Rawāsiya and Tamīda
-
Wakas,
That's exactly right bro.
When a verb follows in the subjunctive mood and is marked as an accusative, it is best rendered into English as Lest because it indicates the intended prevention of the act.
An example off the top of my head is Zaid fastened the camel's bridle lest it wander off. Note the Fata on the last letter of the last word of the sentence; this Fata indicates the verb's subjunctivity.
An example from the quran would be nice.
do you know of any other causes of seismic activity?
In the Netherlands we have earthquakes because of extraction of gas.
The earth is in constant movement, according to this site tens of earthquakes with a magnitude of at least 1.5 in the last 24 hours.
So what does "lest it will shake with you" mean? -
Comrox,
Thanks for the info. I paid particular attention to Dr. Avouac's statement in which he establishes that earthquakes are more likely to occur at fault lines. Speaking frankly, I would have thought that to be a given. I mean, where else are earthquakes likely to occur? It is only by the friction caused by the movement of two or more plates rubbing against each other that seismic activity can occur. Forgive my ignorance, but do you know of any other causes of seismic activity?
I can find only two other causes that are possible; both of them having slimmer chances of producing an earthquake then tectonic plate movement and breakage. Here they are
(1) Volcanic activity.
Some, but not all, earthquakes are related to volcanoes. For example, most earthquakes are along the edges of tectonic plates. This is where most volcanoes are too. However, most earthquakes are caused by the interaction of the plates not the movement of magma.
Most earthquakes directly beneath a volcano are caused by the movement of magma. The magma exerts pressure on the rocks until it cracks the rock. Then the magma squirts into the crack and starts building pressure again. Every time the rock cracks it makes a small earthquake. These earthquakes are usually too weak to be felt but can be detected and recorded by sensitive instruments. Once the plumbing system of the volcano is open and magma is flowing through it, constant earthquake waves, called harmonic tremor, are recorded (but not felt).
source http//volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-are-volcanoes-and-earthquakes-related
(2) Man-made explosives.
Earthquake-like seismic waves can also be caused by explosions underground. These explosions may be set off to break rock while making tunnels for roads, railroads, subways, or mines. These explosions, however, don't cause very strong seismic waves. You may not even feel them. Sometimes seismic waves occur when the roof or walls of a mine collapse. These can sometimes be felt by people near the mine. The largest underground explosions, from tests of nuclear warheads (bombs), can create seismic waves very much like large earthquakes. This fact has been exploited as a means to enforce the global nuclear test ban, because no nuclear warhead can be detonated on earth without producing such seismic waves.
source http//www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/why.html
My apologies, I should have been clearer in my previous post. I meant to imply the following. How frequent and severe would earthquakes have been at a time in the earth's geological history at the stage in which its crust had cooled but before the stage in which mountain ranges began to form?
Knowing the answer to this question is likely to be purely theoretical, for it is no longer empirically quantifiable for the most part. Nonetheless, the theorised answer to this question can be compared to data of the crust of today's earth in order to garner a greater understanding of the effect of mountain ranges on the frequency and severity of earthquakes.
There seems to be very, very little information on early Earth in relation to earthquakes and mountain formation. Concerning earthquakes, one article says the following
Since continents first formed, they've constantly shifted, with volcanoes and earthquakes shaping and reshaping the surface, islands and mountains emerging and being wiped out over the eons.
source http//www.livescience.com/6156-violent-planet-forces-shape-earth.html
From the above, I would say that earthquakes have existed as long as the tectonic plates themselves have existed. On the emerging theory of how tectonic plates formed
Starting roughly 4 billion years ago, cooler parts of Earths crust were pulled downwards into the warmer upper mantle, damaging and weakening the surrounding crust. The process happened again and again, the authors say, until the weak areas formed plate boundaries. Other researchers have estimated that a global tectonic plate system emerged around 3 billion years ago.
As the process repeated over time, it created a large tectonic plate with an active subduction zone. Over a much longer period, the same process could have created many tectonic plates, says co-author David Bercovici, a geophysicist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. Weve got a physical mechanism to explain how it could have happened, he says.
Bercovicis model suggests that early subduction created weak spots in Earths crust that are now plate boundaries. Plate tectonics is defined by the idea that strong plates are separated by weak boundaries, and action at those boundaries creates geological phenomena such as volcanoes, mountains and earthquakes, he notes.
source http//www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/earth-tectonic-plates-new-model_n_5104087.html
(Two definitions to help with understanding the above info
Subduction A geological process where one plate moves under another and is forced down into the mantle.
Subduction zone The boundaries that mark the collision between two of the planet's tectonic plates.)
So. We know Earth began roughly 4.6 billion years ago. The tectonic plate system that allows earthquakes (and mountains) to be possible might have been fully formed on a global scale around ~3 billion years ago.
It's also hard to find information on when the earth cooled down enough, but this is what I've found
The Hadean Eon ended roughly 3.8 billion years ago with the onset of the Archean age. Much like the Hadean, this eon takes it name from a ancient Greek word, which in this case means beginning or origin. This refers to the fact that it was during this period that the Earth had cooled significantly and life forms began to evolve.
source http//www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-the-earth-formed/
With this information, we can assume Earth and therefore Earth's crust had cooled a lot 3.8 billion years ago. This fits around the time that the global tectonic plate system was in place (give or take a few hundred million years).
The last piece of information we need is figuring out how long ago mountains formed. We only have some insight, given the mountain ranges that still exist today
Many scientists also believe that the Appalachian Mountains are the oldest mountains in the world. It is possible that the New River is older than any mountain range in the entire world. Finally, the New River's mountain contorting course has exposed rocks that are over 1 billion years old.
source https//www.nps.gov/neri/learn/nature/the-new-river-fact-or-fiction.htm
So we have a gap of 2 to 3 billion years between a cooled Earth with plate tectonics, to modern-day mountains and mountain ranges. I'm sure there were a lot of earthquakes then, but I'm not sure we can say if there would be more than there are today? Maybe someone else feels different on this subject.
I think it must be noted, however, that just because we have a gap of a few billion years between cooled Earth and mountains, it doesn't necessarily mean that Earth didn't have mountains before 1 billion years ago (I don't think it's fair to jump to that conclusion). It just means that no mountains have survived from an earlier time period.
I have to go now; I'm getting really sleepy and I will reply more in the morning.
Peace. peace
-
An example from the quran would be nice.
In the Netherlands we have earthquakes because of extraction of gas.Really? Do you have any scientific support or article to back up that claim?
The earth is in constant movement, according to this site tens of earthquakes with a magnitude of at least 1.5 in the last 24 hours.
So what does "lest it will shake with you" mean?So crazy.
But can we feel all those earthquakes... isn't that the question? How many do we feel usually?
-
The earth is constantly moving. Mountains form and as they form the whole crust adjusts, and everything on the crust moves with it. Mountains do nnot tumble because as they form they take the shape of pegs as well tated in the Qur'an so that they are stable, they move but with everythig on them but they do nto tumble because they are stable and by the stability maintain the staility of the crust. When the adjustment has not been gradual and tensions accumulate, there happen earthquaques. Bur earthquaques of consideraation are rae bearing in mind the extension of the areas where the earth plates move todards eath other. The point is that any mountain with those movements eeven of lesser consideraation would indeed tumble if they were not well anchored a pegs into the depths so that they are stable.
Salaam
-
I can find only two other causes that are possible; both of them having slimmer chances of producing an earthquake then tectonic plate movement and breakage. Here they are
(1) Volcanic activity.
source http//volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-are-volcanoes-and-earthquakes-related
(2) Man-made explosives.
source http//www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/why.html
There seems to be very, very little information on early Earth in relation to earthquakes and mountain formation. Concerning earthquakes, one article says the following
source http//www.livescience.com/6156-violent-planet-forces-shape-earth.html
From the above, I would say that earthquakes have existed as long as the tectonic plates themselves have existed. On the emerging theory of how tectonic plates formed
source http//www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/earth-tectonic-plates-new-model_n_5104087.html
(Two definitions to help with understanding the above info
Subduction A geological process where one plate moves under another and is forced down into the mantle.
Subduction zone The boundaries that mark the collision between two of the planet's tectonic plates.)
So. We know Earth began roughly 4.6 billion years ago. The tectonic plate system that allows earthquakes (and mountains) to be possible might have been fully formed on a global scale around ~3 billion years ago.
It's also hard to find information on when the earth cooled down enough, but this is what I've found
source http//www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-the-earth-formed/
With this information, we can assume Earth and therefore Earth's crust had cooled a lot 3.8 billion years ago. This fits around the time that the global tectonic plate system was in place (give or take a few hundred million years).
The last piece of information we need is figuring out how long ago mountains formed. We only have some insight, given the mountain ranges that still exist today
source https//www.nps.gov/neri/learn/nature/the-new-river-fact-or-fiction.htm
So we have a gap of 2 to 3 billion years between a cooled Earth with plate tectonics, to modern-day mountains and mountain ranges. I'm sure there were a lot of earthquakes then, but I'm not sure we can say if there would be more than there are today? Maybe someone else feels different on this subject.
I think it must be noted, however, that just because we have a gap of a few billion years between cooled Earth and mountains, it doesn't necessarily mean that Earth didn't have mountains before 1 billion years ago (I don't think it's fair to jump to that conclusion). It just means that no mountains have survived from an earlier time period.
I have to go now; I'm getting really sleepy and I will reply more in the morning.
Peace. peace
Volcanic activity and gtectonic activity are the same thing, they are the result of the movement of the crust plaques. You have volcanic activity where new plaque matter is created and where it is subduced. So indeed if you have plaque activity whrere plaques meet you also have volcanic activiy there. So it is no two different things.
That earthquaques are caused by other causes, like fracking, does not eliminate the fact that quakes ar emainly caused to to plaque tectonics at the line where plaques meat each other and are compressed at the line.
The Qur'an has the whole thing right
But can we feel all those earthquakes... isn't that the question? How many do we feel usually?
Why should that be the question? The movement is there even if we do not know, ust the same as the sun goes up even if you are blind.
On the other hand, yes in eartthquake prone countries shakes are felt all the time but the are "mild", they do not upset anybody and the building echnique are geared to withstand earthquakes. Only the excetionally strong create havoc, otherwise it is just life as ever.
Salaam
-
peace all,
I think by the juxtaposition the implication of "an" is "lest" rather than "that" but I'm not certain.
And He cast in the earth/land solidly grounded lest it (earth/land) MYD with you
Miim-Ya-Dal = To be shaken, moved, agitated, spread, give food. It was/became in a state of motion or commotion. Was/Became agitated in a state or violent motion or commotion; or violently agitated. Turn/Twist about. Become contorted and convulsed. Quivered, trembled. Confound, perplex, amazed. Inclining from side to side.
http//corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(311011)
3rd person feminine singular imperfect verb, subjunctive moodThe implication seems to be the solidly grounded mountains/anchors prevent (or reduce severity of) the earth/land MYD'ing with you, making it habitable.
Thank you for listing the root word and all its possible meanings - it is incredibly helpful. ;D
The verse you translated, when taking into consideration what huruf just said...
And He cast in the earth/land solidly grounded lest it (earth/land) MYD with you
What I'm curious about is the subject of "it" in the verse. You and almost everyone else here seem to think the subject is the earth/land.
From reading her latest post, I'm getting the feeling that huruf (please correct me if I'm wrong huruf) feels that the subject (of "it" is mountains?
-
Volcanic activity and gtectonic activity are the same thing, they are the result of the movement of the crust plaques. You have volcanic activity where new plaque matter is created and where it is subduced. So indeed if you have plaque activity whrere plaques meet you also have volcanic activiy there. So it is no two different things.
That earthquaques are caused by other causes, like fracking, does not eliminate the fact that quakes ar emainly caused to to plaque tectonics at the line where plaques meat each other and are compressed at the line.
The Qur'an has the whole thing right
Yes, you are completely correct that earthquakes are mainly caused by plate movement. ) I was providing other possible causes as uq asked. Although volcanoes are also caused by tectonic plate movement, it was the movement of magma producing a small earthquake that I was highlighting.
Thinking about it now, I do think the other causes of earthquakes are irrelevant to our discussion because
(1) The ones caused by magma movement cannot be felt.
(2) The man-made explosives have nothing to do with natural causes and therefore God but rather their production and destruction is man's own doing.
Anyways.
Why should that be the question? The movement is there even if we do not know, ust the same as the sun goes up even if you are blind.
On the other hand, yes in eartthquake prone countries shakes are felt all the time but the are "mild", they do not upset anybody and the building echnique are geared to withstand earthquakes. Only the excetionally strong create havoc, otherwise it is just life as ever.
Salaam
It is a question for me because when Qur'an was revealed, no one at that time had any knowledge of earthquakes that occurred but could not be felt. The "shaking with you" part of verse 1615 seems to prove to me that the only shaking that's supposed to be prevented is the kind that humans can definitely feel on the surface.
-
Really? Do you have any scientific support or article to back up that claim?
You don't believe me? >
It is here almost daily news and yes there are a lot of studies on this. In Holland we call them induced earthquakes.
Just type in google "Groningen earthquakes gas".So crazy.
But can we feel all those earthquakes... isn't that the question? How many do we feel usually?
Did the quran say something about feeling it?
-
You don't believe me? >
It is here almost daily news and yes there are a lot of studies on this. In Holland we call them induced earthquakes.
Just type in google "Groningen earthquakes gas".Oh wow. I'll have to look more into that later. Thanks for sharing.
Did the quran say something about feeling it?
I believe so. No one at that time had any knowledge of earthquakes that occurred but could not be felt. The "shaking with you" part of verse 1615 seems to prove to me that the only shaking that's supposed to be prevented is the kind that humans can definitely feel on the surface.
-
I would think that the prevented shkinngs would be those which would cause damage. I have felt some earthquakes in my life, and I think most people hav felt earthquakes but no the kind that sticks in the mind forever as something to remember. One of those times I told my daugher no to shake my bed, because I was sleeping and I thought she had come to my side.
But those midl things are there only to be ble to say we have known an earthquake beccause otherwise it is lost in the life of many years.
For sure, if we restrict the Qur'an to be seaking ONLY to the people of Arabia of the time, even those must have known earthquakes,mild ones, but some earthquakes.
Salaam
-
peace,
uq,
When a verb follows in the subjunctive mood and is marked as an accusative, it is best rendered into English as Lest because it indicates the intended prevention of the act.
Re intended prevention of the act
I noticed this in corpus
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=31&verse=10#(31101)"lest it (might) shake..."
I wonder how strong a negation is "an" when the indication is "lest".
comrox,
I think the "it" refers to earth/land because of what follows in verse 3110, although perhaps theoretically it could refer to "stable mountain", bro uq may need to confirm. -
comrox,
I think the "it" refers to earth/land because of what follows in verse 3110, although perhaps theoretically it could refer to "stable mountain", bro uq may need to confirm.Reading over the verses again, I feel that 1615 could theoretically refer to the mountains in the use of "it", but 2131 and 3110 I'm much less sure about.
1615 - "And He has cast in the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with you, and rivers and roads so that you may be guided."
2131 - "And We (have) placed in the earth firmly set mountains, lest it (should) shake with them, and We made therein broad passes (as) ways, so that they may (be) guided."
3110 - "He created the heavens without pillars that you see and has cast in the earth firm mountains lest it (might) shake with you and He dispersed in it from every creature. And We sent down from the sky water then We caused to grow therein of every kind noble."
With the use of "therein" in the later portions of 2131 and 3110, it seems clear that the "broad passes" in 2131 and "caused to grow" in 3110 are talking about the earth specifically, so it would make sense that the subject (earth) would be present throughout the entire verse.
But I still don't think the argument can be dismissed completely, not yet at least.
-
Peace All.
In my opinion "it" can only mean Earth/land. the verses will make no sense if "it" referred to "Rawasia".
To establish "Rawasia" plural of "Raas" which in here means "Peaks/mountains" on earth "lest/to prevent the earth from "Tamida" with you.
Also "Tamida" does not mean shake! The word for shake is " zalzala" as in earthquake/shake.
Perhaps the Mountains are stabilising the earth when it is rotating so we do not feel the effect of tumbling/rolling with it?
GOD bless,
Peace. -
I believe so. No one at that time had any knowledge of earthquakes that occurred but could not be felt. The "shaking with you" part of verse 1615 seems to prove to me that the only shaking that's supposed to be prevented is the kind that humans can definitely feel on the surface.
I believe the quran is a bit more universal than that.
-
Peace Anoushirvan,
I apologize for taking so long to get back to you.
Peace Comrox,
I would say (2) and (4).
There are a lot of statements in Quran regarding Earth, Universe, and human creation that I consider to be scientifically inaccurate in our todays standards, not to say erroneous.But I do not consider that they indicate that Quran is not from divine origine, contrary to Christians or atheists.
I've never heard someone say this before. I'm surprised.
Purpose of Quran is not teach science, but to teach concepts of the Kitab, i.e. eternal God's will for mankind.
Likewise a messenger was sent to humans under the form of a human, and not under the form of an angel, concepts of the Kitab came under the form of concepts that people already knew, not under the form of concepts nobody could understand in the 7th century.It didn't make sense, and still doesn't, to teach people using scientific concepts they were not ready to accept, because these concepts weren't aligned with what they used to know.
I think I understand and agree with you here. You are definitely right that Qur'an was not meant to teach science and I am aware of this. I don't see the sense in teaching something that is so blatantly wrong when you could say it as it is. Wait a second... Are you saying that God purposefully included wrong scientific information in the Qur'an (by today's standards) because that limited or incorrect information was only what people understood of that time?
If you take for example these two verses
133 And He is the One who has spread out the land, and made in it stabilizers and rivers, and all the fruits He made in pairs. The night covers the day. In that are signs for a people who think.
1615 And He has cast onto the earth stabilizers so that it would not tumble with you, and rivers, and paths, perhaps you will be guided.you will notice an opposition between stabilizers/moutains (rawsiya) and rivers (nahar).
Moutains represent solid faith, while rivers represent confusion the same word nahar also means tumult/chide in Arabic (see project root list).
Therefore you have a choice in your life follow tumultuous way (nahar) or follow God's path (subulan).I'll let you analyse verses like this one
225 And give good news to those who believe and do good works that they will have estates with rivers (anhru) flowing beneath them....Ah, I see. So you have a very allegorical and spiritual approach to even what appears to be the most concrete verses. I like it; fresh perspective. )
About 225... Without looking into the Arabic, and just looking at the English translations available, it seems those who believe and do good in this life shall be rewarded with flowing rivers... Flowing rivers represent calmness, an easy-going attitude, no rush, an endless cycle that balances itself as the river will always flow, life... Where there is moving water, there is life...
They are given fruit (represents reaping the rewards that they received from living a good life, I suppose?) that they feel they have already been given before (the believers were either granted blessings in this life by God's will, or they were able to recognize that blessings that already exist, that we already encounter regularly, but that too many people overlook, or another explanation). But perhaps this "fruit" is even better in the afterlife because it's been recognized, appreciated, and/or put to use in the first life.
Spouses are purified because our souls are cleansed and purified once we are free of the first life and we must begin anew again in the afterlife. )
I need to stop rambling randomly so late at night... fftopic
-
I appreciate the readiing as allegorical depiction, still I do nnot thhink the Qur'an contains any errors as far "science" is concerned. But the reader and writeers of tafsirs ad the translators do make mistakes traying to adapt the Qur'an to what the consider intelligible, makig oe time a mess of it, by the waym though I can't blame hem. It is a gigantic task wich at no time or line is easy. So may God bless any erson who undertakes such a dangerous task. And peopple let us not forget that translators are human and that we must also help by being consciietious at whatever level we study the Qur'an.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf,
I appreciate the readiing as allegorical depiction, still I do nnot thhink the Qur'an contains any errors as far "science" is concerned. But the reader and writeers of tafsirs ad the translators do make mistakes traying to adapt the Qur'an to what the consider intelligible, makig oe time a mess of it, by the waym though I can't blame hem. It is a gigantic task wich at no time or line is easy. So may God bless any erson who undertakes such a dangerous task. And peopple let us not forget that translators are human and that we must also help by being consciietious at whatever level we study the Qur'an.
Salaam
Agreed. Thank you all again for your contributions on this thread. D I see it's not easy just trying to understand and come to a consensus on a few verses.
I read a very traditional Islamic article once about this same topic that we are discussing, and the author(s) said that 2788 refers to how mountains will be on the Day of Judgment... Basically saying that mountains are entirely fixed into the earth and will never move (or have ever moved) from just as they are now, until that Day... I couldn't believe it or agree with it. But to each their own. They believe and trust in it so that's not my concern. We all have our own understandings and I pray we will all be comfortable and firm in them (if we are not already). Allahu alam.
-
Peace huruf, Comrox,
There are a lot of statements in Quran regarding Earth, Universe, and human creation that I consider to be scientifically inaccurate in our todays standards, not to say erroneous.
But I do not consider that they indicate that Quran is not from divine origine, contrary to Christians or atheists.
I appreciate the readiing as allegorical depiction, still I do nnot thhink the Qur'an contains any errors as far "science" is concerned.
Firstly, science is not bound by any quranic agenda. Science works by establishing the theory that is the best corroborated by scientific, experimental facts. Whenever a new fact comes and contradicts the best established theory, that theory is dismissed, and new one that accounts for the new fact and the older ones is promoted.
So if you assert that Qur'an matches todays scientific theories, e.g. on geology, what shall you say tomorrow if those theories are invalidated ?
Seeking endorsment of Qur'an by science is not without danger.Secondly, I find the quranic verses scientifically vague enough (when they are not obviously wrong) so that by twisting the meaning of the words, they can be made to match various theories. This is in contradiction with another key distinction of science where any scientific theory must be falsifiable, i.e., it must be able to make predications that can be proven to be wrong.
To my knowledge, no scientific theory has emerged from understanding quranic verses. This is a key observation, I believe, that indicates that Qur'an has never carried any precise scientific knowledge.
Wait a second... Are you saying that God purposefully included wrong scientific information in the Qur'an (by today's standards) because that limited or incorrect information was only what people understood of that time?
I don't think that. Muslims say that Qur'an is God's speech, but I don't recall any verse saying this like that. Instead, we find this
81.19. Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin
81.19 . That this is in truth the word of an honored messengerAnd if you read surah 27, there is almost a surah inside the surah
2729 She said "O commanders, a noble letter has been delivered to me."
2730 "It is from Solomon, and it reads 'Bismillah ar-Rahman, ar-Rahim'"
2731 "'Do not be arrogant towards me and come to me as submitters'"Like a quranic surah, Salomon's letter to queen of Sheba begins by a Bismillah, indicating Solomon conveyed God's message to the queen, yet its words are those of Solomon.
So Qur'an says that Qur'an words are the words of the messenger, not those of God. Then logically it conveys the mindset of the messenger. Therefore quranic revelation was to "dress" the concepts of the Kitab with the mindset of the messenger.
Suppose God send a messenger in 21th century. This messenger would convey God's message using the mindset of the 21th century.
This message would fundamentally be the same as that of the 7th century since there is no change in the Sunnah of Allah.
The messenger would perhaps rely on theories like quantum mechanics or general relativity to disclose God's will for mankind.Yet, he will never be able to reveal any theory of the 23rd century. Such a theory is not created yet, nor the mindset that can disclose it.
Think of it Qur'an says that the messenger chosen by God was not the perfect man that traditional Islam tries to depict. So why would have the concepts used to carry God's will for mankind to be perfect ?
About 225... Without looking into the Arabic, and just looking at the English translations available, it seems those who believe and do good in this life shall be rewarded with flowing rivers... Flowing rivers represent calmness, an easy-going attitude, no rush, an endless cycle that balances itself as the river will always flow, life... Where there is moving water, there is life...
I don't think so.
.
2.25. Wabashshiri allatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati anna lahum jannatin tajree min tahtiha al-anharu
2.25 . And give good news to those who believe and do good works that they will have estates with rivers (anhru) flowing beneath them....PRL shows for root nhr
= Nuun-ha-Ra = to cause stream to flow, repulse, reproach, flow abundantly, drive back, brow beat, chide, do in the day time, day, daytime, daylight hours (from dawn to dusk).
It doesn't seem to carry a positive meaning. On the contrary it carries the meaning of confusion, and unstability.
The imaginary (estates/jannatin) of the believers is above the confusion. That's what the expression "jannatin tajree min tahtiha al-anharu" means.
Believers are like rawsiya, fix and solid in their faith, and above confusion. -
Peace huruf, Comrox,
Firstly, science is not bound by any quranic agenda. Science works by establishing the theory that is the best corroborated by scientific, experimental facts. Whenever a new fact comes and contradicts the best established theory, that theory is dismissed, and new one that accounts for the new fact and the older ones is promoted.
So if you assert that Qur'an matches todays scientific theories, e.g. on geology, what shall you say tomorrow if those theories are invalidated ?
Seeking endorsment of Qur'an by science is not without danger.Secondly, I find the quranic verses scientifically vague enough (when they are not obviously wrong) so that by twisting the meaning of the words, they can be made to match various theories. This is in contradiction with another key distinction of science where any scientific theory must be falsifiable, i.e., it must be able to make predications that can be proven to be wrong.
To my knowledge, no scientific theory has emerged from understanding quranic verses. This is a key observation, I believe, that indicates that Qur'an has never carried any precise scientific knowledge.
I don't think that. Muslims say that Qur'an is God's speech, but I don't recall any verse saying this like that. Instead, we find this
81.19. Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin
81.19 . That this is in truth the word of an honored messengerAnd if you read surah 27, there is almost a surah inside the surah
2729 She said "O commanders, a noble letter has been delivered to me."
2730 "It is from Solomon, and it reads 'Bismillah ar-Rahman, ar-Rahim'"
2731 "'Do not be arrogant towards me and come to me as submitters'"Like a quranic surah, Salomon's letter to queen of Sheba begins by a Bismillah, indicating Solomon conveyed God's message to the queen, yet its words are those of Solomon.
So Qur'an says that Qur'an words are the words of the messenger, not those of God. Then logically it conveys the mindset of the messenger. Therefore quranic revelation was to "dress" the concepts of the Kitab with the mindset of the messenger.
Suppose God send a messenger in 21th century. This messenger would convey God's message using the mindset of the 21th century.
This message would fundamentally be the same as that of the 7th century since there is no change in the Sunnah of Allah.
The messenger would perhaps rely on theories like quantum mechanics or general relativity to disclose God's will for mankind.Yet, he will never be able to reveal any theory of the 23rd century. Such a theory is not created yet, nor the mindset that can disclose it.
Think of it Qur'an says that the messenger chosen by God was not the perfect man that traditional Islam tries to depict. So why would have the concepts used to carry God's will for mankind to be perfect ?
I don't think so.
.
2.25. Wabashshiri allatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati anna lahum jannatin tajree min tahtiha al-anharu
2.25 . And give good news to those who believe and do good works that they will have estates with rivers (anhru) flowing beneath them....PRL shows for root nhr
= Nuun-ha-Ra = to cause stream to flow, repulse, reproach, flow abundantly, drive back, brow beat, chide, do in the day time, day, daytime, daylight hours (from dawn to dusk).
It doesn't seem to carry a positive meaning. On the contrary it carries the meaning of confusion, and unstability.
The imaginary (estates/jannatin) of the believers is above the confusion. That's what the expression "jannatin tajree min tahtiha al-anharu" means.
Believers are like rawsiya, fix and solid in their faith, and above confusion.You are not answering me of course. You are answering to your own idea of wht i may have said.
Here is what I said
I appreciate the readiing as allegorical depiction, still I do nnot thhink the Qur'an contains any errors as far "science" is concerned. But the reader and writeers of tafsirs ad the translators do make mistakes traying to adapt the Qur'an to what the consider intelligible, makig oe time a mess of it, by the waym though I can't blame hem. It is a gigantic task wich at no time or line is easy. So may God bless any erson who undertakes such a dangerous task. And peopple let us not forget that translators are human and that we must also help by being consciietious at whatever level we study the Qur'an.
If you have some vested interest in the Qur'an being vague or wrong on "science" or if you want to be a prophet of what somebody else is going to say if in the future this or that, really, I have better things to o than to get into that kind of senseless wranglings.
Salaam
