-Earth planets. A celestial object are those outside of Earth's environment, off the planet itself. Look up the word....

Celestial | Define Celestial at Dictionary.com

 

[FearGod]

But for me it clearly says that earth is moving too, it's up to you if you see it otherwise.

 

[Shad]

But for me it clearly says that earth is moving too, it's up to you if you see it otherwise.

I do not question that it means this to you. However you are putting forward that the verse actually mean this to others. I am pointing out that your views were not shared by other Muslims for centuries and there is no tradition that is not post hoc rationalization. Hence I am point out I find your interpretation to be post hoc rationalization and unconvincing. You are using secondary non-Muslim sources for your views in absences of any supporting material from Muslims themselves. Apparently no one know what these verses mean until a non-Muslim developed the theory. Hence post hoc...

 

[FearGod]

I do not question that it means this to you. However you are putting forward that the verse actually mean this to others. I am pointing out that your views were not shared by other Muslims for centuries and there is no tradition that is not post hoc rationalization. Hence I am point out I find your interpretation to be post hoc rationalization and unconvincing. You are using secondary non-Muslim sources for your views in absences of any supporting material from Muslims themselves. Apparently no one know what these verses mean until a non-Muslim developed the theory. Hence post hoc...

You're then entitled to your own opinion and i don't ask you or the others to believe what i believe in but you're the one insisting that i am wrong and i don't agree with you.

You believe that the quran is wrong and false, no problem, that is your choice, whereas i believe the quran is correct and i understand it very well,that is my choice.

 

[gnostic]

I and Union explained it to you but you don't want to understand as expected.

The verse (21:33)is very easy to understand and has no mistakes.

وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ
and [fail to see that] it is He who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon - all of them floating through space!

And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.

It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

So there are some translations which did it correctly but you just picked up the wrong ones and don't want to believe me and Union.

In Arabic when speaking about 2 things we are obliged to use the word كليهما which means both whereas كُلٌّ is used for more than 2 things, so the verse means that day and sun and night and moon is caused by the movement of the 3 (Sun,Moon,Earth), we don't use "all" or "they" if speaking about 2 things (the sun and the moon), in Arabic we should use the word "both"

None of which translations, nor your original Arabic state that night and day as the cause by the rotation of the earth, and that the side of earth that faces the sun has day!

The orbiting of all planets have nothing to do with night and day; rotation do.

You are concentrating so much about the orbit that you forget the important part - night and day.

The orbit of the sun in the has nothing to with the galaxy, and everything to do with the author of the Qur'an believe that the sun orbiting around the earth just as the moon around the earth. That mean the author believe in geocentric model.

I believe that the whole verse (Qur'an 21:33) is saying exactly the same things as Genesis 1:14-19, that the sun should be the light for day, while the moon shall be the light for night:

16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, 18 to dominate the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that this was good.

In blue, the "greater light" is obviously the "sun" that dominate the sky during "day", and in red, the "lesser light" is the "moon", which dominate the sky at "night".

Using the same color schemes for the verse (21:33) in the Qur'an (blue for sun and day, red for moon and night):

It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along an orbit.

And even if you "all", "all of them" or "they" were referring to all the known planets back then (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn), are in orbits, this will suggest to me that the planets, as well as the Sun and moon, are orbiting around the Earth, which still suggest the geocentric model, therefore the Qur'an is still WRONG, astronomically and scientifically.

You and Union are still misreading the verse.

 

[FearGod]

None of which translations, nor your original Arabic state that night and day as the cause by the rotation of the earth, and that the side of earth that faces the sun has day!

The orbiting of all planets have nothing to do with night and day; rotation do.

You are concentrating so much about the orbit that you forget the important part - night and day.

The orbit of the sun in the has nothing to with the galaxy, and everything to do with the author of the Qur'an believe that the sun orbiting around the earth just as the moon around the earth. That mean the author believe in geocentric model.

I believe that the whole verse (Qur'an 21:33) is saying exactly the same things as Genesis 1:14-19, that the sun should be the light for day, while the moon shall be the light for night:



In blue, the "greater light" is obviously the "sun" that dominate the sky during "day", and in red, the "lesser light" is the "moon", which dominate the sky at "night".

Using the same color schemes for the verse (21:33) in the Qur'an (blue for sun and day, red for moon and night):



And even if you "all", "all of them" or "they" were referring to all the known planets back then (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn), are in orbits, this will suggest to me that the planets, as well as the Sun and moon, are orbiting around the Earth, which still suggest the geocentric model, therefore the Qur'an is still WRONG, astronomically and scientifically.

You and Union are still misreading the verse.

Believe what you see it right to you, no problem and i don't agree with you, end of discussion.

 

[gnostic]

Believe what you see it right to you, no problem and i don't agree with you, end of discussion.

Hey, you (and union) are the one who think you change the original context of the verse, so that it would suggest the passage as being - "scientific".

And in science and religion debate thread, if you are going to make claim it being "scientific", then you should try to back it up.

But all I see is sophistry, semantics and twisting of words (like your repeated attempts at saying rotational motion and orbital motion as being one-and-the-same) to make baseless claim.