Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Ex-Muslims: Why Did You Leave Islam?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Hi. I'm going through a period of skepticism and would like to ask any ex-Muslims on here why they chose to leave Islam. What specifics were the  final straw that broke the camel's back? In particular, since this is a Shia forum, I'd be interested in how your view of the following changed once you'd left Islam compared to when you were a Muslim:

 

1. The sacrifice of Imam Hussain at Karbala along with 72 of his followers.

2.  The infallibility of the Prophet and His Miracles

 

and 3. how do you interpret the lives of Sufi saints such as Rumi, Hallaj and Bulleh Shah after leaving Islam?

 

These answers from you I hope will help me to elucidate my own thoughts and questions. (Moderators: perhaps this could go in the Thinkers' Discourse section; secondly, is there a way of changing one's username without making a new account?)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I doubt if you will get many responses. There are not many Shias who have left Islam. But you may find people from some other Muslim sects.   It may have been better if you had designed your thread in

You doubted your faith based on a hadith that could mean anything or nothing?

Well okay this is difficult and it's not about Islam but organized religion in general. It just seems to me to be very unscientific and full of scientific errors in all the major religions, including

  • Unregistered

Hi. I'm going through a period of skepticism and would like to ask any ex-Muslims on here why they chose to leave Islam. What specifics were the  final straw that broke the camel's back? In particular, since this is a Shia forum, I'd be interested in how your view of the following changed once you'd left Islam compared to when you were a Muslim:

 

1. The sacrifice of Imam Hussain at Karbala along with 72 of his followers.

2.  The infallibility of the Prophet and His Miracles

 

 

Not exactly what you are looking for , But form outsiders view- This may help, What the non Muslims say about Imam Husain(AS).

 

http://www.al-islam.org/articles/personalities-what-non-muslims-say-about-husayn-third-successor-prophet-muhammad

 

Event of Karbala, saved Islam,is not only a saying, its a profound truth, it you ponder on it. After all that inflected the people on the day of Ashura, and after Ashura. You and I can never be subjected with that kind of test, our belief in Allah(swt), and HIS Prophet(pbuhahp) and Islam. After Karbala- One can have no business with disbelief in Islam and Allah(swt).

 

People who hijaked Islam, did plant the seed of disinformation, and current events in the world, which may give rise to doubts about Islam- are not based on the true teachings of Islam.

 

As suggested, before, Inform the members of  your Doubts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Well okay this is difficult and it's not about Islam but organized religion in general. It just seems to me to be very unscientific and full of scientific errors in all the major religions, including Islam unless we make the most massive leaps in translation or ignore the classical understandings which we use most of the time. Secondly I am sceptical about the controlling nature of Islam in that it seeks to control every aspects of our lives with punishment in hell as a threat if we don't obey the rules (whichever sect) from what we have to believe (think) to what we eat drink and do in our bedrooms! Then you have the fact that each sect makes takfir of every other sect on the most trivial and obscure points of theology and therefore logically they can't all be right. I suppose if I was being brief it would be the scientific backwardness and errors and the lack of personal freedom which bother me the most. The reason I mentioned Imam Hussain, Rumi and Hallaj and Bulleh Shah is that they are the people whose lives I read and think there must be something Divine which inspired them to live their lives how they did and therefore I still believe in the basics of Islam however the more organized aspects of it I find increasingly illogical. (From a purely secular perspective one can see the events of Karbala as a part of an Arab civil war in which the Imam was brutally and cruelly killed in a skirmish and power struggle. ) this is not my perspective but it is a possible reading of the events. Similarly Hallaj either experienced the Divine or his life was a colossal waste based on sincere delusions. How do we know that what him or other saints including the imams and prophets experienced (what we consider miracles) was not mental illness or hallucinations?

These are the kind of thoughts I've been troubled with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. I'm going through a period of skepticism and would like to ask any ex-Muslims on here why they chose to leave Islam. What specifics were the  final straw that broke the camel's back?

 

 

Problems I found in Quran like وَمَا مَنَعَنَا أَنْ نُرْسِلَ بِالْآيَاتِ إِلَّا أَنْ كَذَّبَ بِهَا الْأَوَّلُونَ ۚ وَآتَيْنَا ثَمُودَ النَّاقَةَ مُبْصِرَةً فَظَلَمُوا بِهَا ۚ وَمَا نُرْسِلُ بِالْآيَاتِ إِلَّا تَخْوِيفًا {59}

[shakir 17:59] And nothing could have hindered Us that We should send signs except that the ancients rejected them; and We gave to Samood the she-camel– a manifest sign– but on her account they did injustice, and We do not send signs but to make (men) fear.

[Pickthal 17:59] Naught hindereth Us from sending portents save that the folk of old denied them. And We gave Thamud the she-camel – a clear portent save to warn.

[Yusufali 17:59] And We refrain from sending the signs, only because the men of former generations treated them as false: We sent the she-camel to the Thamud to open their eyes, but they treated her wrongfully: We only send the Signs by way of terror (and warning from evil).

 

The verse says either the only reason miracles aren't sent are because they were rejected in the past by former people or that the reason revelations weren't sent were because previous people rejected them.  I thought about both of these and they seem to be problematic and don't make sense.

 

There are other verses like:

 

 

 
وَمَا مَنَعَ النَّاسَ أَنْ يُؤْمِنُوا إِذْ جَاءَهُمُ الْهُدَىٰ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُوا رَبَّهُمْ إِلَّا أَنْ تَأْتِيَهُمْ سُنَّةُ الْأَوَّلِينَ أَوْ يَأْتِيَهُمُ الْعَذَابُ قُبُلًا {55}

[shakir 18:55] And nothing prevents men from believing when the guidance comes to them, and from asking forgiveness of their Lord, except that what happened to the ancients should overtake them, or that the chastisement should come face to face with them.

[Pickthal 18:55] And naught hindereth mankind from believing when the guidance cometh unto them, and from asking forgiveness of their Lord unless (it be that they wish) that the judgment of the men of old should come upon them or (that) they should be confronted with the Doom.

[Yusufali 18:55] And what is there to keep back men from believing, now that Guidance has come to them, nor from praying for forgiveness from their Lord, but that (they ask that) the ways of the ancients be repeated with them, or the Wrath be brought to them face to face?

 
Which don't make sense to me.
 
And contradictions like those who desire the next promised paradise and those who desire this world promised hell, while it's possible to desire both.
 

 

 In particular, since this is a Shia forum, I'd be interested in how your view of the following changed once you'd left Islam compared to when you were a Muslim:

 

1. The sacrifice of Imam Hussain at Karbala along with 72 of his followers.

2.  The infallibility of the Prophet and His Miracles

 

 

 

Imam Hussain and his followers didn't want oppression. They did their best to get rid of a bad government but it didn't work out.  They were outnumbered and a governor wanted them killed no matter what.

 

and 3. how do you interpret the lives of Sufi saints such as Rumi, Hallaj and Bulleh Shah after leaving Islam?

 

These answers from you I hope will help me to elucidate my own thoughts and questions. (Moderators: perhaps this could go in the Thinkers' Discourse section; secondly, is there a way of changing one's username without making a new account?)

 

 

They are inspired by ideas of love towards God and the reality of the closeness of God and his creation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

وَمَا مَنَعَ النَّاسَ أَنْ يُؤْمِنُوا إِذْ جَاءَهُمُ الْهُدَىٰ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُوا رَبَّهُمْ إِلَّا أَنْ تَأْتِيَهُمْ سُنَّةُ الْأَوَّلِينَ أَوْ يَأْتِيَهُمُ الْعَذَابُ قُبُلًا {55}

 

Nothing prevented them from believing except that should come to them (إِلَّا أَنْ تَأْتِيَهُمْ) the chastisement etc.
 
Isn't the desire of those people to have these events as conditions for belief implied in this verse? The implication can be seen if you focus on the wording. What prevents them from believing is that either of those two events hasn't happened to them. They want these events to happen, otherwise they wont believe. This is explicitly stated in other parts of the Quran. 
Edited by Muhammed Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The following Hadith faltered my belief years ago.

al-Kafi, Vol. 8, page 89

محمد، عن أحمد، عن ابن محبوب، عن جميل بن صالح، عن أبان بن تغلب، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: سألته عن الارض على أي شئ هي؟ قال: هي على حوت، قلت: فالحوت على أي شئ هو؟ قال: على الماء، قلت: فالماء على أي شئ هو؟ قال: على صخرة، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الصخرة؟ قال: على قرن ثور أملس (2)، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الثور؟ قال: على الثرى، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الثرى؟ فقال: هيهات عند ذلك ضل علم العلماء

http://www.yasoob.co.../09/no0986.html

Translation:

Imam Ja'far was asked about the Earth, what is it (the Earth) on top of?

Imam Jafar replied: It is on top of a whale (or large fish).

He was asked: And the whale, what is it on top of?

Jafar relied: It is on water.

He was asked: And the water, what is it on top of?

Jafar relied: It is on a rock.

He was asked: And on what thing is the rock?

Jafar replied: On the smooth horn of a bull.

He was asked: And on what thing is the horn?

Jafar replied: On soil.

He was asked: And on what thing is the soil?

Jafar replied: What a strange notion! At this flounders the knowledge of the scholars!

Grading: Saheeh according to Allamah Majlisi

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Well okay this is difficult and it's not about Islam but organized religion in general. It just seems to me to be very unscientific and full of scientific errors in all the major religions, including Islam unless we make the most massive leaps in translation or ignore the classical understandings which we use most of the time. Secondly I am sceptical about the controlling nature of Islam in that it seeks to control every aspects of our lives with punishment in hell as a threat if we don't obey the rules (whichever sect) from what we have to believe (think) to what we eat drink and do in our bedrooms! Then you have the fact that each sect makes takfir of every other sect on the most trivial and obscure points of theology and therefore logically they can't all be right. I suppose if I was being brief it would be the scientific backwardness and errors and the lack of personal freedom which bother me the most. The reason I mentioned Imam Hussain, Rumi and Hallaj and Bulleh Shah is that they are the people whose lives I read and think there must be something Divine which inspired them to live their lives how they did and therefore I still believe in the basics of Islam however the more organized aspects of it I find increasingly illogical. (From a purely secular perspective one can see the events of Karbala as a part of an Arab civil war in which the Imam was brutally and cruelly killed in a skirmish and power struggle. ) this is not my perspective but it is a possible reading of the events. Similarly Hallaj either experienced the Divine or his life was a colossal waste based on sincere delusions. How do we know that what him or other saints including the imams and prophets experienced (what we consider miracles) was not mental illness or hallucinations?

These are the kind of thoughts I've been troubled with.

 

You're concerning yourself with a lot of historical, cultural, and fiqh issues. These are all developments from after the Prophet's death and outside of the Qur'an. The Qur'an is not so intrusive in your daily life actually. It's the developed fiqh that became as such. But even then there are so many schools of thought. So if you believe in the Qur'an and the Prophet, then no need to leave Islam, just find the school that fits your interpretation the best. There are very intrusive legalistic Muslims, as well as very spiritual liberal Sufi-types. I'd personally recommend you stay away from Takfiri-Salafi-ISIS types, but also overly hippie-Sufis don't follow any of the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Unregistered

Well okay this is difficult and it's not about Islam but organized religion in general. It just seems to me to be very unscientific and full of scientific errors in all the major religions, including Islam unless we make the most massive leaps in translation or ignore the classical understandings which we use most of the time. Secondly I am sceptical about the controlling nature of Islam in that it seeks to control every aspects of our lives with punishment in hell as a threat if we don't obey the rules (whichever sect) from what we have to believe (think) to what we eat drink and do in our bedrooms! Then you have the fact that each sect makes takfir of every other sect on the most trivial and obscure points of theology and therefore logically they can't all be right. I suppose if I was being brief it would be the scientific backwardness and errors and the lack of personal freedom which bother me the most. The reason I mentioned Imam Hussain, Rumi and Hallaj and Bulleh Shah is that they are the people whose lives I read and think there must be something Divine which inspired them to live their lives how they did and therefore I still believe in the basics of Islam however the more organized aspects of it I find increasingly illogical. (From a purely secular perspective one can see the events of Karbala as a part of an Arab civil war in which the Imam was brutally and cruelly killed in a skirmish and power struggle. ) this is not my perspective but it is a possible reading of the events. Similarly Hallaj either experienced the Divine or his life was a colossal waste based on sincere delusions. How do we know that what him or other saints including the imams and prophets experienced (what we consider miracles) was not mental illness or hallucinations?

These are the kind of thoughts I've been troubled with.

 

(bismillah)

 

Correct me if I am wrong, you are making three basic points.

 

1) In your view Islam is unscientific and full of scientific errors.

 

2) In your view Islam is organized religion, its controlling nature in every aspect of life.

 

3) In your view/(on shaking grounds) Imam Husain(AS) sacrifice- is actually part of Arab civil war, and killed in a skirmish and power struggle. How do we know that what him or other saints including the imams and prophets experienced (what we consider miracles) was not mental illness or hallucinations?

 

I am not a scholar or something, just a regular person so bare with me, lets first work with number 3.

Tell me what, do you know of about the cause of this event, go as far back as possible, take you time, provide as much details as possible. A general and holistic view of the issue and we can drill down to cause which lead to this event, details of the events before and after Ashura. Implications, and what changed after this event.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

These are the kind of thoughts I've been troubled with.

 

Brother

 

You have written a full essay.

 

It would have been better if you had made a dot point or number list of your problems.

 

It is hard to connect all the points you have made.

 

Anyway, as far as trying to understand the Quran is concerned, it is not easy at all. The language style is very obscure. 

 

I will give you just one example and there are many more.

 

Let us examine verse [20:103].

 

Yusuf Ali translates the verse as follows :- In whispers will they consult one another - "You tarried not longer than ten (days)".

 

Notice the word "days" is in brackets. 

 

That is because the Quran itself does not specify whether it is talking about days, months or years.

 

In fact, SHAKIR translates it as 'centuries'.

 

In very brief, the Quran is very difficult to understand even if you know Arabic. 

 

As you can see, it is not possible to understand even from the original Arabic if the Quran is talking about days, months, years or centuries.

 

From a purely secular perspective one can see the events of Karbala as a part of an Arab civil war in which the Imam was brutally and cruelly killed in a skirmish and power struggle. 

 

None of the commentaries I have come across seem to think that Imam Husain was engaged in a power struggle.

 

And it was by no means a skirmish. It was a full-fledged battle.

 

Regardless whether it was a skirmish and / or a power struggle, as you put it, what everyone has marvelled is the extraordinary patience and fortitude that Imam Husain and his companions, women and even children displayed.

 

You should yourself try to assess Imam Husain's contribution in the light of your own knowledge and if you still have doubts about his extraordinary contribution, it will be hard to explain to you any further.

 

If you find no change in your conclusions, well, that is up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member

Well okay this is difficult and it's not about Islam but organized religion in general. It just seems to me to be very unscientific and full of scientific errors in all the major religions, including Islam unless we make the most massive leaps in translation or ignore the classical understandings which we use most of the time. Secondly I am sceptical about the controlling nature of Islam in that it seeks to control every aspects of our lives with punishment in hell as a threat if we don't obey the rules (whichever sect) from what we have to believe (think) to what we eat drink and do in our bedrooms! Then you have the fact that each sect makes takfir of every other sect on the most trivial and obscure points of theology and therefore logically they can't all be right. I suppose if I was being brief it would be the scientific backwardness and errors and the lack of personal freedom which bother me the most. The reason I mentioned Imam Hussain, Rumi and Hallaj and Bulleh Shah is that they are the people whose lives I read and think there must be something Divine which inspired them to live their lives how they did and therefore I still believe in the basics of Islam however the more organized aspects of it I find increasingly illogical. (From a purely secular perspective one can see the events of Karbala as a part of an Arab civil war in which the Imam was brutally and cruelly killed in a skirmish and power struggle. ) this is not my perspective but it is a possible reading of the events. Similarly Hallaj either experienced the Divine or his life was a colossal waste based on sincere delusions. How do we know that what him or other saints including the imams and prophets experienced (what we consider miracles) was not mental illness or hallucinations?

These are the kind of thoughts I've been troubled with.

 

Brother, you've raised a lot of good points, each of which could be their own separate topics of discussion.  Like you, I think many of us have encountered similar challenges to our faith in the face of secular ideology.  Islam as it's practiced today certainly has its share of problems (blind following, extremism, lack of modernity, etc).  We however need to make the distinction between the principles of Islam - monotheism, justice, Quran, etc - and it's understanding and implementation by Muslims.  Assuming you don't doubt the existence of God or the prophethood of Muhammad (saw), then it sounds to me like your problem is mostly with the latter.  Religion or any ideology is what people make of it and Islam is no exception.  The issues facing the ummah today are the result of human failings, not Islam itself.  And this isn't exclusive to Sunnis.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The following Hadith faltered my belief years ago.

al-Kafi, Vol. 8, page 89

محمد، عن أحمد، عن ابن محبوب، عن جميل بن صالح، عن أبان بن تغلب، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: سألته عن الارض على أي شئ هي؟ قال: هي على حوت، قلت: فالحوت على أي شئ هو؟ قال: على الماء، قلت: فالماء على أي شئ هو؟ قال: على صخرة، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الصخرة؟ قال: على قرن ثور أملس (2)، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الثور؟ قال: على الثرى، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الثرى؟ فقال: هيهات عند ذلك ضل علم العلماءhttp://www.yasoob.co.../09/no0986.html

Translation:

Imam Ja'far was asked about the Earth, what is it (the Earth) on top of?

Imam Jafar replied: It is on top of a whale (or large fish).

He was asked: And the whale, what is it on top of?

Jafar relied: It is on water.

He was asked: And the water, what is it on top of?

Jafar relied: It is on a rock.

He was asked: And on what thing is the rock?

Jafar replied: On the smooth horn of a bull.

He was asked: And on what thing is the horn?

Jafar replied: On soil.

He was asked: And on what thing is the soil?

Jafar replied: What a strange notion! At this flounders the knowledge of the scholars!

Grading: Saheeh according to Allamah Majlisi

You doubted your faith based on a hadith that could mean anything or nothing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The following Hadith faltered my belief years ago.

al-Kafi, Vol. 8, page 89

محمد، عن أحمد، عن ابن محبوب، عن جميل بن صالح، عن أبان بن تغلب، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: سألته عن الارض على أي شئ هي؟ قال: هي على حوت، قلت: فالحوت على أي شئ هو؟ قال: على الماء، قلت: فالماء على أي شئ هو؟ قال: على صخرة، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الصخرة؟ قال: على قرن ثور أملس (2)، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الثور؟ قال: على الثرى، قلت: فعلى أي شئ الثرى؟ فقال: هيهات عند ذلك ضل علم العلماء

http://www.yasoob.co.../09/no0986.html

Translation:

Imam Ja'far was asked about the Earth, what is it (the Earth) on top of?

Imam Jafar replied: It is on top of a whale (or large fish).

He was asked: And the whale, what is it on top of?

Jafar relied: It is on water.

He was asked: And the water, what is it on top of?

Jafar relied: It is on a rock.

He was asked: And on what thing is the rock?

Jafar replied: On the smooth horn of a bull.

He was asked: And on what thing is the horn?

Jafar replied: On soil.

He was asked: And on what thing is the soil?

Jafar replied: What a strange notion! At this flounders the knowledge of the scholars!

Grading: Saheeh according to Allamah Majlisi

One of my favorite hadiths. Nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Its not true that there aren't many Shias who have left Islam, a lot of youth are on the verge of leaving Islam and your question is very apt because it is indeed the supreme sacrifice of Imam Hussain a.s that keeps them on that verge. The sacrifice he made so willingly and with such strong belief that it makes you wonder what was it all for.

 

But with modern science and modern values, the youth has BIG questions which our elders are incapable of answering. Our scholars are not so well-equipped in the field of Science that they can't give satisfactory answers. People would tell you not to go about comparing science and religion, but why not ? When the Quran itself ask you to ponder on the creation. 

 

Someone in my family has 'almost' left Islam, I'll give you his version of things. When it comes to Imam Hussain a.s and Karbala, he thinks that Imam Hussain stood up like other leaders of the world such as Mendela or Gandhi, I'm ashamed to say but he compares it to the 300 movie, and other movies where people stand up for something and stay true to their stance till their last breath. Its insane and when you give historic references he would say who knows what really happened I wasn't there and you wasn't there. Cynical, but what can one say. And when it comes to delusions and hallucinations, its one extreme case to make that can't be refuted without deep understanding of their personalities and their movement, which the other is not willing to put his time into.

 

This kind of thinking has a lot to do with the popular culture of Thinking Outside the Box that most people have forgotten how to Think Within the Box. We keep thinking of all kinds or rare and unique possibilities just to avoid the simple and elegant ones that are staring us in the face.

 

All I can tell you at this point is that there is a Creator, that contrary to popular belief most scientists and intellectuals are not Atheists but rather Agnostics. And that from a keen observation of main stream and popular educational media it is very obvious that the world powers want its masses to believe in Atheism and adopt Materialism. So that is something you might want to stay away from. As to the question, why Islam ? Keep asking and researching, and if you can then keep practicing it too as it will only bring you good, no harm. Study Islamic practices and I'm sure you will find they're for the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Its not true that there aren't many Shias who have left Islam, a lot of youth are on the verge of leaving Islam and your question is very apt because it is indeed the supreme sacrifice of Imam Hussain a.s that keeps them on that verge. The sacrifice he made so willingly and with such strong belief that it makes you wonder what was it all for.

 

But with modern science and modern values, the youth has BIG questions which our elders are incapable of answering. Our scholars are not so well-equipped in the field of Science that they can't give satisfactory answers. People would tell you not to go about comparing science and religion, but why not ? When the Quran itself ask you to ponder on the creation. 

 

Someone in my family has 'almost' left Islam, I'll give you his version of things. When it comes to Imam Hussain a.s and Karbala, he thinks that Imam Hussain stood up like other leaders of the world such as Mendela or Gandhi, I'm ashamed to say but he compares it to the 300 movie, and other movies where people stand up for something and stay true to their stance till their last breath. Its insane and when you give historic references he would say who knows what really happened I wasn't there and you wasn't there. Cynical, but what can one say. And when it comes to delusions and hallucinations, its one extreme case to make that can't be refuted without deep understanding of their personalities and their movement, which the other is not willing to put his time into.

 

This kind of thinking has a lot to do with the popular culture of Thinking Outside the Box that most people have forgotten how to Think Within the Box. We keep thinking of all kinds or rare and unique possibilities just to avoid the simple and elegant ones that are staring us in the face.

 

All I can tell you at this point is that there is a Creator, that contrary to popular belief most scientists and intellectuals are not Atheists but rather Agnostics. And that from a keen observation of main stream and popular educational media it is very obvious that the world powers want its masses to believe in Atheism and adopt Materialism. So that is something you might want to stay away from. As to the question, why Islam ? Keep asking and researching, and if you can then keep practicing it too as it will only bring you good, no harm. Study Islamic practices and I'm sure you will find they're for the best.

Muslim scholars have been interacting with science since the beginning of Islamic scholarship. It's part of the arrogance of the modern age that we believe we are the first to question things, and that everybody in the past was a simpleton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Muslim scholars have been interacting with science since the beginning of Islamic scholarship. It's part of the arrogance of the modern age that we believe we are the first to question things, and that everybody in the past was a simpleton.

 

Of course, but Science was simple then and Philosophy and Logic used to be branches of Science and no doubt Muslim Scholars used to study these subjects and still do but they are not what Science is about any more. Science today is very different from what it used to be mainly because our knowledge of things today has been increased so greatly it is like a hundred times that of what it was before. Astronomy then was based on naked eye observations and some calculations but today it is no more just theories but real knowledge based on evidence. So if somebody used to question then, he probably based his questions on some assumptions and lack of knowledge, which is very unlike the situation today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Of course, but Science was simple then and Philosophy and Logic used to be branches of Science and no doubt Muslim Scholars used to study these subjects and still do but they are not what Science is about any more. Science today is very different from what it used to be mainly because our knowledge of things today has been increased so greatly it is like a hundred times that of what it was before. Astronomy then was based on naked eye observations and some calculations but today it is no more just theories but real knowledge based on evidence. So if somebody used to question then, he probably based his questions on some assumptions and lack of knowledge, which is very unlike the situation today.

I doubt there is a single verse in the Qur'an or hadith that we would now see as scientifically problematic that wasn't considered so in the past. The difference is that back then people assumed that Islam was true, and that any scientific fact must be in accordance with Islam. That may often require interpreting the verses or hadiths in an allegorical way. There is nothing wrong with this by the way. Clearly it would have been obvious even to the 7th century Arabs that the Sun and the Moon can't literally prostrate to Allah. This must then obviously this isn't meant to be taken literally.

On the other hand, these days many people start from the assumption that Science is true (when in fact many so-called proven facts are theories that could at any point be discarded), and that Islam's truth is in question. Islam is then viewed from a sceptical viewpoint, and rather than giving Qur'anic verses and hadiths a charitable reading, people take a naively literal reading and assume that any other reading is simply try to cover up for the embarrassment of what the text actually says.

If recommend watching the video in this thread as well: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235012919-a-timely-discussion-on-ethical-issues-in-islam/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Well okay this is difficult and it's not about Islam but organized religion in general. It just seems to me to be very unscientific and full of scientific errors in all the major religions, including Islam 

 

I agree that there are scientifice errors in some (unauthentic) hadith, but as far as the Quran goes, can you please bring one example of what you feel is a 'scientfic error' so we can discuss ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I agree that there are scientifice errors in some (unauthentic) hadith, but as far as the Quran goes, can you please bring one example of what you feel is a 'scientfic error' so we can discuss ? 

 

Ill take a stab at this.

 

One verse that I come across now and again is the whole, "mountains serve as bolts" verse in chapter 78, An Naba.

 

But mountains don't serve as bolts at all.  Theyre nothing like bolts, no more than a broken up saltine cracker stabilizes salt over a bed of jello. On the contrary, they may even be the opposite of stabilizing in that their constant motion destabilizes everything resting on top of them.

 

Before going into this conversation, ill add that...the difficulty with working on topics like this is, people can take a verse in the Quran, believe X.  Then as a modern scientific discovery comes about, they can transform their interpretation to Y in which case the original "falsehood" of the verse then becomes truthful.

 

And if there doesn't appear to be a clear way to re interpret the verse, people fall back on the...oh well, science is ever changing and the Quran is indeed truthful and clear.

 

All of this kind of demonstrates un clarity in a book that when written by a divine being, we would presume would be clear and understandable from the start. On the contrary it is far from clear with many topics, which I would say is a demonstration of human involvement in its creation and alteration from Gods true message (which should already be fairly obvious already due to the fact that it had to be written by flawed people with pens onto stone tablets or paper).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I doubt there is a single verse in the Qur'an or hadith that we would now see as scientifically problematic that wasn't considered so in the past. The difference is that back then people assumed that Islam was true, and that any scientific fact must be in accordance with Islam. That may often require interpreting the verses or hadiths in an allegorical way. There is nothing wrong with this by the way. Clearly it would have been obvious even to the 7th century Arabs that the Sun and the Moon can't literally prostrate to Allah. This must then obviously this isn't meant to be taken literally.

On the other hand, these days many people start from the assumption that Science is true (when in fact many so-called proven facts are theories that could at any point be discarded), and that Islam's truth is in question. Islam is then viewed from a sceptical viewpoint, and rather than giving Qur'anic verses and hadiths a charitable reading, people take a naively literal reading and assume that any other reading is simply try to cover up for the embarrassment of what the text actually says.

If recommend watching the video in this thread as well: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235012919-a-timely-discussion-on-ethical-issues-in-islam/

 

Why do you think the Quran never mentioned anything that was obviously unscientific for the time in which it was revealed.. such as may be stating that the Earth is round ? Because that kind of verse would have had a devastating effect for that era and that people would have then regarded Quran as false, though falsely so. Could a person of that time read Quran and read that Earth is round and carry on easily with his faith ? (like you say that people used to assume Islam as true and subject science to doubt, would they act same?) It takes extraordinary faith. Similarly when a person today, reads that the Earth is flat, the effect is similar; he may think of Quran as false (again, falsely so) but you can't blame him. Not entirely. Thanks for sharing the video, that made a lot of sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I doubt there is a single verse in the Qur'an or hadith that we would now see as scientifically problematic that wasn't considered so in the past.

Actually, human understanding of natural phenomena in the 7th century was primitive, so people living in that era would not have noticed. I have an example from the Qur'an.

In verse 37:6 Allah tells us that he put the stars in the lowest of the seven heavens:

37:6 “We have indeed decked the lowest heaven with an adornment, the stars.

If the lowest heaven is decked with stars, the word “heaven” surely cannot refer to the terrestrial atmosphere. Just want to put that straight from the start.

But here comes the disaster: if the stars are in the lowest (or nearest) heaven, what is there in the other six heavens? Alas! The Moon is there! Here is the datum, in 71:16, as a continuation of 71:15:

71:15 “See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens, one above another,”

71:16 “And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun a lamp?

If the Moon is a light in the midst of the (supposed) seven heavens, then it is necessarily farther away than the stars, which adorn the “lowest heaven," the one nearest to us. Is there any way to escape from this conclusion? The author of the Qur'an considered the moon (and sun) to occupy several layers of the heavens in totality, making it not only above the stars but bigger than all the stars put together in the lower heaven.

That is false science which was accepted by the Bedouins who received the revelation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Ill take a stab at this.

 

One verse that I come across now and again is the whole, "mountains serve as bolts" verse in chapter 78, An Naba.

 

But mountains don't serve as bolts at all.  Theyre nothing like bolts, no more than a broken up saltine cracker stabilizes salt over a bed of jello. On the contrary, they may even be the opposite of stabilizing in that their constant motion destabilizes everything resting on top of them.

 

Before going into this conversation, ill add that...the difficulty with working on topics like this is, people can take a verse in the Quran, believe X.  Then as a modern scientific discovery comes about, they can transform their interpretation to Y in which case the original "falsehood" of the verse then becomes truthful.

 

And if there doesn't appear to be a clear way to re interpret the verse, people fall back on the...oh well, science is ever changing and the Quran is indeed truthful and clear.

 

All of this kind of demonstrates un clarity in a book that when written by a divine being, we would presume would be clear and understandable from the start. On the contrary it is far from clear with many topics, which I would say is a demonstration of human involvement in its creation and alteration from Gods true message (which should already be fairly obvious already due to the fact that it had to be written by flawed people with pens onto stone tablets or paper).

 

First, the world أَوْتَادًا is translated as 'pegs' or 'stakes' and not 'bolts'. I'm not sure which translation you were reading that said 'bolts'. (78:7)

 

The description of mountains as pegs is entirely accurate, both in the physical form of the mountains and in their function. 

 

Physical Form: First, it is well known, now, thanks to modern geology and imaging technologies, what is the physical structure of the mountain. 

You have a part which is visible above the surface of the earth, and a part which is hidden below the surface of the earth. The part that is hidden below the surface is usually larger than the part that is visible above the surface. Something that is sticking into the earth that has a large portion of the structure below the surface, what would you call that in English ? A peg or a stake ? right ? So where is the discord between this description and what we know from modern science regarding mountains ? Sorry, I don't see it. 

 

Function. Although there is still alot we don't know about what is the exact function of mountains,  there is evidence that mountains serve to stabilize the crust of the earth, just as a peg or a stake serves to stabilize the structure that it is attached to. 

 

Geologists have proven that if earth was completely flat, then it would've been in a constant vibration.  Mountains do stabilize the earth during its rotation around its own axle.  Earth is rotating around itself at a speed of 1,000 miles per hour!  It is not a slow motion:

 

"The circumference of the Earth at the equator is 25,000 miles. The Earth rotates in about 24 hours. Therefore, if you were to hang above the surface of the Earth at the equator without moving, you would see 25,000 miles pass by in 24 hours, at a speed of 25000/24 or just over 1000 miles per hour."

 

SOURCE: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970401c.html 

 

Compressional forces in continental collisions may cause the compressed region to thicken, so the upper surface is forced upward. To balance the weight of the earth surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots" [see the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page.413]. Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy).

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

71:16 “And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun a lamp?

If the Moon is a light in the midst of the (supposed) seven heavens, then it is necessarily farther away than the stars, which adorn the “lowest heaven," the one nearest to us. Is there any way to escape from this conclusion? The author of the Qur'an considered the moon (and sun) to occupy several layers of the heavens in totality, making it not only above the stars but bigger than all the stars put together in the lower heaven.

That is false science which was accepted by the Bedouins who received the revelation.

 

Here are other translations:

 

[shakir 71:16] And made the moon therein a light, and made the sun a lamp?

[Pickthal 71:16] And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp? 

 

Since the Arabic read 'fi' and not 'bain'

And the other thing is that even in that era all popular models of the Universe had the Moon in the closest sphere and Stars in the last or final sphere which means that even in that era the common notion was that the stars are much farther away then the Moon and other planets. If you look at Greek and Egyptian models of the Universe the stars are at the edge of the Universe. So even if they were Bedouins they knew as much, do not think they were absolute fools and unaware of the Science of their times given the fact that they were frequent travelers and tradesmen. So, what I think is that Quran isn't saying that the Moon is between the Heavens, it is only saying that it is within the seven heavens. And as for the stars being in the lowest or nearest heaven (btw I just posted the same verses in another forum here as this confuses me too) but I think its not far from Allah's Greatness that all the stars and the planets are all located in Samaa-ad-Dunya that is the sky of the world and the closest to us. It may have been a 'common sense' thing for the people of that time to think that if the stars are close then the Moon is obviously closer and the verse does not need to clarify where in seven heavens is the Moon located. It is obviously and observably the most closest object to us and there is no question that the Arabs could not have known so.

 

And it just occurred to me that if you look at the old models of the Universe, which place the stars at the edge of the Universe and then you read the verse of Quran that stars are actually part of the sky that is closest to Earth - which you will label as the 'first heaven', gets you to the fact that where the Universes ended in old models Quran actually said that it's just the first sphere and there are six more or several more beyond that which is just about absolutely right. Which is also why it wasn't questioned despite being in contradiction with the scientific models of that time because it revealed something more on the lines of 'what you know is just the tip of the ice berg', which is pleasant to know I guess, coming from a divine source.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Actually, human understanding of natural phenomena in the 7th century was primitive, so people living in that era would not have noticed. I have an example from the Qur'an.

In verse 37:6 Allah tells us that he put the stars in the lowest of the seven heavens:

37:6 “We have indeed decked the lowest heaven with an adornment, the stars.

If the lowest heaven is decked with stars, the word “heaven” surely cannot refer to the terrestrial atmosphere. Just want to put that straight from the start.

But here comes the disaster: if the stars are in the lowest (or nearest) heaven, what is there in the other six heavens? Alas! The Moon is there! Here is the datum, in 71:16, as a continuation of 71:15:

71:15 “See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens, one above another,”

71:16 “And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun a lamp?

If the Moon is a light in the midst of the (supposed) seven heavens, then it is necessarily farther away than the stars, which adorn the “lowest heaven," the one nearest to us. Is there any way to escape from this conclusion? The author of the Qur'an considered the moon (and sun) to occupy several layers of the heavens in totality, making it not only above the stars but bigger than all the stars put together in the lower heaven.

That is false science which was accepted by the Bedouins who received the revelation.

In addition to what diyaa said about the arabic saying 'feehin' (within them) and not 'beynahun' (between them), here's some classical commentary to put your (hopefully sincere) doubts to rest:

 

 عن قتادة { ألَمْ تَرَوْا كَيْفَ خَلَقَ اللَّهُ سَبْعَ سَموَاتٍ طِباقاً وَجَعَلَ القَمَرَ فِيهِنَّ نُوراً وَجَعَل الشَّمْسَ سِرَاجاً } ذُكر لنا أن عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص كان يقول: إن ضوء الشمس والقمر نورهما في السماء، .

 

"On the authority of Qatada (have you not seen how God created seven heavens layer upon layer, and made the Moon a light within them and made the Sun a lamp) who mentioned to us that Abdullah bin 'Amru Al-As would say: verily the light of the Sun and Moon is in the heaven..." - Tabari 

 

{ وَجَعَلَ ٱلْقَمَرَ فِيهِنَّ نُوراً } أي في سماء الدنيا، كما يقال: أتاني بنو تميم وأتيت بني تميم والمراد بعضهم، قاله الأخفش. قال ابن كَيْسان: إذا كان في إحداهن فهو فيهنّ. وقال قُطْرُب: «فِيهِنّ» بمعنى معهنّ، وقاله الكلبيّ. أي خلق الشمس والقمر مع خلق السموات والأرض.

 

"(And made the moon a light within them) i.e. in the lowest heaven, like when it is said "Banu Tamim came to me and I went to Bani Taimim" and what is meant is some of them, which Al-Ahfash says. Ibn Kaysan said: if it is in one of them then it is within them (feehin). And Qutrub said: (feehin) means with them, which Al-Kalbi also says i.e. 'The creation of the Sun and Moon is with the creation of the Heavens and Earth'" - Qurtubi, Al-Jaami' li Ahkaam Al-Quran 

 

 

Notice Qurtubi lists all possible meanings, none of which state that the sun and moon are 'suspended' between the heavens. Arabic is not a simpleton's language, and your misguided analysis shows this. 

Edited by Jahangiram
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

First, the world أَوْتَادًا is translated as 'pegs' or 'stakes' and not 'bolts'. I'm not sure which translation you were reading that said 'bolts'. (78:7)

 

The description of mountains as pegs is entirely accurate, both in the physical form of the mountains and in their function. 

 

Physical Form: First, it is well known, now, thanks to modern geology and imaging technologies, what is the physical structure of the mountain. 

You have a part which is visible above the surface of the earth, and a part which is hidden below the surface of the earth. The part that is hidden below the surface is usually larger than the part that is visible above the surface. Something that is sticking into the earth that has a large portion of the structure below the surface, what would you call that in English ? A peg or a stake ? right ? So where is the discord between this description and what we know from modern science regarding mountains ? Sorry, I don't see it. 

 

Function. Although there is still alot we don't know about what is the exact function of mountains,  there is evidence that mountains serve to stabilize the crust of the earth, just as a peg or a stake serves to stabilize the structure that it is attached to. 

 

Geologists have proven that if earth was completely flat, then it would've been in a constant vibration.  Mountains do stabilize the earth during its rotation around its own axle.  Earth is rotating around itself at a speed of 1,000 miles per hour!  It is not a slow motion:

 

"The circumference of the Earth at the equator is 25,000 miles. The Earth rotates in about 24 hours. Therefore, if you were to hang above the surface of the Earth at the equator without moving, you would see 25,000 miles pass by in 24 hours, at a speed of 25000/24 or just over 1000 miles per hour."

 

SOURCE: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970401c.html 

 

Compressional forces in continental collisions may cause the compressed region to thicken, so the upper surface is forced upward. To balance the weight of the earth surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots" [see the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page.413]. Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy).

 

Just because a mountain has a portion of itself beneath the surface of the earth doesnt make it a peg, or a bolt or anything of that nature.  Its like I said before.  If I took a saltine cracker and smashed it between my hands and threw it in a bowl of water.  The bottom of the saltine cracker is not a peg, or a bolt or a steak etc.  Yes, the bottom of the cracker is submerged, but that doesnt have anything to do with any stabilizing factor for any structure it has or for anything around it.

 

The reality is, mountains are quite the opposite.  They are not stable, orogenic processes are naturally chaotic.  Areas of great mountain belts are some of the most volcanically active locations on earth, and earthquakes consistently occur around mountains.

 

If anything, if you want a stable location, you go away from mountains.  They are located in the least stablized locations of earth. Hence their existence.

 

Ya know, just because an ice berg has a great portion of itself beneath the surface of the ocean, doesnt mean that the iceberg stabilized anything (it itself isnt even stabilized).  In reality its unstable, it bobs, it is in motion, its melting, its bumping into things etc.  You would be safer if you lived away from the ice berg, much the same would you be safer and on a more stable location, if you lived away from many mountains on earth.  Some of the greatest mountains, mount saint helens for example, there is nothing stable about it, the whole thing has blown to pieces just a couple deckades ago, in our generation killing people.

 

Mountains do not stabilize the crust of the earth.  Mountains are like zits on the face of crust of the earth.  They dont stabilize a thing.

 

And what is this? I am a geologist.  Whatever youre quoting, they arent even using geologic terminology and they dont even know what theyre talking about.  The earths axle? Its axis.  The earth would be in constant vibration? What in the world are you talking about?  This is a bunch of pseudoscience. Mountains on earth are miniscule in relation to the overall mass of the planet.  The biggest earthquake you could imagine, wouldnt make even the slightest change in the obliquity of our planet.

 

Then i look at the link you have posted, and the only thing the link you posted talks about is the speed of the planets rotation, which doesnt have anything to do with the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

[Pickthal 71:16] And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?

Since the Arabic read 'fi' and not 'bain'

The verse uses the prepositions في and هن which translate directly and accurately into "in them."

The previous verse, 71:15, provides an exact context for "in them." It says clearly that God created the seven heavens one above the other and that he made the moon "in them" [as in the seven heavens] a light.

If the Qur'an instead said that God put the stars in the seven heavens, would you assume it is only one layer or several layers of the heaven? Of course you would conclude that the stars are in more than one layer. In case you weren't aware, the preposition "them" is plural, not singular.

If the stars are in the lowest portion of heaven and the moon is in the midst of the seven layers of heaven, or in them, it would be illogical to say that the moon only shares a space with the stars. The verse is abundantly clear. The Qur'an considers the moon to occupy some heavens extra than just the lowest one. Otherwise the structure of the verse is simply bad grammar, a lack of effective communication.

Therefore, taking the verse to its logical conclusion, it is evident the Qur'an thinks that the moon is greater in magnitude than a star. Try to square that circle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In addition to the previous post i just made, as for that last little segment there, again, just because a mountain has a "root", doesnt mean its stable nor does it stabilize anything.

 

Mountains arent like plants.  Plant roots stabilize surroundings because they protrude through the earth and around it.  Their roots grapple and constrict soil and rock to stabilize their surroundings.

 

With mountains, their "roots" arent like planet roots.  Their roots are nothing more than the bottom of an ice cube in a glass of water.  What does an ice cube stabilize when its floating in a glass of water?  It doesnt stabilize anything. If anything, the ice is unstable, its melting in the glass, its bobbing up and down, its moving around bumping into the sides of the glass, its cracking into things.  Other ice cubes are hitting it, its cracking, its churning.

 

And with real mountains, its much worse, because often there is active magma beneath them, theyre being pulled by the crust, torn to pieces, or pressed, smashed into eachother, theyre eroding, drifting chaos.

 

They dont stabilize the crust no more than a zit stabilizes your face.  Theyre bound to erupt and are destructive by the nature of what they are.  And if you look at mountains, with respect to their geology, you can see this.  Some of the wildest most chaotic geologic structures you will ever find on earth, are located in mountains.  Theyre a testament to their own instability and chaotic nature.  This is why when you take structural geology courses and geophysics, the first place you look are at mountains.  Because if you can understand the chaotic nature of mountains and orogenesis, you can understand any geology on earth.

 

This is where either the Quran is failing to be clear, or most muslims i run into just arent geologists and arent able to really respond to this.  Instead they go and quote...more or less non muslim geologists, people with views similar to my own who would disagree with this idea of stabilizing mountains.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Unregistered

Science(physical & quantum) have its own problems they are limited- Scientists trying to tackle this issue by working on a unified Theory. Since  Hubble sent images of outerspace, scientist are trying to answer the big question- “how can a baby be older than the mother”.  Science has no answer to human emotions-love, compassion, hate, morals , ethics  etc.., where did we come from , Why we are here-, where we are going etc..--So, Science is not the answer to all. We have become experts on religion, because we have managed to go to the moon or sent a robot to Mars? (Our Earth is one of the 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) stars in the Milky Way(galaxy), and 100 billion galaxies in the observable Universe). This observable universe may be just on particular bubble, out out the many out there.  How  can we human  with such critical thinking, can consciously miss this glaring fact?

 

Science can’t even properly explain the Black holes at this point, whatever is explained is at best -Theory. Did time exist before Big bang, or Time  started with the Big Bang or did a new time(our Time) started with this particular big bang. Like Shia chat started at a certain moment in time (A), this particular topic starts at a particular moment in time, (Time A existed before time B.( under ( A subgroup B), my post has a new beginning of time (A(B©)). Meaning, there may have been many simultaneous Big Bangs, ours may be one of the many.  Like a relay race, new members joining in at different time and space, but the relay race- has been running for a while. Science can’t answer what was before our Big bang or what was before the series/ random big bangs.

 

If there was such a scientific development that contradicted the Qur’an. You will hear about it in the Media, and they will make it a primetime story on every network around the world. What you have is paid bots, taking pot shots utilizing deceitful tactics, taking things out of context, mixing and matching different verses, to create doubt. Material which they have copied from propaganda website. A lie, is repeated many time, in the hope that it may become the truth in someones mind.


 

Allah(swt) sent Prophet Muhammad( pbuhahp), as a Mercy to mankind, sent as a role  model of excellent Morals, ethics. Qur’an explains what's out there but its not the main objective. Its not a science book that becomes obsolete with new discoveries.

 

Prophet Muhammad(pbuhahp) was sent  to explain the book. You can’t use it alone. Everything needs to be understood in its proper context, and using holistic approach. Can’t pick and choose a verse, and combine few, out of context - its called manipulating the facts.

 

“According to the Holy Prophet, the material sphere in comparison to the immediate immaterial sphere beyond it is like a small ring thrown in a huge desert. And that sphere has the same  relation in comparison to its immediate sphere beyond it, and so on to the Throne and Seat(Arsh and Kursi) which are figurative terms for immaterial spheres encompassing the material, and all intermediary immaterial spheres  to the first manifestation of the Absolute. This process house is always subject to partial or total change and expansion, according to the well-planned will of Creator…” (1)

 

“God only knows how many earths and heavens had so arisen and deteriorated before our earth and heaven came into being, how many of them are growing up along with ours and how many of them will come into being and resume the same or different course of development after the disintegration of our solar system and advent of our resurrection, : Ali says that in these heavenly luminous bodies, stars, there are distant cities connected with columns of light and they are populated with conscious beings, who worship the Creator and do not know anything about our Adam, his creation and his issues. In another statement he points out that before Adam, the first father of the present human race, there was an Adam, and similarly before him there was another Adam, and similarly before him there was another Adam and so it goes on to God knows how many worlds and Adams…”(2)

 

(1)Page 245

(2) Page 244

Essence of the Holy Quran (The Eternal Light)

By: Ayatullah Agha Haji Mirza Mahdi Pooya.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Just because a mountain has a portion of itself beneath the surface of the earth doesnt make it a peg, or a bolt or anything of that nature.  Its like I said before.  If I took a saltine cracker and smashed it between my hands and threw it in a bowl of water.  The bottom of the saltine cracker is not a peg, or a bolt or a steak etc.  Yes, the bottom of the cracker is submerged, but that doesnt have anything to do with any stabilizing factor for any structure it has or for anything around it.

 

How is a saltine cracker similar to a column of cooled magma ? Weird analogy 

 

 

The reality is, mountains are quite the opposite. 

 

 

Where is your evidence for that. 

  Areas of great mountain belts are some of the most volcanically active locations on earth, and earthquakes consistently occur around mountains.

 

And also the most stable. If you look at the United States for an example. Yes the West Coast of the United States is surrounded by mountains and is prone to earthquakes. But the earthquakes have nothing to do with the mountains. The earthquakes happen because the West Coast is located on the border of the Pacific Plate in a subduction zone. The mountains are not the cause of this phenomenon. It is caused by the movement of the earth's crust. 

 

If you look at the area East of the Rocky Mountains, in the US, it is one of the most geologically stable areas on earth. 

 

 

Also, the Quran never says that mountains prevent earthquakes. It says that they are pegs or stakes. How exactly they are pegs or stakes is not fully known. We have some evidence that they act in certain ways to stabilize the earth. There is a lot we don't know. 

 

 

 

Ya know, just because an ice berg has a great portion of itself beneath the surface of the ocean, doesnt mean that the iceberg stabilized anything (it itself isnt even stabilized).  In reality its unstable, it bobs, it is in motion, its melting, its bumping into things etc.  You would be safer if you lived away from the ice berg, m

much the same would you be safer and on a more stable location, if you lived away from many mountains on earth.  

 

Iceburgs may have a similar form, but the Verse in the Quran is not talking about iceburgs. 

 

And what is this? I am a geologist.  Whatever youre quoting, they arent even using geologic terminology and they dont even know what theyre talking about.  The earths axle? Its axis.  The earth would be in constant vibration? What in the world are you talking about?  This is a bunch of pseudoscience. Mountains on earth are miniscule in relation to the overall mass of the planet.  The biggest earthquake you could imagine, wouldnt make even the slightest change in the obliquity of our planet.

 

Then i look at the link you have posted, and the only thing the link you posted talks about is the speed of the planets rotation, which doesnt have anything to do with the discussion.

 

I have provided more evidence for my case than you have for yours (which i think now is zero) . I am saying that there is some evidence. Mostly I am talking about the physical structure, because this is the limits of my knowledge. I am not a geologist. But your assertion that this ayat contradicts modern science is not valid because you have provided no evidence that the structure of a mountain is not a peg, nor have you provided any evidence that mountains do not stabilize the surface of the earth. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

How is a saltine cracker similar to a column of cooled magma ? Weird analogy 

 

Where is your evidence for that. 

 

And also the most stable. If you look at the United States for an example. Yes the West Coast of the United States is surrounded by mountains and is prone to earthquakes. But the earthquakes have nothing to do with the mountains. The earthquakes happen because the West Coast is located on the border of the Pacific Plate in a subduction zone. The mountains are not the cause of this phenomenon. It is caused by the movement of the earth's crust. 

 

If you look at the area East of the Rocky Mountains, in the US, it is one of the most geologically stable areas on earth. 

 

 

Also, the Quran never says that mountains prevent earthquakes. It says that they are pegs or stakes. How exactly they are pegs or stakes is not fully known. We have some evidence that they act in certain ways to stabilize the earth. There is a lot we don't know. 

 

 

 

Iceburgs may have a similar form, but the Verse in the Quran is not talking about iceburgs. 

 

I have provided more evidence for my case than you have for yours (which i think now is zero) . I am saying that there is some evidence. Mostly I am talking about the physical structure, because this is the limits of my knowledge. I am not a geologist. But your assertion that this ayat contradicts modern science is not valid because you have provided no evidence that the structure of a mountain is not a peg, nor have you provided any evidence that mountains do not stabilize the surface of the earth. 

 

The cracker is analogous to the crust or lithosphere resting in the water that is magma beneath it. Or perhaps it is moving over top of a more dense cracker.

 

You mentioned that I gave zero evidence.  It is commonly known, by geologists that mountains form in some of the most chaotic environments on earth. I gave the example of mount saint Helens (which is on the east coast which you mentioned was stable) and how its eruption has killed people in our own lifetime.

 

you mentioned the east coast being stable.  The Appalachians are like babies in comparison to other locations or mountains like the himilayas or the mountains of Indonesia and Malaysia, which as we all know are far far far from stable.  And living on the east coast, ive looked at these rocks hundreds of times, and im telling you, you couldn't count the number of folds, unconformities, overturned geologic structures contained within the mountians.

 

Their history is a very violent one, in which a mountain arc (also very very unstable) came and literally smashed themselves into the sky as they rammed into the core section of north America.  And beyond that, this event occurred 3 times over.  The mountains appear stable to us because we cant really see them in motion.  But they really aren't stable at all with respect to how they actually exist over time.

 

Mount Vesuvius? We all know of this story.  Countless, dead.

 

Is india stabilized by the himilayas? No.  That continent used to be connected to Africa, its so unstable that its drifted across the ocean, and are the mountains stabilizing it? No, there are countless earthquakes, countless mountains are breaking and churning and rising and sinking.  Its very slow, but ultimately, there is nothing stable about it.  There is nothing stable about two continents ramming into eachother. Yet this too is often how mountains form.

 

Another evidence I gave, Hawaii.  The mountains of Hawaii are a hotspot in motion.  Bobbing, moving, erupting, unstable, destructive.  In human time, we go to Hawaii for vacation and assuming there are no volcanic eruptions, we have a good time.  But Hawaii really isn't stable at all.

 

Indonesia I mentioned before.  Some of the greatest volcanic eruptions in the history of mankind...mount Java, mount Sumatra.  Indonesia is a beautiful place, but its in a destructive environment, surrounded by these mountains.  We are reminded of that every time something erupts and people are killed.

 

 

If you mathematically analyze the mass of a mountain and you analyze the mass of the earth, you will find that a mountain is so tiny and insignificant to the grand mass of a heavy metal earth core, that a mountain, literally is like a zit on the face of earth, and you would be very hard pressed to find any real study that talks about the earths obliquity being manipulated by volcanoes.

 

Asteroids the size of mountains have hit the earth at thousands of miles per hour, and even they have no evidence of altering the obliquity of our planet, as your post mentioned.

 

"Also, the Quran never says that mountains prevent earthquakes. It says that they are pegs or stakes. How exactly they are pegs or stakes is not fully known. "

 

And in regards to tis statement above ^^...

 

You haven't really posted evidence at all.  You mentioned the east and west coast being relatively stable. but both coasts where the mountains are located, have volcanic eruptions from mountains like mount st Helens and strike slip faults as you had mentioned. The strike slip faulting, that forms the mountains of the san andreas fault on the east coast is another example of mountains that aren't stabilizing anything.  Theyre an effect of a chaotic cause.  Which is why they experience more volcanic eruptions and earth quakes than the east coast (while simultaneously they have larger mountains than the east coast).  The himilayas, Indonesia...again, larger mountains...more or less equate to larger earthquakes and larger volcanic eruptions and deaths of more people. Its essentially directly correlated.

 

Theres a good point, you could find a direct correlation on earth between the size of mountains and the number of deaths in the region around them, or the number of deadly eruptions or the number of deadly earthquakes etc.   These mountans are no stable nor are they stabilizing the crust. 

 

No more are two crackers stabilizing my hands when I smash them together. No more are two ice cubes stalizing eachother when they run into eachother. The bottom line is, theyre in motion and are destructive.

 

You mentioned the east coast and how it is stable.  These mountains have some of the most intense rock crushing, magma churning, explosive and chaotic histories of mountains on earth.  Now, thankfully in todays time they've settled down and have been slowly eroding away.  Unlike mountains elsewhere.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So to summarize, my evidence is in the reality around us. I mentioned correlation, folding, turning, erupting, earthquakes.  This is the reality of mountains and oogenesis, by the nature of how it occurs and what it is, it is chaotic.

 

I would say that you have not given any evidence.  You mentioned mountains stabilizing the obliquity of our planet but your nasa link didn't say anything about that, and you didn't post any references or anything at all.  This idea id say is likely pure fiction. Ive never heard of such a thing and ive taken all sorts of classes related to structural geology and geophysics and mountain building related material.

 

Mountains are like grains of sand resting atop a desert that is earth.  Their size and motion could never plan any significant role at altering such a thing. Even on the crust of the earth, theyre in motion, running into things, erupting, turning, folding.

 

I haven't even gotten to mountains that exist beneath the ocean. Ancient super volcanoes scattered across the earth and their respective mountains etc.

 

Ive seen unconformities, overturned multiple times here on the east coast, a testament to the chaotic nature and history of these mountains.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

[Pickthal 71:16] And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?

Since the Arabic read 'fi' and not 'bain'

The verse uses the prepositions في and هن which translate directly and accurately into "in them."

The previous verse, 71:15, provides an exact context for "in them." It says clearly that God created the seven heavens one above the other and that he made the moon "in them" [as in the seven heavens] a light.

If the Qur'an instead said that God put the stars in the seven heavens, would you assume it is only one layer or several layers of the heaven? Of course you would conclude that the stars are in more than one layer. In case you weren't aware, the preposition "them" is plural, not singular.

If the stars are in the lowest portion of heaven and the moon is in the midst of the seven layers of heaven, or in them, it would be illogical to say that the moon only shares a space with the stars. The verse is abundantly clear. The Qur'an considers the moon to occupy some heavens extra than just the lowest one. Otherwise the structure of the verse is simply bad grammar, a lack of effective communication.

Therefore, taking the verse to its logical conclusion, it is evident the Qur'an thinks that the moon is greater in magnitude than a star. Try to square that circle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The verse uses the prepositions في and هن which translate directly and accurately into "in them."

The previous verse, 71:15, provides an exact context for "in them." It says clearly that God created the seven heavens one above the other and that he made the moon "in them" [as in the seven heavens] a light.

If the Qur'an instead said that God put the stars in the seven heavens, would you assume it is only one layer or several layers of the heaven? Of course you would conclude that the stars are in more than one layer. In case you weren't aware, the preposition "them" is plural, not singular.

If the stars are in the lowest portion of heaven and the moon is in the midst of the seven layers of heaven, or in them, it would be illogical to say that the moon only shares a space with the stars. The verse is abundantly clear. The Qur'an considers the moon to occupy some heavens extra than just the lowest one. Otherwise the structure of the verse is simply bad grammar, a lack of effective communication.

Therefore, taking the verse to its logical conclusion, it is evident the Qur'an thinks that the moon is greater in magnitude than a star. Try to square that circle.

 

'In them' applies that the Moon can't be in any one of the heavens but it has to be present in two or more. So the Moon can't be in one of the middle heavens either, as you proposed earlier. Now the possibility for a singular materially limited object like the Moon to be present in several heavens at one time is, according to tafasir, is this:
 
Most tafasir maintain that heavens are layer upon layers like 'envelopes' - meaning one is nested inside another, like matryoshka dolls. Imagine a small box inside a big box inside a bigger box type of situation, so if an object X is present in the smallest box, it won't be wrong or bad grammar to say that X is present in the boxes or 'in them'. In reality, X occupies a specific space-time position so one wont be wrong to say that X is in the smallest box - which is the case with stars. So even if I say that the stars are in the seven heavens or in the lowest heaven, both sentences would be logically and grammatically correct under the above scenario.
 
Quran does not think that the Moon is farther than the stars simply because it was a known fact of that time, even in Arab. We're talking 1400 years ago, not 10,000 BC.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Mountains are like grains of sand resting atop a desert that is earth.  Their size and motion could never plan any significant role at altering such a thing. Even on the crust of the earth, theyre in motion, running into things, erupting, turning, folding.

 

I haven't even gotten to mountains that exist beneath the ocean. Ancient super volcanoes scattered across the earth and their respective mountains etc.

 

Ive seen unconformities, overturned multiple times here on the east coast, a testament to the chaotic nature and history of these mountains.

 

If you're a geologist than you know better than to compare the mountains of Earth to the sand grains or even hills in a desert. Nothing would happen if you slice off the hills on a desert, but do so with Earth's mountains and there will be chaos. Mountains are important geological features and there is no doubt to that. But since here we are concerned with the stability they bring, first of all there is still a lot to be discovered and secondly, if there's war at the borders and stays at the borders then it means stability for the country compared to what would happen otherwise. What I mean is that Mountains are basically just heights, but it is the activity that goes on beneath them which is of importance. Of course you are better off living away from the mountains in the same way you are better off living away from the battle front.
 
When plates collide, they come together resulting in thickened crust and risen land. This continual and gradual thickening and rising of the Earth's crust is important and necessary. I will quote from a recent BBC documentary, The Power of the Planet:
 
"Rivers don't just erode the rock, they also carry it from the mountains to the sea in the form of slit. It happens on a massive scale.
In South America, the Amazon carries away over two billion tons of the Andes every year and deposits in the Atlantic ocean.
And on the Indian subcontinent, the Ganges river that starts high in the Himalayas grinds away around a billion tons of rock every year, dropping it 3000 kilometres downriver in the Indian ocean.
IF IT WASN'T FOR THE MOVEMENT OF THE PLATES BUILDING NEW MOUNTAIN RANGES, WATER WOULD EVENTUALLY ERODE AWAY ALL THE LAND ON OUR PLANET.
It's hard to imagine, but if the plates should ever stop moving, our planet would become a water world. It may take an unfeasibly long time, but eventually the land would be worn down and washed out to sea and Earth would be covered in a vast ocean several kilometres deep. So it's thanks to the collision of the plates continually pushing the land up that we've still got terra firma to stand on."
 
This is one way why mountain formation does not only spell 'earthquakes' but a necessary process for the survival of life and land itself. 
 
Moreover, if you look at the history of Earth, how once it was covered with water (as studies suggest, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126882.600-ancient-earth-was-a-barren-waterworld.html) you will realize the importance of 'heights' or 'mountains' there as the formation of them resulted in appearance of land upon Earth.
 
 
"The Australian scientists who produced the new computer simulation believe that billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today. A hotter mantle would have thickened and buoyed up the Earth’s crust beneath the oceans, creating shallower basins and leading to the flooding of what is now land. The continental crust would also have spread, making it lower and flatter and more vulnerable to floods.
 
New Scientist magazine reported: “As the mantle cooled, land would have gradually appeared as the oceans became deeper and regions of high relief on the continental crust formed.” [Note that in geography, 'relief' is the height structure of the earth's surface]
 
Now explain why a flatter earth is vulnerable to floods ? And why do formation of heights help in this regard ? 
 
Isn't it true that the structure of a mountain looks like a peg? Isn't it true that below this mountain the two pieces of continental crust slide into each other? So you have a peg-like mountain resting on top of two plates sliding into each other, protruding down below like a peg as well and still you are not ready to see it. Even if the stability that results from it is questionable, you have to at least appreciate how well the visuals fit.
 
That study was published in 2008, all I can say is more people will come up with more studies and the picture will be made more clear in the future. The verses regarding mountains will be better explained then, for now this is it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

If you're a geologist than you know better than to compare the mountains of Earth to the sand grains or even hills in a desert. Nothing would happen if you slice off the hills on a desert, but do so with Earth's mountains and there will be chaos. Mountains are important geological features and there is no doubt to that. But since here we are concerned with the stability they bring, first of all there is still a lot to be discovered and secondly, if there's war at the borders and stays at the borders then it means stability for the country compared to what would happen otherwise. What I mean is that Mountains are basically just heights, but it is the activity that goes on beneath them which is of importance. Of course you are better off living away from the mountains in the same way you are better off living away from the battle front.
 
When plates collide, they come together resulting in thickened crust and risen land. This continual and gradual thickening and rising of the Earth's crust is important and necessary. I will quote from a recent BBC documentary, The Power of the Planet:
 
"Rivers don't just erode the rock, they also carry it from the mountains to the sea in the form of slit. It happens on a massive scale.
In South America, the Amazon carries away over two billion tons of the Andes every year and deposits in the Atlantic ocean.
And on the Indian subcontinent, the Ganges river that starts high in the Himalayas grinds away around a billion tons of rock every year, dropping it 3000 kilometres downriver in the Indian ocean.
IF IT WASN'T FOR THE MOVEMENT OF THE PLATES BUILDING NEW MOUNTAIN RANGES, WATER WOULD EVENTUALLY ERODE AWAY ALL THE LAND ON OUR PLANET.
It's hard to imagine, but if the plates should ever stop moving, our planet would become a water world. It may take an unfeasibly long time, but eventually the land would be worn down and washed out to sea and Earth would be covered in a vast ocean several kilometres deep. So it's thanks to the collision of the plates continually pushing the land up that we've still got terra firma to stand on."
 
This is one way why mountain formation does not only spell 'earthquakes' but a necessary process for the survival of life and land itself. 
 
Moreover, if you look at the history of Earth, how once it was covered with water (as studies suggest, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126882.600-ancient-earth-was-a-barren-waterworld.html) you will realize the importance of 'heights' or 'mountains' there as the formation of them resulted in appearance of land upon Earth.
 
 
"The Australian scientists who produced the new computer simulation believe that billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today. A hotter mantle would have thickened and buoyed up the Earth’s crust beneath the oceans, creating shallower basins and leading to the flooding of what is now land. The continental crust would also have spread, making it lower and flatter and more vulnerable to floods.
 
New Scientist magazine reported: “As the mantle cooled, land would have gradually appeared as the oceans became deeper and regions of high relief on the continental crust formed.” [Note that in geography, 'relief' is the height structure of the earth's surface]
 
Now explain why a flatter earth is vulnerable to floods ? And why do formation of heights help in this regard ? 
 
Isn't it true that the structure of a mountain looks like a peg? Isn't it true that below this mountain the two pieces of continental crust slide into each other? So you have a peg-like mountain resting on top of two plates sliding into each other, protruding down below like a peg as well and still you are not ready to see it. Even if the stability that results from it is questionable, you have to at least appreciate how well the visuals fit.
 
That study was published in 2008, all I can say is more people will come up with more studies and the picture will be made more clear in the future. The verses regarding mountains will be better explained then, for now this is it.

 

 

The grain of sand in a desert was more of an analogy of mass than anything else. In which case, the mass of a mountain is more or less a grain of sand with respect to the mass of the earth/desert.

 

Thats an interesting idea, mountains may serve to stabilize a country, in that they may create borders between the people and foreigners.  Those that lived in the high mountains of macchu picchu could say that.

 

Though, this appears to be just an attempt to rationalize a verse in any possible way that it can be rationalized, rather than understanding the true and original purpose of the verse.

 

Then you present this idea of a halt in orogenesis and how mountain building events creating land, serves as an explanation for stability?  This is just you conjuring up any and every possible explanation for the verse you could think of.

 

I could say that if mountain building events sped up, we would all be annihilated in magmatic chaos.  Anyone can use their imagination to make an argument for anything. You arent helping the discussion at all, youre just presenting random ideas off the top of your head.

 

Also, life existed within the ocean for hundreds of millions of years prior to its existence above land.

 

This is all imaginary.

 

This is the inherent problem that i mentioned in my post before even entering this discussion.

 

Anyone can use their imagination to conjure up any explanation for just about any thing.  Just as you can say...oh well...without mountains there would be no land to live on, therefore mountains stabilize life.

 

I could say, well with mountains, there is chaos and eruptions, earthquakes and landslides that kill us off.

 

Anyone can make stuff up.  Which is all that youre doing right now.  Youre making stuff up.

 

The bottoms of mountains i wouldnt say look like pegs at all, and no, not all mountains are formed when lighter and denser portions of lithosphere cross paths.  Some mountains are formed just the opposite, in a separation and a thinning of the crust.  Often rather than one section of the crust rising over another, you get the sinking of the more dense section which leads to the creation of volcanic eruptions...again, the opposite of stability.

 

The bottom line is, you guys are all just making stuff up with your imaginations.  If there was a verse in the Quran about pink elephants, i bet you guys could find a way to justify it.

 

Oh the moon split?  Yup, you can see the rills on it...maybe just one section split and nobody saw it...etc.

 

Thats all this "scientific miracles of the Quran" has ever been.  People conjuring any and every possible way to explain a verse that they otherwise couldnt make sense of in any normal context.

 

We were talking about the mountains and how they stabilize regions and somehow the discussion transformed into a hypothetical scenario that involved the halting of plate tectonics and global wide oceans that existed....completely ignoring all the crazy issues that would come with a planet of such nature.  This is all imaginary. This is why i dont bother debating these topics, they will never go anywhere so long as people just make stuff up off the top of their heads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...