Does the Quran say the earth is flat? [Archive] - Understanding Islam Community

Arnold

9th July 2007, 22:32

You have got to be kidding me. Are you this incompetent in literature, especially as it relates to eloquence? Have you ever been in the desert during the middle of the night? Is it hot, like it normally is during the day?

How can you tell me I'm incorrect, when you have absolutely no working knowledge of Arabic. Why do you think the Quran, when referring to the sun and stars, calls them LAMPS if the Quran isn't employing imagery.

Because flames were the only thing that lit up back then and gave light, besides lightning. So what do you think they are going to think? They assume they are flames, and therefore use lamps as the imagery. Not nearly the imagery you suggest but far closer to literal as it was literally telling us the sun was a flame. What is so hard to accept about that simple and solid common sense explanation? It sounds extremely likely to me.

Where do you hang lamps in a tent?

From the ceiling. and there are other Quranic verses that reference a dome, the same way it references a canopy. Seems like both are minorly figurative way to describe some real covering that they thought was there. So essentially, they might have been a little poetic, but they also meant what they said more than you are suggesting. There's even a hadith that I would have to remember where it even said that the stars hang from the dome of the sky like lamps hang from the dome of a mosque. It also seems a little coincidental that most mosques do indeed have a dome roof. The pagans at the time of Muhammad, or close to it also believe that the sky was 7 domes, one on top of the other, which sounds alarmingly like the 7 heavens.

As I stated before, the Quran is EMPLOYING imagery. It does this in many verses, and the imagery it employs depends on the context.

Not as much as you are suggesting, for the reasons mentioned above. The only way we could be sure that it was applying pure imagery with no reference to any true physical reality, is if what it was suggesting would be impossible for anybody to take as even remotely literal. Example, "the world is a stage", "heaven is like a mustard seed". These are things that we know are 100% figurative because people knew it wasn't true back in the times that these things were written. But in the case of what we are speaking about in the Quran, people could have easily taken them to be true rather than figurative, which then opens the distinct possibility that it indeed was not being very figurative. You immediately interpret them as highly figurative because you know better. But people back then didn't, and it clearly could have meant what they thought it meant. Afterall, this book was written for the 7th century as much as it was written for today, right?

Why is it, that whenever the Quran speaks about spreading out the earth, it follows with God providing all sorts of sustenance to men. Could it be that the Quran is talking about how hospitable God is?

Sure, it can be about God being hospitable as well. In fact, it surely seems like it is. God was hospitable by taking a round object like the moon and sun, and spreading it out and flattening it out for us so that we could live there without falling off. You merely think that's absurd because you are living in the 21st century, but it wasn't the least bit absurd during the 7th century. In fact, it was right on target as far as they were concerned.

LOL... You, having absolutely no knowledge of Arabic language, and you are telling us how the understanding of the verse operated back then. I guess the pre-Islamic Arabs, considering there whole culture was based on poetry, had no working knowledge of imagery, depsite their poetry playing on it in so many ways. Despite the fact that classical Arabic does not just use imagery, but makes use of HEAVY imagery.

I think I explained why this is not using as much imagery as you suggest. It is using descriptive imagery, but it is trying to describe the reality as close as it can. It's not purely poetic. But I'll have to remember what you are saying here next time someone tries to waive a supposed Quranic scientific miracle in front of me as so many Muslims constantly do. I can now tell them that it meant nothing of the sort but was purely, 100% poetic. LOL

I guess when the Quran eploys imagery that the heavens will be ripped open revealing the bright red-hue of the hell-fire, and that 'ripped open' is playing off the imagery of the camel skin when the skin is stripped revealing the bright red meat, it isn't really imagery the Quran is playing on.

Yes, but it is using that imagery to describe how it will look when the sky literally rips open. It literally meant that it will rip open, and just uses the camel for imagery.

I guess the Quran is just saying the heavens is actually a huge camel because you say so. [/quote]

Explained above.

Further, when the Quran refers to the heavens, it is usually in the context of the POWER of God. Thus the image of raising such a vast body. It takes strength and might to hold such a vast body up.

Hold up? Isn't that because it is believed that it was truly raised above the earth?

I am sure you also have come across a particular verse that states that the heavens are being held by God WITHOUT PILLARS.

Yes, which denotes that the heavens are "up" and have to be held up or else they will fall just like everything else in their world that wasn't held up fell. And, the verse actually doesn't say without pillars, it says without pillars that we can see. Small clarification.

When referring to the earth, the lordship and graciousness of God Almighty is stressed, thus the notion of spreading out a carpet. If you also notice there is a subtle play on opposites. The heaven is RAISED, while the earth is SPREAD.

So what?

I really don't know whether to laugh or just make fun of how one can think of their 'objections' are really that impressive.

Your answers to my objections were what wasn't impressive, as explained above. Seems like a lot of tap dancing to me.

Good for your health if it sounds like a dome. Keep believing what you want to believe if you want to remain steeped in ignorance. I just told you that the Quran is playing off imagery, and now your trying to tell me I'm wrong based upon your conjectures.

There are hadiths that say this as well. It's in the Quran, and it's in the hadiths. Canopy, dome. It's there in both. The Quran to make the initial statement, and the hadith to reinforce it. Isn't that how it works? That's how it works for most pious Muslims. Maybe you're a Quran only guy?

Zakir Naik isn't a Prophet and he is wrong in this case. But Zakir Naik is quite well-versed in Biblical criticism. Has he gotten into your head to make you this upset?

He puts false notions in the minds of Muslims, and all the rest of the world then has to live with these people carrying these notions around. He whips Muslims up into a false frenzy.

While the Quran may not be speaking about science, it is definitely a miraculous book.

Well, I never thought that mistaking meteors for stars was all that miraculous. A perfectly understandable 7th century error that everyone thought back then.

ihsan

10th July 2007, 01:31

Because flames were the only thing that lit up back then and gave light, besides lightning. So what do you think they are going to think? They assume they are flames, and therefore use lamps as the imagery. Not nearly the imagery you suggest but far closer to literal as it was literally telling us the sun was a flame. What is so hard to accept about that simple and solid common sense explanation? It sounds extremely likely to me.

If you already knows what it means, why did you even come on this forum asking for an explanation? Have you ever studied higher literature? Have you ever studied poetry, let alone pre-Islamic poetry and their heavy use of imagery?

From the ceiling. and there are other Quranic verses that reference a dome, the same way it references a canopy. Seems like both are minorly figurative way to describe some real covering that they thought was there.

Where does it reference a dome? You keep making all these assertions without providing evidence.

So essentially, they might have been a little poetic, but they also meant what they said more than you are suggesting.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and, as is clear from your posts, your wandering into territroy you do not even belong. Poetry was their life. Wars originated out of poetry, and Arabs use to humiliate tribes by their words. Poetry was THEIR culture. The Quran is a literary miracle and it challenged the Arabs with what was essentially their life and religion. The Quran employed all the best things of their language, such as eloquence for it's message, idioms, and yes, that is right:

IMAGERY...

There's even a hadith that I would have to remember where it even said that the stars hang from the dome of the sky like lamps hang from the dome of a mosque. It also seems a little coincidental that most mosques do indeed have a dome roof. The pagans at the time of Muhammad, or close to it also believe that the sky was 7 domes, one on top of the other, which sounds alarmingly like the 7 heavens.

Are you this gullible?

There is no such hadeeth, and if there was, it is a clear fabrication. And no, it is not coincidental. Domes weren't even employed for masjids, at least a hundred years after the Prophet (S). The green dome that is in the Prophet's masjid was built during the Ottoman Empire.

I will repeat for you one more time:

The use of a domecame well after the passing of the Prophet. The masjid of the Prophet did not even have a dome roof. It's roof was flat, and made of palm-trees. The Ka'aba has always been open to the sky. You go to various regions in the world, certain masjids won't even have domes. The Hanbalis, which dominate the Arabian peninsula, even hated to decorate masjids because they thought it was extravagant. What I am talking about is literary usage, and your giving me nonsensical evidence.

But in the case of what we are speaking about in the Quran, people could have easily taken them to be true rather than figurative, which then opens the distinct possibility that it indeed was not being very figurative. You immediately interpret them as highly figurative because you know better. But people back then didn't, and it clearly could have meant what they thought it meant. Afterall, this book was written for the 7th century as much as it was written for today, right?

OMG... Are you now going to assert the Arabs never employed idioms, figurative language, and heavy imagery in their language? The Arabs of that time understood their language much better than I did. Their poetry testifies to their eloquence. You haven't studied any higher literature have you?

Sure, it can be about God being hospitable as well. In fact, it surely seems like it is. God was hospitable by taking a round object like the moon and sun, and spreading it out and flattening it out for us so that we could live there without falling off. You merely think that's absurd because you are living in the 21st century, but it wasn't the least bit absurd during the 7th century. In fact, it was right on target as far as they were concerned.

OK, your right... That is how the verse is to be understood. Because you say so, I will accept it. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I think I explained why this is not using as much imagery as you suggest. It is using descriptive imagery, but it is trying to describe the reality as close as it can. It's not purely poetic. But I'll have to remember what you are saying here next time someone tries to waive a supposed Quranic scientific miracle in front of me as so many Muslims constantly do. I can now tell them that it meant nothing of the sort but was purely, 100% poetic. LOL

You would get a F in any higher literature course...

Yes, but it is using that imagery to describe how it will look when the sky literally rips open. It literally meant that it will rip open, and just uses the camel for imagery.

You have no idea what your talking about. Out of all the people I have met in my internet career online, you by far have given one of the most absurd and ridiculous responses to a post ever. I don't know whether to laugh or just sit back in amazement. You keep telling us how the Arabs understood it. And yet, your asking questions as to what it means. The irony of it all.

Yes, which denotes that the heavens are "up" and have to be held up or else they will fall just like everything else in their world that wasn't held up fell. And, the verse actually doesn't say without pillars, it says without pillars that we can see. Small clarification.

No, it says without pillars. The "YOU SEE" is a rhetorical comment. It is akin to a conversation in English ,when a magician says he can make the coin disappear. You deny him. He makes the coin disappear. He then says, "I made the coin disappear.. YOU SEE!".. And that You See! is done while opening his hand, and it is said in a voice of amazement. You have absolutely NO CLUE what your talking about. You have no idea about how the Arabs use to recite their verse before audiences. You have no idea about iltifaat, and shifts in discourse. You have no idea about dialogue embedded in narration. It is best you keep silent. In fact, the majority of th etranslations you are referencing are not even close to the original Arabic. While they may provide 'fahm' or understanding, they are very inadequate in their translations.

Your answers to my objections were what wasn't impressive, as explained above. Seems like a lot of tap dancing to me.

Keep living in self-delusion. The explanationm was quite clear, beyond any tap-dancing whatsoever, and your pretty much impressed. The reason for being impressed is because you never expected an answer of such sorts. And it shocked you, how really eloquent the Quran is. You would have never expected that what is being employed is imagery. Your stuck in this 'sciece' in the Quarn world-view which is nothing but a fad of the last 50 or so years.

He puts false notions in the minds of Muslims, and all the rest of the world then has to live with these people carrying these notions around. He whips Muslims up into a false frenzy.

No, he is just in your head. That is the reality of it. Just because he makes a few mistakes does not negate the fact that he knows all these other scriptures.

Arnold

10th July 2007, 15:16

If you already knows what it means, why did you even come on this forum asking for an explanation? Have you ever studied higher literature? Have you ever studied poetry, let alone pre-Islamic poetry and their heavy use of imagery?

There is imagery, and there is what the imagery is trying to say. There is the imagery of a lamp, but this imagery is trying to describe a reality as best as it can. Hence the word lamp, because they did indeed believe that the sun was made of flames. So while we have a degree of imagery, it seeks to explain reality through this imagery.

Where does it reference a dome? You keep making all these assertions without providing evidence.

http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_04.php

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and, as is clear from your posts, your wandering into territroy you do not even belong.

Then I must be in the right place, judging by your reaction.

Poetry was their life. Wars originated out of poetry, and Arabs use to humiliate tribes by their words. Poetry was THEIR culture. The Quran is a literary miracle and it challenged the Arabs with what was essentially their life and religion. The Quran employed all the best things of their language, such as eloquence for it's message, idioms, and yes, that is right:

IMAGERY...

But the imagery was meant to tell us something. And THAT'S what I'm talking about.

Are you this gullible?

There is no such hadeeth, and if there was, it is a clear fabrication. And no, it is not coincidental. Domes weren't even employed for masjids, at least a hundred years after the Prophet (S). The green dome that is in the Prophet's masjid was built during the Ottoman Empire.

That could still be part of the reason that they decided to cover mosques with domes, but that's not a major point anyway, only a sidestep.

I will repeat for you one more time:

I heard you the first time above.

OMG... Are you now going to assert the Arabs never employed idioms, figurative language, and heavy imagery in their language?

I didn't say that, quit trying to add to what I say.

The Arabs of that time understood their language much better than I did. Their poetry testifies to their eloquence. You haven't studied any higher literature have you?

It doesn't really matter. If the Quran says the heaven and earth were cleft asunder during creation, are we supposed to think the opposite? That they were never cleft asunder? Come on. Quit with the diversions. They don't work.

OK, your right... That is how the verse is to be understood. Because you say so, I will accept it. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Ahhh, evidence. Now were getting somewhere. What contrary evidence? So far, all you have tried to do is make the point disappear by making language the issue, but you really haven't provided any good evidence as to what these verse really mean. Again, does cleft asunder mean that the heaven and earth were never separated? Is that what the Quran is telling us while it gives us the opposite imagery? Come on.

You would get a F in any higher literature course...

So what? I know a diversion when I see one. It doesn't work so don't bother.

You have no idea what your talking about. Out of all the people I have met in my internet career online, you by far have given one of the most absurd and ridiculous responses to a post ever. I don't know whether to laugh or just sit back in amazement. You keep telling us how the Arabs understood it. And yet, your asking questions as to what it means. The irony of it all.

I'm asking questions because I want to see how you can possibly explain this little problem in the Quran. and so far, you can't, because there isn't any good explanation. Tell me, how am I supposed to interpret it when it says the earth was separated from the heaven? does it mean they weren't separated and they are still together? Is THAT what I'm supposed to interpret from that? Sure it's poetic, but that doesn't mean that the poetry is not trying to tell us that Allah separated the heaven and earth. Clearly it IS telling us that. Who would deny that?

No, it says without pillars. The "YOU SEE" is a rhetorical comment.

I can show you 8 translators who all make the same rhetorical comment. Why? Hmmmm....

It is akin to a conversation in English ,when a magician says he can make the coin disappear. You deny him. He makes the coin disappear. He then says, "I made the coin disappear.. YOU SEE!".. And that You See! is done while opening his hand, and it is said in a voice of amazement. You have absolutely NO CLUE what your talking about. You have no idea about how the Arabs use to recite their verse before audiences. You have no idea about iltifaat, and shifts in discourse.

Yes I do. It's an explanation for why Allah sounded like someone with multiple personality disorder, continually switching between the first and third person. It was an Arabic poetry style to keep the listener's attention. How does switching between the first and third person relate to the issue here? It doesn't. You are merely throwing as much stuff as you can at the issue whether it's related or not in hopes of complicating, convoluting, and diluting the issue. Not the first time I've seen this technique. It kind of bugs me. Kind of dishonest.

You have no idea about dialogue embedded in narration. It is best you keep silent.

Well, when I'm being asked to keep silent, I'm getting at the right points.

In fact, the majority of th etranslations you are referencing are not even close to the original Arabic. While they may provide 'fahm' or understanding, they are very inadequate in their translations.

But they DO provide understanding. And they have us understand that the heaven was split from the earth and raised above it during creation. You don't need the Arabic to see that. This is just an overly used excuse that Muslims always pull. Momma didn't raise no fool. Like I said somewhere else. I find it very interesting the the English translation always seems to suffice well enough if it points to a possibly miraculous portion of the Quran, but it never suffices well enough if it points to a potential error. Isn't that interesting? don't you think something's wrong there?

Keep living in self-delusion. The explanation was quite clear, beyond any tap-dancing whatsoever, and your pretty much impressed.

Oh, okay, if you make the claim, it must be true. You explained it well. Why? Because you said so.

Denied.

All you did is try and make everything as grey, complex and confusing as you possibly can in hopes that this will make the issue go away, but it doesn't. It's simple. Do you mean to tell me that the Arabic doesn't say anything about the heaven being split from earth and being raised above it? Why use this imagery if it actually means the opposite, and the heaven and earth were not split apart. Come on.

The reason for being impressed is because you never expected an answer of such sorts. And it shocked you, how really eloquent the Quran is.

I don't even think that even YOU believe what you just said. Everything I have said has suggested the opposite.

You would have never expected that what is being employed is imagery.

Yeah imagery, that is trying to explain what it thinks is a physical reality. Does the earth and heaven being cleft asunder actually mean that they were brought together? Is that what the imagery was trying to tell us?

Your stuck in this 'sciece' in the Quarn world-view which is nothing but a fad of the last 50 or so years.

Well, it is indeed a fad started by the Salafists in Saudi Arabia some 40 years ago to counter their shame over their backwards state of affairs

No, he is just in your head. That is the reality of it. Just because he makes a few mistakes does not negate the fact that he knows all these other scriptures.

Oh no. I've been on many forums were people can't answer me, and then they resort to nothing but cut and pastes of Naik. I can't tell you how many people laugh at me when I say the Quran tells us of a flat earth, and they tell me that it says the earth is elliptical. Where did they get this false idea from? Naik. He indeed does whip Muslims up into a frenzy using very clever half truths, and sometimes, outright inaccuracies. That's a charlatan in my book. and look at how popular he is? what does that say?

ihsan

10th July 2007, 17:54

There is imagery, and there is what the imagery is trying to say. There is the imagery of a lamp, but this imagery is trying to describe a reality as best as it can. Hence the word lamp, because they did indeed believe that the sun was made of flames. So while we have a degree of imagery, it seeks to explain reality through this imagery.

You mean imagery is meant to convey a particular reality? So when the Quran says, he spread the earth like a carpet, what imagery is it trying to convey? The 'flatness' of the earth, or the imagery that the earth has been made hospitable for mankind? What does a carpet have to do with conveying the message of the flatness of something?

Your whole argument is predicated upon the assertion that the Arabs understood the earth as flat, and because of this, this is what the message entailed. It is downright circular reasoning.

http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_04.php

I asked you where the Quran references a dome, I did not ask you for a link to Harun Yahya and his baseless interpretation osf various verses.

Then I must be in the right place, judging by your reaction.

Your so easy to read. You come on this forum claiming that your seeking understanding, but your just trying to perpetuate your mistaken notion that the Quran allegedly contains scientific errors. If your going to do that, at least don't play this whole sincere routine. Imitation is a result of small minds.

But the imagery was meant to tell us something. And THAT'S what I'm talking about.

Oh wow. Imagery is meant to convey something. You mean imagery serves a higher purpose in quality literature? You mean 'spreading the earth like carpet, and making it hospitable to humans doesn't convey the image of a generous host, and that one should respond with gratitude? What relevance does telling me the earth is flat have to my life and gratitude towards God? What relevance does knowing that sub-atomic particles collide have to do with my worshipping of God? You do realize that eleoquence has more influence on emotions than bland and dry scientific facts. This is precisely why poetry and art have had a deep impact on higher feelings than 'science'.

That could still be part of the reason that they decided to cover mosques with domes, but that's not a major point anyway, only a sidestep.

What is ironic is that your the one that brought up the not-so 'major point', and your claiming that my answering it is a side-step. Your living in delusional word if this was a 'sidestep'. Your so bent on your foolish claim, your making more and more ridiculous assertions.

I didn't say that, quit trying to add to what I say.

Actually, my comment was a sarcastic remark based upon your ridiculous statement:

You immediately interpret them as highly figurative because you know better. But people back then didn't, and it clearly could have meant what they thought it meant. Afterall, this book was written for the 7th century as much as it was written for today, right?

Because the Arabic of the time of Muhammad was highly figurative in and of itself. They employed heavy use of idiom in common speech, let alone their poetry. They KNEW BETTER than I ever would, and they imemdiately understood these verses as figurative. On the other hand, we have moved far away from that environment and culture, and it is because of this, that Muslims interpret verses such as these totally baselessly and try and derive 'scientific facts' out of them. The Arabs of that time would have laughed us back to our closets at our absurd claims.

It doesn't really matter. If the Quran says the heaven and earth were cleft asunder during creation, are we supposed to think the opposite? That they were never cleft asunder? Come on. Quit with the diversions. They don't work.

The Quran says the Almighty has placed a barrier between the two seas, such that they do not cross. The word barrier is obviously figurative to show how these two massive bodies cannot cross despite their dispension for flowing and moving everywhere.

The idea that God cleft asunder the earth from the heavens conveys the imagery of a being ripping apart huge bodies with his bare hands giving us what we perceive as the earth and the heavens. Even though scientifically what happened was a whole series of scientific phenomenon and the earth wasn't literally 'cleft asunder' from the heavens from a purely scientific perspective.

Further, the point is to show how the earth and heavens are mutually related and that the world testifies to One Creator. Idolaters, including the pagan Arabs, often asserted that while God controlled the heavens, the earth was in the hands of other dieties. Each diety controlled a particular aspect of creation. The Quran is asserting that the two came from each other and are firmly integrated. They are actually part of each other. The rain falls from the heavens, and the stars provide men with certain functions to fulfill their needs. If the sun, which is a heavenly body never set, than human beings would be stuck in day and would have difficult resting and recuperating, and so on. This obviously and clearly refutes the notion of polytheism, i.e. it has practical implications on worship of God.

Ahhh, evidence. Now were getting somewhere. What contrary evidence? So far, all you have tried to do is make the point disappear by making language the issue, but you really haven't provided any good evidence as to what these verse really mean. Again, does cleft asunder mean that the heaven and earth were never separated? Is that what the Quran is telling us while it gives us the opposite imagery? Come on.

I thought we were talking about the earth being 'spread'. Isn't that the evidence you are asking? This is so patently absurd, your lack fo ability to comprehend an argument, it is laughable. What issue is there other than there being a language issue? You keep telling us why it is to be interpreted as meaning flat, yet you haven't given any evidence for your assertion. I think you don't have to be a genius to understand that if a carpet is rolled out for you to sit on, it signifies the hospitality of the one doing the spreading. I would be more concerend with that, than a scientific phenomeon. But what can I say? I live in reality. You obviously, as your responses show, don't.

So what? I know a diversion when I see one. It doesn't work so don't bother.

Actually, you don't know reality if it hit you in the heaf,

I'm asking questions because I want to see how you can possibly explain this little problem in the Quran. and so far, you can't, because there isn't any good explanation. Tell me, how am I supposed to interpret it when it says the earth was separated from the heaven? does it mean they weren't separated and they are still together? Is THAT what I'm supposed to interpret from that? Sure it's poetic, but that doesn't mean that the poetry is not trying to tell us that Allah separated the heaven and earth. Clearly it IS telling us that. Who would deny that?

Your not asking questions. You already assume you have the answer. Your trying to impress on us some alleged error of the Quran so that you can win your little ego game. But it doesn't work. I was right. Zakir Naik is in your head.

I can show you 8 translators who all make the same rhetorical comment. Why? Hmmmm....

Uh, because the translations are poor, and are primarily attempts at 'word-for-word' translations. But word for word doesn't necessarily work with Arabic considering the heavy use of suppression and elipticism. But those concepts are too difficult for your obviously small mind to understand.

Yes I do. It's an explanation for why Allah sounded like someone with multiple personality disorder, continually switching between the first and third person. It was an Arabic poetry style to keep the listener's attention. How does switching between the first and third person relate to the issue here? It doesn't. You are merely throwing as much stuff as you can at the issue whether it's related or not in hopes of complicating, convoluting, and diluting the issue. Not the first time I've seen this technique. It kind of bugs me. Kind of dishonest.

Uh, because the verse in question EMPLOYS iltifaat. And you have no idea it was a feature to 'keep' the listener's attention. Further, iltifaat is employed by the Quran not just to keep the listener's attention, but it adds to the meaning of the verse. It is essential towards understanding the meaning of the verse.

Well, when I'm being asked to keep silent, I'm getting at the right points.

Your so off it's amusing. How old are you? I hope you tell me at most 21 years old, cause if your older than that, your educational career must not be that impressive.

But they DO provide understanding. And they have us understand that the heaven was split from the earth and raised above it during creation. You don't need the Arabic to see that. This is just an overly used excuse that Muslims always pull. Momma didn't raise no fool. Like I said somewhere else. I find it very interesting the the English translation always seems to suffice well enough if it points to a possibly miraculous portion of the Quran, but it never suffices well enough if it points to a potential error. Isn't that interesting? don't you think something's wrong there?

Actually, your momma definitely did. I'm not talking abuot what Muslims say is a miraculous portion of the Quran when they are totally ignorant of what is even being said in those verses.

Well, it is indeed a fad started by the Salafists in Saudi Arabia some 40 years ago to counter their shame over their backwards state of affairs

So if it is a fad, than it's obvious that it is not to be interpreted in a scientific light, genius....

Oh no. I've been on many forums were people can't answer me, and then they resort to nothing but cut and pastes of Naik.

I answered you. And Naik is definitely in your head. That's why you keep talking about him. And none of this negates the fact that Naik is very well-versed in scriptural criticism. So while he may be wrong in this respect, he is definitely not wrong when he points out errors in the Bible.

Arnold

10th July 2007, 18:37

You mean imagery is meant to convey a particular reality? So when the Quran says, he spread the earth like a carpet, what imagery is it trying to convey? The 'flatness' of the earth, or the imagery that the earth has been made hospitable for mankind?

Both.

What does a carpet have to do with conveying the message of the flatness of something?

It conveys the message of something that was round (a rolled up carpet), that was then spread out and flattened out. That's what happens when you spread a carpet out. It turns from round, in it's rolled up state, to flat after it is spread out. This was a blessing from Allah where he took the round earth and flattened it and spread it out so that it could be livable for mankind. Otherwise, they would fall off a round earth. Look at what dahaha means? It's not talking about a carpet and it's not talking about the ostrich egg. It's talking about the action of the ostrich flattening out and spreading out the dirt to hide it's egg. So your carpet attempt doesn't really work. Even without mention of a carpet, we still have spreading out and flattening out

Your whole argument is predicated upon the assertion that the Arabs understood the earth as flat, and because of this, this is what the message entailed. It is downright circular reasoning.

Not necessarily predicated entirely on that, more predicated on the words of the quran and hadiths themselves. Saying that many people believed then earth was flat is just a way to show that we cannot immediately assume is was being completely figurative. It was being semi figurative in that it uses a carpet and an action of the ostrich to describe what it is trying to say, which is a round earth that was spread out and flattened out

I asked you where the Quran references a dome, I did not ask you for a link to Harun Yahya and his baseless interpretation osf various verses.

It was a Muslim site that quoted the verse. Don't blame me. Apparently his translation says dome. Others by YusefAli, Pickthall and Shakir say canopy. Not much difference to me. Tents were canopies and they were often dome shaped.

Your so easy to read. You come on this forum claiming that your seeking understanding, but your just trying to perpetuate your mistaken notion that the Quran allegedly contains scientific errors. If your going to do that, at least don't play this whole sincere routine. Imitation is a result of small minds.

I do it because I have experience with Muslims changing their story if I tell them what am getting at before I do. So after this happening quite frequently, I've had to resort to getting them to commit to an answer first, and THEN telling them what I am getting at. Sorry, but there's good reason for it. I've found Muslims to be quite inventive and almost sneaky when it comes to defending the Quran.

Oh wow. Imagery is meant to convey something. You mean imagery serves a higher purpose in quality literature? You mean 'spreading the earth like carpet, and making it hospitable to humans doesn't convey the image of a generous host, and that one should respond with gratitude?

Sure it does mean that, and I already told you that in my last post. But it is also telling us an analogy for how God changed then earth to make it hospitable.

What relevance does telling me the earth is flat have to my life and gratitude towards God?

The Quran is supposed to be the word for word, letter for letter, exact., precise, unchanged word of God. But God doesn't make classic 7th century cosmology errors. But the Quran does.

What relevance does knowing that sub-atomic particles collide have to do with my worshipping of God? You do realize that eleoquence has more influence on emotions than bland and dry scientific facts. This is precisely why poetry and art have had a deep impact on higher feelings than 'science'

That's fine. But Allah does not see his creation in the same misunderstood way that 7th century people see it.

What is ironic is that your the one that brought up the not-so 'major point', and your claiming that my answering it is a side-step. Your living in delusional word if this was a 'sidestep'. Your so bent on your foolish claim, your making more and more ridiculous assertions.

It wasn't important. I just said that it was an interesting corrollation, that's all. I really don't need it at all to make my point, and I'm sorry I brought it up because now you will focus on this as a way to ignore and cover my real point.

Because the Arabic of the time of Muhammad was highly figurative in and of itself. They employed heavy use of idiom in common speech, let alone their poetry. They KNEW BETTER than I ever would, and they imemdiately understood these verses as figurative. On the other hand, we have moved far away from that environment and culture, and it is because of this, that Muslims interpret verses such as these totally baselessly and try and derive 'scientific facts' out of them. The Arabs of that time would have laughed us back to our closets at our absurd claims.

Okay, so what does cleft asunder really mean? Why does the Quran bother to mention that the earth was separated from heaven? Why? For no reason at all. Just to be purely poetic with no actual meaning at all? Come on.

The Quran says the Almighty has placed a barrier between the two seas, such that they do not cross. The word barrier is obviously figurative to show how these two massive bodies cannot cross despite their dispension for flowing and moving everywhere.

Okay, so barrier is figurative, but it still is telling us about a separation of the two, just like cleft asunder is telling us about a separation of the earth and heaven. See what I'm saying?

The idea that God cleft asunder the earth from the heavens conveys the imagery of a being ripping apart huge bodies with his bare hands giving us what we perceive as the earth and the heavens. Even though scientifically what happened was a whole series of scientific phenomenon to create the earth and the earth wasn't literally 'cleft asunder' from a pureluy scientific perspective. Further, the point is to show how the earth and heavens are mutually related and that the world testifies to One Creator. Idolaters, including the pagan Arabs, often asserted that while God controlled the heavens, the earth was in the hands of other dieties. Each diety controlled a particular aspect of creation. The Quran is asserting that the two came from each other and are firmly integrated. The rain falls from the heavens, and the stars provide men with certain functions to fulfill their needs. If the sun, which is a heavenly body never set, than human beings would be stuck in day and would have difficult resting and recuperating, and so on.

Okay, that's fine. But it stills says that the earth and heaven are separate. But the earth isn't separate from the universe, it's a subset of it. But if we look at the sky like a dome or canopy, suddenly the contradiction disappears immediately. So why not choose the meaning that makes the contradictions disappear?

I thought we were talking about the earth being 'spread'. Isn't that the evidence you are asking? This is so patently absurd, your lack fo ability to comprehend an argument, it is laughable.

We are simply talking about what the quran is pointing to, and you ad hominem shows me you are becoming frustrated and are running out of answers (as if you had any answers at all)

What issue is there other than there being a language issue?

The underlying meaning of the verse. There are plenty of verses that translate just fine into English, so in that case, language is no longer the issue and interpretation becomes the issue.

You keep telling us why it is to be interpreted as meaning flat, yet you haven't given any evidence for your assertion.

dahaha

I think you don't have to be a genius to understand that if a carpet is rolled out for you to sit on, it signifies the hospitality of the one doing the spreading. I would be more concerend with that, than a scientific phenomeon. But what can I say? I live in reality. You obviously, as your responses show, don't.

You are most certainly disturbed by what I'm saying, as you should be. Anyway, dahaha. We don't need to talk about carpets.

Actually, you don't know reality if it hit you in the heaf,

Nothing but an unsubstantiated claim.

Your not asking questions. You already assume you have the answer.

That's true. I explained to you why I started out asking questions. I needed people to commit to the idea that the lowest heaven is the universe, and they did.

Your trying to impress on us some alleged error of the Quran so that you can win your little ego game. But it doesn't work. I was right. Zakir Naik is in your head.

And now it's about ego. You just keep trying one diversion oir deflection after another. but they don't work. Face the issue head on.

Uh, because the translations are poor, and are primarily attempts at 'word-for-word' translations. But word for word doesn't necessarily work with Arabic considering the heavy use of suppression and elipticism. But those concepts are too difficult for your obviously small mind to understand.

Okay, so what is the exact Arabic meaning of cleft asunder? I keep asking this and you won't tell me. I don't think there is any problem whatsoever with the translation of cleft asunder. Tell me why you think there is.

Uh, because the verse in question EMPLOYS iltifaat.

iltifaat is switching between the third person and the first in a number of verses. One verse Allah refers to himself in the first person (majestic plural) and the very next one could be Allah refering to himself in the third person. Where is that when it says the earth and heaven were cleft asunder?

And you have no idea it was a feature to 'keep' the listener's attention.

And that's precisely what I said if you go back and read it. Read it first before you comment.

Further, iltifaat is employed by the Quran not just to keep the listener's attention, but it adds to the meaning of the verse. It is essential towards understanding the meaning of the verse.

Okay, so how does it add meaning to the earth and heaven being cleft asunder? It doesn't. You're just trying to make this as complex, convoluted and diluted as you can. It's easy to see.

Your so off it's amusing. How old are you? I hope you tell me at most 21 years old, cause if your older than that, your educational career must not be that impressive.

Then why don't you just tell me what's wrong with it and substantiate it? Because you can't, so you replace this with personal comments. Not the first time I've seen this diversionary technique. Sorry, I'm not taking the bait.

Actually, your momma definitely did. I'm not talking abuot what Muslims say is a miraculous portion of the Quran when they are totally ignorant of what is even being said in those verses.

You still haven't told me what cleft asunder means in Arabic. Why don't you just do that?

So if it is a fad, than it's obvious that it is not to be interpreted in a scientific light, genius....

The scientific miracles of the Quran is a fad, but that doesn't explain why Allah told us that he separated the earth from heaven. I'm not easily diverted, as you can probably tell by now. How many times have you attempted this? don't bother, stick to the point.

I answered you. And Naik is definitely in your head. That's why you keep talking about him. And none of this negates the fact that Naik is very well-versed in scriptural criticism. So while he may be wrong in this respect, he is definitely not wrong when he points out errors in the Bible.

So what does that do for the problems in the Quran? Nothing. Nada. Zilch

ihsan

10th July 2007, 22:10

Both.

So now it's both. Before, it had nothing to do with hospitality, and was only conveying a 'belief' that the earth was flat. Are your changing the argument?

It conveys the message of something that was round (a rolled up carpet), that was then spread out and flattened out. That's what happens when you spread a carpet out. It turns from round, in it's rolled up state, to flat after it is spread out. This was a blessing from Allah where he took the round earth and flattened it and spread it out so that it could be livable for mankind. Otherwise, they would fall off a round earth. Look at what dahaha means?

Interesting. You presume the reason for the analogy of the spreading of the earth is because the Arabs thought the earth was flat. But you haven't given a single shred of evidence for your assertion. Your engaging in circular reasoning. On the other hand, we all know that when one spreads out a carpet for a guest, it is meant to honor them. Never in the history of the world, do people lay out carpets for their guests because they would fall off the floor. Further, the imagery plays off another aspect, and that is how carpets are lush and colorful, and have beautiful patterns, just like the landscape of the earth.

As a side note, one can spread sheets over things that are not necessarily a flat surface. You can spread a sheet all over you body, and your body isn't flat.

It is He Who has spread out the earth for (His) creatures:
Therein is fruit and date-palms, producing spathes (enclosing dates);
Also corn, with (its) leaves and stalk for fodder, and sweet-smelling plants.

If you actually ponder over the Quran, you would realize that when the verse about 'spreading out the earth' is made, it is followed by man being SERVED with all sorts of delicious forms of sustenance. The concept of 'spreading the earth' is related to the honoring of man by God, and has nothing to do with the concept of 'falling off the earth' or 'scientific facts'. Further, the stabilization of the earth is attributed to the mountains, not the 'spreading of the carpet'. This is why the Quran says the mountains were created as 'pegs'.

Yet, you keep telling us something else. No matter how much common sense it is, you keep acting like a fool.

It's not talking about a carpet and it's not talking about the ostrich egg. It's talking about the action of the ostrich flattening out and spreading out the dirt to hide it's egg. So your carpet attempt doesn't really work. Even without mention of a carpet, we still have spreading out and flattening out

Have you ever heard of context? Verbs may have different connotations depending on the context. Just because a verb is employed in one wau in one sentence does not mean it has the same implications in another instance.

"I will LAY down my life for you."

"I LAY down for bed."

Not necessarily predicated entirely on that, more predicated on the words of the quran and hadiths themselves. Saying that many people believed then earth was flat is just a way to show that we cannot immediately assume is was being completely figurative. It was being semi figurative in that it uses a carpet and an action of the ostrich to describe what it is trying to say, which is a round earth that was spread out and flattened out

1.

No, your whole assumptions starts from what you believe the people of the 7th century believe. That is why you keep taking us to what the people allegedly believed in the 7th century. You haven't given any support from the Quran or hadeeth "themselves" as to what they believed.

2.

No, it is not using an action of an ostrich to describe what it says. The word itself can be employed in the action of an ostrich, just it can be employed in a different sense in the Arabic language. It is the sentence itself which defines the implications of a verb. This is the same for all languages.

It was a Muslim site that quoted the verse. Don't blame me. Apparently his translation says dome. Others by YusefAli, Pickthall and Shakir say canopy. Not much difference to me. Tents were canopies and they were often dome shaped.

I looked through this link, and I didn't see a single reference to a dome. Now, your changing course once again. Now if a tent is a canopy, what have I been telling you all along? COuld the imagery be that of a tent, with the roof being the heavens, the earth being the carpet, and the mountains the PEGS, as the Quran often says?

Sure it does mean that, and I already told you that in my last post. But it is also telling us an analogy for how God changed then earth to make it hospitable.

Uh, we all know that the earth is round, and it is still hospitable.

The Quran is supposed to be the word for word, letter for letter, exact., precise, unchanged word of God. But God doesn't make classic 7th century cosmology errors. But the Quran does.

Only in your world. The most you rely on are examples that clearly employ imagery. The Quran was revealed in Arabic. It uses the features of Arabic that were well-known to it's audience, including figurative language. That is just the reality of it.

That's fine. But Allah does not see his creation in the same misunderstood way that 7th century people see it.

So Allah is suppose to speak to people in a context they don't understand? The Quran is meant to engender spiritual tranformation. It is not meant to produce scientists.

It wasn't important. I just said that it was an interesting corrollation, that's all. I really don't need it at all to make my point, and I'm sorry I brought it up because now you will focus on this as a way to ignore and cover my real point.

There is no corollation. What you believed was evidence turned out to be absurdity, and it reveals your oenchant to simply guess at things than seek to understand them.

Okay, so what does cleft asunder really mean? Why does the Quran bother to mention that the earth was separated from heaven? Why? For no reason at all. Just to be purely poetic with no actual meaning at all? Come on.

Because of the connotations of the power and might of God. Taqwa, or God-consciousness, is based upon a proper realization of the attributes of God. When people become cognizant of the power of God, they tend to avoid doing wrong. When people become cognizant of the manifest bounties of God, than they tend to become grateful and humble.

Okay, so barrier is figurative, but it still is telling us about a separation of the two, just like cleft asunder is telling us about a separation of the earth and heaven. See what I'm saying?

No I don't. What your trying to do is used language as it relates to scientific terminology, and force it on how it is used in the literary and common usage. Everybody understand there are differences.

Okay, that's fine. But it stills says that the earth and heaven are separate. But the earth isn't separate from the universe, it's a subset of it. But if we look at the sky like a dome or canopy, suddenly the contradiction disappears immediately. So why not choose the meaning that makes the contradictions disappear?

Because of contextt. The sky being made like a canopy is clearly in the context of imagery. The earth is sometimes described as a couch, which people rest on. The next statement is the heaven being made like a canopy. The canopy provides shade. Further, water is sent from this 'canopy' providing men with fruits. It is all imagery. It has nothing to do with celestial cosmology.

We are simply talking about what the quran is pointing to, and you ad hominem shows me you are becoming frustrated and are running out of answers (as if you had any answers at all)

You have no idea what the Quran is pointing to. I am not frustrated. I'm actually astonished at your inability to comprehend these points.

Okay, so what is the exact Arabic meaning of cleft asunder? I keep asking this and you won't tell me. I don't think there is any problem whatsoever with the translation of cleft asunder. Tell me why you think there is.

And I am asking you for which specific verse your talking about. You haven't even provided the verse. The meaning of 'cleft asunder' is used in various contexts. It is used for the earth being 'cleft asunder' through vegetation. You need to tell me which specific verse your talking about.

iltifaat is switching between the third person and the first in a number of verses. One verse Allah refers to himself in the first person (majestic plural) and the very next one could be Allah refering to himself in the third person. Where is that when it says the earth and heaven were cleft asunder?

Iltifaat is a change in pronouns, whether first, thrid, third to first, second to first and so on. And you need to thank google for your little educational tutroial. And who is talking abuot the earth and heavens being cleft asunder? I was speaking about the verse related to the heavens being held up with NO PILLARS, and the statement YOU SEE! Every single translation that you have access to has translated it incorrectly, without the emphasis.

Okay, so how does it add meaning to the earth and heaven being cleft asunder? It doesn't. You're just trying to make this as complex, convoluted and diluted as you can. It's easy to see.

Whis is talking about iltifaat as it relates to the earth being cleft asunder? This whole verse is about the earth and the issue of the Quran allegedly saying it is flat because it employs the imagery of a carpet.

Then why don't you just tell me what's wrong with it and substantiate it? Because you can't, so you replace this with personal comments. Not the first time I've seen this diversionary technique. Sorry, I'm not taking the bait.

You did fail you english classes, didn't you? We have already showed you what is wrong with it wise one.

You still haven't told me what cleft asunder means in Arabic. Why don't you just do that?

Do you mean FALAQ? You need to tell me the verse. I don't even think you have the verse. Your just speaking from here-say.

The scientific miracles of the Quran is a fad, but that doesn't explain why Allah told us that he separated the earth from heaven. I'm not easily diverted, as you can probably tell by now. How many times have you attempted this? don't bother, stick to the point.

Sure you aren't. Sometimes repetition makes a person look like an idiot. For example, dogs keep barking. We already explained to you why Allah says he separated the earth from the heavens. You know, how certain things are said in common usage or higher literature that find no place in the context of scientific terminology. If you want to get scientific, we can say that space is relative, so when the Quran makes s distinction between the earth and heavens it is speaking from a RELATIVE sense.

So what does that do for the problems in the Quran? Nothing. Nada. Zilch

You let me know. It is obvious that Zakir Naik upset you. And the only reason he could have upset you is because he spoke against some of your personal beliefs. So now you'e taken to trying to refute the Quran. So which scripture are you attacking?

Maybe your attacking the 'problems in the Quran' because you can't reconcile the problems he raised with respect to your own faith. Yeah, I think that is it. Your too easy to read.

Arnold

10th July 2007, 23:17

So now it's both. Before, it had nothing to do with hospitality, and was only conveying a 'belief' that the earth was flat. Are your changing the argument?

You are adding things that aren't there. I never denied that it couu;d also mean hospitality. Go back and look.

Interesting. You presume the reason for the analogy of the spreading of the earth is because the Arabs thought the earth was flat.

No. The main reason is because that's precisely what spreading a carpet out suggests. It suggests a transition from round to flat. The fact that the Arabs believed the earth was flat is secondary. Also, dahaha further reinforces the notion of spreading and flattening.

But you haven't given a single shred of evidence for your assertion.

What does the ostrich do when it hides it's egg? It spreads the dirt out and flattens it. So what else is the analogy pointing to except a flattening of sorts? Sure, in terms of philosophy, it may mean certain things, but it's also telling us what God did to make the earth hospitable, and not just that he made it hospitable. Anyway, what's the secret philosophy behind an ostrich? Nothing as far as I can see.

Your engaging in circular reasoning. On the other hand, we all know that when one spreads out a carpet for a guest, it is meant to honor them.

Yes, but this does not explain dahaha. All verses, while meaning hospitality, first and foremost are telling us that God spread and flattened the earth. People don't throw dirt at honored guests, so dahaha makes you explanation implausible.

Never in the history of the world, do people lay out carpets for their guests because they would fall off the floor. Further, the imagery plays off another aspect, and that is how carpets are lush and colorful, and have beautiful patterns, just like the landscape of the earth.

dahaha dahaha dahaha

As a side note, one can spread sheets over things that are not necessarily a flat surface. You can spread a sheet all over you body, and your body isn't flat.

dahaha

If you actually ponder over the Quran, you would realize that when the verse about 'spreading out the earth' is made, it is followed by man being SERVED with all sorts of delicious forms of sustenance.

Yeah? So what?

The concept of 'spreading the earth' is related to the honoring of man by God, and has nothing to do with the concept of 'falling off the earth' or 'scientific facts'.

dahaha refutes this. Try this same angle using dahaha.

Further, the stabilization of the earth is attributed to the mountains, not the 'spreading of the carpet'. This is why the Quran says the mountains were created as 'pegs'.

So what? I didn't say it was flattened to stabilize it, it was flattened so that people wouldfn't fall off.

Have you ever heard of context? Verbs may have different connotations depending on the context. Just because a verb is employed in one wau in one sentence does not mean it has the same implications in another instance.

"I will LAY down my life for you."

"I LAY down for bed."

Why don't you just give me the context of the verses we are talking about. Pretty simple right? What's all this?

No, your whole assumptions starts from what you believe the people of the 7th century believe. That is why you keep taking us to what the people allegedly believed in the 7th century. You haven't given any support from the Quran or hadeeth "themselves" as to what they believed.

What are we supposed to do with an analogy that talks about an ostrich spreading out and flattening out the dirt?

No, it is not using an action of an ostrich to describe what it says. The word itself can be employed in the action of an ostrich, just it can be employed in a different sense in the Arabic language. It is the sentence itself which defines the implications of a verb. This is the same for all languages.

http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=1084&main_cat_id=31

I looked through this link, and I didn't see a single reference to a dome.

It's in the first sentence.

Now, your changing course once again. Now if a tent is a canopy, what have I been telling you all along? COuld the imagery be that of a tent, with the roof being the heavens, the earth being the carpet, and the mountains the PEGS, as the Quran often says?

Dome, canopy, dioesn't matter much to me. Both are very similar and equally inaccurate. I have maintained all along, that these analogies are referencing a cover of some sort because it believed the sky to be a physical object, a cover.

Only in your world. The most you rely on are examples that clearly employ imagery. The Quran was revealed in Arabic. It uses the features of Arabic that were well-known to it's audience, including figurative language. That is just the reality of it.

I've explained this many times now. Figurative yes, but pointing to a physical reality as best as it can. It uses analogies to describe what it believes to be the truth.

So Allah is suppose to speak to people in a context they don't understand? The Quran is meant to engender spiritual tranformation. It is not meant to produce scientists.

Then it shouldn't have bothered to mention any of that stuff, but it did.

There is no corollation. What you believed was evidence turned out to be absurdity, and it reveals your oenchant to simply guess at things than seek to understand them.

You still haven't really answered me yet. Get the verse and break it down.

Because of the connotations of the power and might of God. Taqwa, or God-consciousness, is based upon a proper realization of the attributes of God. When people become cognizant of the power of God, they tend to avoid doing wrong. When people become cognizant of the manifest bounties of God, than they tend to become grateful and humble.

This is what God splitting the heaven and earth means? You've got to be kidding me? It's not even remotely like the words. Not even close.

No I don't. What your trying to do is used language as it relates to scientific terminology, and force it on how it is used in the literary and common usage. Everybody understand there are differences.

Split means split. Above means above. What the heck are you pulling here? It isn't scientific terminology in the least.

Because of contextt. The sky being made like a canopy is clearly in the context of imagery.

The earth is sometimes described as a couch, which people rest on. The next statement is the heaven being made like a canopy. The canopy provides shade.

What provides shade for us? The sky? So why are you mentioning anything about shade? It makes my point better.

Further, water is sent from this 'canopy' providing men with fruits. It is all imagery. It has nothing to do with celestial cosmology.

That's not imagery in the least. What are you talking about? That's true. That's an essentially true statement. Water does indeed come from above. So why is one part imagery, and the other part quite accurate and true? Boy, this is becoming a mess.

You have no idea what the Quran is pointing to. I am not frustrated. I'm actually astonished at your inability to comprehend these points.

I'm I'm astonished you completely ignored dahaha the first time I brought it up.

And I am asking you for which specific verse your talking about.

You haven't even provided the verse.

I posted them in the other thread where you asked me for these. It's there in the Quran.

The meaning of 'cleft asunder' is used in various contexts. It is used for the earth being 'cleft asunder' through vegetation. You need to tell me which specific verse your talking about.

21:30

Iltifaat is a change in pronouns, whether first, thrid, third to first, second to first and so on.

I know. That's what I told you. I said first and third person. Don't you read what I post? You keep saying things that I already said.

And you need to thank google for your little educational tutroial.

A muslim told me that.

And who is talking abuot the earth and heavens being cleft asunder? I was speaking about the verse related to the heavens being held up with NO PILLARS, and the statement YOU SEE! Every single translation that you have access to has translated it incorrectly, without the emphasis.

Wow, every single one. Wow !!! Amazing !!! ((LOL))

Whis is talking about iltifaat as it relates to the earth being cleft asunder? This whole verse is about the earth and the issue of the Quran allegedly saying it is flat because it employs the imagery of a carpet.

Okay, we'll switch to that one if you'd like. Were is iltifaat used in the verses that say the earth was spread out like a carpet?

You did fail you english classes, didn't you? We have already showed you what is wrong with it wise one.

All you have done is to say it's poetic. But even poetry points to something. . Forget the carpet/honor theory that you worked so hard on because dahaha invaldiates it

Sure you aren't. Sometimes repetition makes a person look like an idiot. For example, dogs keep barking. We already explained to you why Allah says he separated the earth from the heavens.

See how you try and switch the question from how Allah split the two to why he split the two? That wasn't the issue being raised, but it seems like you'd sure like it to be. That verse tells us what he did with the heaven and earth and how. If you want to add the why to it as well, be my guest, because it makes nio difference anyway and it doesn't change the what and how of the verse.

You know, how certain things are said in common usage or higher literature that find no place in the context of scientific terminology. If you want to get scientific, we can say that space is relative, so when the Quran makes s distinction between the earth and heavens it is speaking from a RELATIVE sense.

What's so scientific about "split" and "above"? Nothing. This is a nonsense excuse.

You let me know. It is obvious that Zakir Naik upset you. And the only reason he could have upset you is because he spoke against some of your personal beliefs. So now you'e taken to trying to refute the Quran. So which scripture are you attacking?

Maybe your attacking the 'problems in the Quran' because you can't reconcile the problems he raised with respect to your own faith. Yeah, I think that is it. Your too easy to read.

And more diversions. Typical. Sorry, they don't work.

In closing, allow me to say "dahaha", and "hahaha".

ihsan

10th July 2007, 23:54

You are adding things that aren't there. I never denied that it couu;d also mean hospitality. Go back and look.

You never denied it, because it never occured to you that this is what the verse actually meant. In your world, the only thing it was conveying was a scientific error. You were wrong, so you have modified your position, and now are trying to reconcile it.

No. The main reason is because that's precisely what spreading a carpet out suggests. It suggests a transition from round to flat. The fact that the Arabs believed the earth was flat is secondary. Also, dahaha further reinforces the notion of spreading and flattening.

You keep saying what the Arabs believed and you haven't proven it. And you started from the assertion that this is what the Arabs believed, so it could not mean any other thing. You have been asserting this from the very beginning.

When I told you what is being conveyed is that of spreading a carpet out before a person to honor and be gracious towards the visitor, you totally reversed your assertion saying that the Quran says it is flat, so it must be flat. Your penchant for circular reasoning and back-peddling is humorous.

What does the ostrich do when it hides it's egg? It spreads the dirt out and flattens it. So what else is the analogy pointing to except a flattening of sorts? Sure, in terms of philosophy, it may mean certain things, but it's also telling us what God did to make the earth hospitable, and not just that he made it hospitable. Anyway, what's the secret philosophy behind an ostrich? Nothing as far as I can see.

That is all well and good, but we aren't talking about how various forms of a verb is employed in different situations. What we are talking about is how a verb is used in a specific context, i.e. the earth being spread out for man, and what imagery it is being meant to convey. The whole context of these passages have a philosophical import behind them, which you are now denying.

Yes, but this does not explain dahaha. All verses, while meaning hospitality, first and foremost are telling us that God spread and flattened the earth. People don't throw dirt at honored guests, so dahaha makes you explanation implausible.

But isn't that what the ostrich does? Throws dirt. SO I guess by analogy, what is being conveyed is God is throwing dirt on mankind for them to sit on. I guess God also flattened the earth to hide the eggs that were buried there.

Your foolishness know no bounds.

Yeah? So what?

You bring a guest into your house, and tell him to sit down on your comfoirtable couch. You then bring him various forms of sustenance to enjoy. If you can't see the connection between 'spreading out the earth' and 'providing men' all sorts of sustenance, than there really is no help for you.

So what? I didn't say it was flattened to stabilize it, it was flattened so that people wouldfn't fall off.

What is going to happen if the earth is not stabilized? ARe men going to be thrown everywhere? If the Quran was talking about the spreading out of the earth as it relates to stabiliziation for man to live, than what is the use of meniotning the mountains for that very purpose?

Why don't you just give me the context of the verses we are talking about. Pretty simple right? What's all this?

Uh, the verse in discussion.

What are we supposed to do with an analogy that talks about an ostrich spreading out and flattening out the dirt?

Dude, when a person quotes that a verb is sometimes employed in a particular situation, it does not negate it isn't employed in other situations. Further, if you even read, what is being referred to is the TRILATERAL form of the same word for 'spreading' is from the same root that is employed for the place where an ostrich buries it's eggs. UDHIYY

That does not mean the forms refer to the same thing. You have no clue to Arabic.

I'll respond to the rest of your gibberish later..

Arnold

11th July 2007, 01:32

You never denied it, because it never occured to you that this is what the verse actually meant. In your world, the only thing it was conveying was a scientific error. You were wrong, so you have modified your position, and now are trying to reconcile it.

I'm not wrong at all. I gave one part of the meaning, you give the other.

You bring a guest into your house, and tell him to sit down on your comfoirtable couch. You then bring him various forms of sustenance to enjoy. If you can't see the connection between 'spreading out the earth' and 'providing men' all sorts of sustenance, than there really is no help for you.

Fine. Then all you have to do is to relate dahaha to hospitality as well and we're all set.

What is going to happen if the earth is not stabilized? ARe men going to be thrown everywhere? If the Quran was talking about the spreading out of the earth as it relates to stabiliziation for man to live, than what is the use of meniotning the mountains for that very purpose?

This will be the last time that I explain to you that I am not referring to the stabilization of the earth in the least, so stop bringing it up to purposefully confuse things. When I say that mankind would fall off the earth, I'm saying that because that's what people believed would happen if the earth was round. I said absolutely nothing about stabilization, but look at what you are trying to do? It doesn't work. Nice try. My aren't you the crafty sneak.

Dude, when a person quotes that a verb is sometimes employed in a particular situation, it does not negate it isn't employed in other situations. Further, if you even read, what is being referred to is the TRILATERAL form of the same word for 'spreading' is from the same root that is employed for the place where an ostrich buries it's eggs. UDHIYY

I gave you a link to an answer from Muslims that are more knowledgable than you. I don't need to say a word, they can do the talking for me. Dahaha means precisely what I told you and they explain precisely why. Nice try.

ihsan

11th July 2007, 03:13

It's in the first sentence.

Did you also pay attention to what is said along with the first verse.

Here, the Arabic word for the sky is "assamaa binaan." As well as the meaning of "dome" or "ceiling," this also describes a kind of tent-like covering used by the Bedouin. What is being emphasised here, through mention of a tent-like structure, is a form of protection against external elements.

Did you read that portion or did you conveniently forget?

Dome, canopy, dioesn't matter much to me. Both are very similar and equally inaccurate. I have maintained all along, that these analogies are referencing a cover of some sort because it believed the sky to be a physical object, a cover.

So you ignored the:

this also describes a kind of tent-like covering used by the Bedouin.

I've explained this many times now. Figurative yes, but pointing to a physical reality as best as it can. It uses analogies to describe what it believes to be the truth.

Again, circular reasoning. The writer of the Quran, according to you, believes the earth is flat, so it obviously means flat. According to you, the point of the verse is to relate a physical reality as best as it can, and at the same time employ figurative imagery to do so. You would wonder in which language, the two things are ever combined. WHy not just say, "the earth is flat'? If you interpret figurative usage this 'technically' in an english class, let alone an Arabic class, you would be laughed out of class.

Then it shouldn't have bothered to mention any of that stuff, but it did.

Because you say so, the Quran shouldn't employ eloquence to engender spiritual transformation. SO when Francis Scott Kew starts talking "about rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, giving proof to the night that the flag was still there" to express freedom, he shouldn't be doing it. He should just say "we are free, woo-hoo..." Or does the symbolism and imagery have more of an impact on creationg a feeling of pride and nationalism? Almost on every single page the Quran employs figurative usage to convey a point.

You still haven't really answered me yet. Get the verse and break it down.

Only in your world I haven't answered you.

This is what God splitting the heaven and earth means? You've got to be kidding me? It's not even remotely like the words. Not even close.

OMG... The phenomenon of vegetation breaking through the earth, despoite being fragile gives ample testimony to the might and power of God. The holding of tremendous amounts of water in the air requires a significant amount of power, from a purely scientific point of view. The imagery is meant to convey these points about God, just as imagery about the red, white and blue are meant to engender patriotism.

Split means split. Above means above. What the heck are you pulling here? It isn't scientific terminology in the least.

The sky was TORN asunder by the lightning. Is that to be taken literally? Let us examine your explanation. The earth is actually part of the heavens, so it cannot be literally cleft asunder from the earth. And your not trying to force scientific terminology on what is obviously not scientific terminology.

What provides shade for us? The sky? So why are you mentioning anything about shade? It makes my point better.

Let me see.. When the sun goes away, there is what is known in this world as night. Using the technique of inversion, the night provides shade from the sun allowing us to rest in the earth. But you wouldn't understand literary inversion.

That's not imagery in the least. What are you talking about? That's true. That's an essentially true statement. Water does indeed come from above. So why is one part imagery, and the other part quite accurate and true? Boy, this is becoming a mess.

You failed to miss an essential point. If the earth is flat, why is it being related as couch over here? And the roof as a canopy. And, it definitely is not a mess. You know why? Because the mention of water is meant to convey the inter-relation between heaven and earth. Without one, the other could not flourish. This is an argument for monotheism. Ever phenomenon is inter-related in some way.

I'm I'm astonished you completely ignored dahaha the first time I brought it up.

You have absolutely no knowledge of Arabic. All you have done is taken a particular usage of a form of the root word for dahaha, which is totally irrelevant to the usage as it pertains the earth being spread. Everybody who understand basic language knows words are understood in context. When you open up a dictionary, you find various meanings of a word derived from HOW IT IS USED IN A SENTENCE.

You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. That is why you consistently talk about an ostrich, and an egg out of all things as if this is the imagery the Quran is referring to when talking about the earth. This is why you make comments such strange comments about dust.

I posted them in the other thread where you asked me for these. It's there in the Quran.

21:30

And I dealt with them.

I know. That's what I told you. I said first and third person. Don't you read what I post? You keep saying things that I already said.

No, you said first to third person, which shows you don't really understyand it. I said it was shift in pronouns in general, from first to second, second to third, third to first, or first to third. You have no idea what your talkign about. Further, you have no idea that iltifaat is employed in the Quran to enhance meaning of the Quran, i.e. it is a feature of rhetoric.

A muslim told me that.

On the internet.

Wow, every single one. Wow !!! Amazing !!! ((LOL))

WHat is so surprising? Every single one is incorrect in the matter. The Quran was revealed in an environemnt of oral tradition. ALl translations fail to convey much of what is stated. The oral tradition was akin to a dramatic play, with various audiences.

Okay, we'll switch to that one if you'd like. Were is iltifaat used in the verses that say the earth was spread out like a carpet?

I was talking about iltifaat being employed in the verse about the heavens being raised without PILLARS. The statement that the heavens was created without pillrs shifts to a DIRECT ADDRESS for man to see. I never said anything about iltifaat as it relates to the verse about the earth being spread like a carpet. Your suffering from a whole range of confusion.

All you have done is to say it's poetic. But even poetry points to something. . Forget the carpet/honor theory that you worked so hard on because dahaha invaldiates it

Keep believing this...

See how you try and switch the question from how Allah split the two to why he split the two? That wasn't the issue being raised, but it seems like you'd sure like it to be. That verse tells us what he did with the heaven and earth and how. If you want to add the why to it as well, be my guest, because it makes nio difference anyway and it doesn't change the what and how of the verse.

The question of why is fundamental to understanding.

In closing, allow me to say "dahaha", and "hahaha".

It is true. Zakir Naik upset you. He spoke about your personal beliefs, and made them look foolish to you, so your defense mechanism is to try and attack the Quran. And yet, your making yourself look even more foolish.

ihsan

11th July 2007, 03:24

I'm not wrong at all. I gave one part of the meaning, you give the other.

Ye, youi are wrong. Let me repeat it for you one more time:

The meaning of a word is derived from how it is used in a sentence. It is not the other way around. When you open up a dictionary, you see a whole list of meanings for a particular world. For each of these meanings you are given an example of the suage that demonstrates the meaning. NEVER is it asserted in a dictionary that the word means two things at the same time.

Fine. Then all you have to do is to relate dahaha to hospitality as well and we're all set.

You have got to be joking me. The word itself can only hold real meaning when it is used in a sentence. For example, "spread" in english.

"I spread the sheet."
"The spread for the game is 20 points."

Does the first meaning of spread have anything to do with how it is used in the second sentence? This is exactly what your doing with the ostrich egg example, and you cannot comprehend this point.

The usage is what gives the meaning. When I spread a carpet out for you, it shows I am being courteuous to you and respecting you. The word spread cannot be taken in isolation. When God 'spreads' out the earth in the context of raising the heavens like a tent of a roof, it is clear it is employing figurative usage. Further, I can spread sheets on a couch, and I can spread a sheet over my body. The object does not necessarily be flat.

This will be the last time that I explain to you that I am not referring to the stabilization of the earth in the least, so stop bringing it up to purposefully confuse things. When I say that mankind would fall off the earth, I'm saying that because that's what people believed would happen if the earth was round. I said absolutely nothing about stabilization, but look at what you are trying to do? It doesn't work. Nice try. My aren't you the crafty sneak.

So when an Arab stood on a mountain at a thirty degree angle, he believed he was going to fall off? When he stood on a huge round rock, did he believe he was going to fall off? The point is the mountains stabilizing the earth convey that people have no problems living on the earth and being thrown around. It is the same essential implications as not 'falling off'. The spreading of the earth relates to the graciousness of God.

I gave you a link to an answer from Muslims that are more knowledgable than you. I don't need to say a word, they can do the talking for me. Dahaha means precisely what I told you and they explain precisely why. Nice try.

No, they are wrong. It is rather funny how your claiming them right, yet thesevery people argue that what is implied by the phrase is the earth is round. So now what?

vinod

11th July 2007, 08:27

Your foolishness know no bounds.

I'll respond to the rest of your gibberish later..

Ihsan, pls avoid these.

Salam

Arnold

11th July 2007, 13:12

Ye, youi are wrong. Let me repeat it for you one more time:

The meaning of a word is derived from how it is used in a sentence. It is not the other way around.

I'm okay with that.

When you open up a dictionary, you see a whole list of meanings for a particular world. For each of these meanings you are given an example of the suage that demonstrates the meaning. NEVER is it asserted in a dictionary that the word means two things at the same time.

Yes, a "word" usually does not mean two different things at the same time. And dahaha has nothing to do with rolling out the red carpet, like that clever little diversion you invented. It means spreading out and flattening out, just like all the other verses where it even says "spread out". You try and have us believe that it's talking about the ditch itself where it puts it's egg, but that article disagrees and all the other verses speak of spreading out as well. So here, we have the most likely interpretation for dahaha as meaning spreading out and flattening out the dirt, and it matches up well with all the other verses of the creation of the earth that have spreading out in it, but instead, we're supposed to pick a less likely interpretation that has nothing to do with spreading out. That's precisely what you are attempting to pull off and it's not working very well.

You have got to be joking me. The word itself can only hold real meaning when it is used in a sentence. For example, "spread" in english.

"I spread the sheet."
"The spread for the game is 20 points."

Does the first meaning of spread have anything to do with how it is used in the second sentence? This is exactly what your doing with the ostrich egg example, and you cannot comprehend this point.

Wrong, I showed you what Muslim researchers say, and, spreading out matches all the other verses very well. Fits like a glove. Again, you're trying to make up any far out excuse that you can and it's not adding up very well.

The usage is what gives the meaning. When I spread a carpet out for you, it shows I am being courteuous to you and respecting you.

And, it shows me that you spread a carpet out for me, right? How did you make it usable for me so that you may show me your graciousness? you spread it out, making it flat, so that I can use it and accept your graciousness.

The word spread cannot be taken in isolation. When God 'spreads' out the earth in the context of raising the heavens like a tent of a roof, it is clear it is employing figurative usage.

Not as figurative as you think. Look at the poetic way the Quran speaks of the sun and moon each traveling in their rounded course. That's poetic, but it's also talking about them orbiting. It's pointing to what it believes to be the physical reality. Is this just Allah talking about his power and mercy or is it telling us of the orbits?

Further, I can spread sheets on a couch, and I can spread a sheet over my body. The object does not necessarily be flat. Is that what you say when you roll your sheets up into a ball?

So when an Arab stood on a mountain at a thirty degree angle, he believed he was going to fall off?

Don't even try it. Anybody would think that you would fall off a ball before we knew about gravity. That's why the more ignorant assumed a flat earth and resisted explanations of a round earth. If it makes you feel any better, the worst culprit for this ignorance were European Christians.

When he stood on a huge round rock, did he believe he was going to fall off?

Yes, if he walked far enough

The point is the mountains stabilizing the earth convey that people have no problems living on the earth and being thrown around. It is the same essential implications as not 'falling off'.

This is nothing but a diversion. Who cares about the mountains? Look at how you try to inject anything you can to complicate the issue. My my, how wily of you. It's a shame it doesn't work.

The spreading of the earth relates to the graciousness of God.

And, to the action of spreading and flattening. How does dahaha relate to the graciousness of God? You never answer this.

No, they are wrong. It is rather funny how your claiming them right, yet thesevery people argue that what is implied by the phrase is the earth is round. So now what?

They did not imply that the Quran says the earth is round in the least. They clearly said that in their opinion, the Quran says nothing about the shape of the earth at all. What do you expect them to say, that the Quran says the earth is flat? They're not going to go that far and admit that. So instead, they merely try and say that it says nothing at all and whisk the issue away. Happens all the time. Just like you try to do.

ihsan

11th July 2007, 17:45

Yes, a "word" usually does not mean two different things at the same time. And dahaha has nothing to do with rolling out the red carpet, like that clever little diversion you invented. It means spreading out and flattening out, just like all the other verses where it even says "spread out".

It is as if you are going in a circular argument. Just, as the word does not mention 'eggs', 'ostriches', and 'dirt', it does not mention 'carpet'. But when the word is emplyed in a particular sense, such as the earth being 'spread out', it is playing off an analogy, especially when the context points to it. The analogy conveys a particular image.

You try and have us believe that it's talking about the ditch itself where it puts it's egg, but that article disagrees and all the other verses speak of spreading out as well.

I'm not talking about any ditch. I have been stating that using a word in one context does not mean it refers to the same thing in the another context. A word is not an isolated phenomenon. When you start adding words such as ostrich and egg, than you know what is implied by the word 'spread'.

So here, we have the most likely interpretation for dahaha as meaning spreading out and flattening out the dirt, and it matches up well with all the other verses of the creation of the earth that have spreading out in it, but instead, we're supposed to pick a less likely interpretation that has nothing to do with spreading out. That's precisely what you are attempting to pull off and it's not working very well.

That is all well and good, but the usage of the verb as it relates to ostriches and eggs is not what is being referred to here. What we are referring to is the issue of the 'earth being spread out'. The issue is not:

And ostrich spreads dirt over his egg.

Also, an ostrich can spread dirt on a hole, and the mound itself does not have to be flat, but can be a hump.

Wrong, I showed you what Muslim researchers say, and, spreading out matches all the other verses very well. Fits like a glove. Again, you're trying to make up any far out excuse that you can and it's not adding up very well.

Keep insisting it doesn't make it true.

And, it shows me that you spread a carpet out for me, right? How did you make it usable for me so that you may show me your graciousness? you spread it out, making it flat, so that I can use it and accept your graciousness.

But the ground is already flat, is it not? I can even spread out a sheet on a chair, for a person to sit, if the chair is dusty.

Not as figurative as you think. Look at the poetic way the Quran speaks of the sun and moon each traveling in their rounded course. That's poetic, but it's also talking about them orbiting. It's pointing to what it believes to be the physical reality. Is this just Allah talking about his power and mercy or is it telling us of the orbits?

You can't spread a sheet out on a couch?

Is that what you say when you roll your sheets up into a ball?

That doesn't answer the point. You can spread a sheet all over various sorts of objects, including a couch. A couch is not flat, is it? Answer the question.

Don't even try it. Anybody would think that you would fall off a ball before we knew about gravity. That's why the more ignorant assumed a flat earth and resisted explanations of a round earth. If it makes you feel any better, the worst culprit for this ignorance were European Christians.

I am sure the Arabas knew about mountains. And because of this, they understood that when God flattened the earth he did not mean it in a purely literal sense, but in figurative usage. Further, mountains have steep curves. And by standing on a curve, especially when the angle of the arc is rather small, one does not fall off. A rund surface does not necessitate one falls off. And I am quite positive Arabs ascended mountains.

Yes, if he walked far enough

Not in all cases.

This is nothing but a diversion. Who cares about the mountains? Look at how you try to inject anything you can to complicate the issue. My my, how wily of you. It's a shame it doesn't work.

There is no complication. The stability factor is attributed to the mountains when describing creation. The Quran is emphasizing how men are stable in the earth, and the terrain is such that they are not thrown from the earth.

It actually works quite well.

And, to the action of spreading and flattening. How does dahaha relate to the graciousness of God? You never answer this.

How many times does this need repeating?

If I spread a carpet out for you, it means I am honoring you and being gracious to you. What is so complicatied about that?

They did not imply that the Quran says the earth is round in the least. They clearly said that in their opinion, the Quran says nothing about the shape of the earth at all. What do you expect them to say, that the Quran says the earth is flat? They're not going to go that far and admit that. So instead, they merely try and say that it says nothing at all and whisk the issue away. Happens all the time. Just like you try to do.

So what? The link of Harun Yahya does. So you accept it one instance, and reject it in another. So when this link says they do not take into account linguistic considerations, than the "Muslim researchers" got it wrong. SO let me get this straight.

It is either your way or the highway. It is Muslims researchers say this when it confirms your opinion, but Muslims researches are BS'ing when it doesn't confirm your opinion. I'll end with what I quoted befor with the LINK YOU PROVIDED:

Here, the Arabic word for the sky is "assamaa binaan." As well as the meaning of "dome" or "ceiling," this also describes a kind of tent-like covering used by the Bedouin. What is being emphasised here, through mention of a tent-like structure, is a form of protection against external elements.

So the spreading of the earth like a carpet is made in the same context of the sky being raised like a tent. You do the math...

Arnold

11th July 2007, 18:26

It is as if you are going in a circular argument.

Oh don't even try it. I am not.

Just, as the word does not mention 'eggs', 'ostriches', and 'dirt', it does not mention 'carpet'. But when the word is emplyed in a particular sense, such as the earth being 'spread out', it is playing off an analogy, especially when the context points to it. The analogy conveys a particular image.

What is the particular image that the ostrich egg spreading out and flattening the dirt conveys?

The noun form of the root word refers to the ditch itself. The word iddiya, which comes from the same tri-lateral root form, is what I stated. This is what is meant by you having absolutely no clue regarding Arabic. In fact, this is exactly what the article states. You just didn't read it to comprehend.

The word in question is the verb (dahâ) comes from the triliteral root d-h-w and it appears in the Qur’ân in relation to the Earth in the following verse: “And the Earth, after that, He spread out (dahâhâ).” [Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât: 30]

Due to the fact that the word conveys the meaning of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”, the Arabs named the place where an ostrich incubates and hatches its egg udhiyy.

Not dahaha

The reason for this is that the ostrich spreads out and flattens this area with its legs before laying its egg in it.

That is all well and good, but the usage of the verb as it relates to ostriches and eggs is not what is being referred to here. What we are referring to is the issue of the 'earth being spread out'. The issue is not:

And ostrich spreads dirt over his egg.

I say spread out means spread out, you say it means hospitality. So great, explain spread out in terms of hospitality with dahaha. You can't. But you can explain it in terms of spreading out and flattening out.

Also, an ostrich can spread dirt on a hole, and the mound itself does not have to be flat, but can be a hump.

The reason for this is that the ostrich spreads out and flattens this area with its legs before laying its egg in it.

Keep insisting it doesn't make it true.

Why don't you give answers that actually work and make it not true?

But the ground is already flat, is it not? I can even spread out a sheet on a chair, for a person to sit, if the chair is dusty.

You can't spread a sheet out on a couch?

That doesn't answer the point. You can spread a sheet all over various sorts of objects, including a couch. A couch is not flat, is it? Answer the question.

Spread out a sheet over a chair. When he spread the earth like a carpet what was he spreading the earth over or on top of? And, why did it use the word carpet instead of blanket? This is getting a little desperate and silly.

But let's stop for a moment to observe what's going on. First, the verse has nothing to do with shape at all, but is only signifying hospitality. Now, you are saying that just because it has to do with shape, doesn't mean it means that it's flat. See how you are jumping all over the place? You're just throwing anything you can possibly invent at the problem with little regard for reason or likelyhood. That's becoming very clear. You keep playing the shell game. I say the ball under shell one is red, and you switch the convo to shell three. Not the first time I've seen it. Stop it. It doesn't work. Don't waste your time.

I am sure the Arabas knew about mountains. And because of this, they understood that when God flattened the earth he did not mean it in a purely literal sense, but in figurative usage.

Since when is the creation of mountains and valleys considered flattening the earth? Ridiculous. Try something else. I know you have more in your pocket.

Further, mountains have steep curves. And by standing on a curve, especially when the angle of the arc is rather small, one does not fall off. A rund surface does not necessitate one falls off. And I am quite positive Arabs ascended mountains.

Oh please. Everybody thought that if you walk too far on a ball, you will fall off. Just like any object will fall off a ball if you put it any place but the top, so quit clowning. Nobody buys the diversion.

How many times does this need repeating?

If I spread a carpet out for you, it means I am honoring you and being gracious to you. What is so complicatied about that?

AND it also means spreading out and flattening out, just like dahaha does.
How many times do I have to repeat? Again, relate dahaha to honoring. This verse is also speaking about what Allah did to make the earth habitable, just like the other verses. How can you separate them, when they all reference spreading out when describing the creation of the earth? If they all meant hospitality, then you have to make dahaha mean hospitaility as well, as it is clearly referring to the creation of the earth, just like the other verses. But you can't do that, and you know it. So you divert. You're not fooling me in the least, and it is YOU who are going around in circles on purpose. But it won't confuse me. I've seen this technique before. Don't bother.

So what? The link of Harun Yahya does. So you accept it one instance, and reject it in another. So when this link says they do not take into account linguistic considerations, than the "Muslim researchers" got it wrong. SO let me get this straight.

It is either your way or the highway. It is Muslims researchers say this when it confirms your opinion, but Muslims researches are BS'ing when it doesn't confirm your opinion. I'll end with what I quoted befor with the LINK YOU PROVIDED:

All I needed was for them to admit the actual correct interpretation of one word. That is very possible to definitively do, and they did that. When it comes to the meaning of a whole verse or verses, they could make up whatever they want. But if they give the wrong answer about one specific word, they could be proven wrong and therefore embarrassed. I never said these people weren't going to put as much lipstick on the pig (as is said) as they believe they can get away with without being proven wrong. Of course they will. That's to be assumed. But they didn't have much wiggle room for dahaha, so they had to be completely forthcoming. Besides, weren't you the guy who started off saying that dahaha meant something totally different?

So the spreading of the earth like a carpet is made in the same context of the sky being raised like a tent. You do the math...

Yes, speaking of context do you remember saying that a canopy or tent provides shade? What shade does the universe provide the earth? You still haven't answered this and I think it's probably the third time I asked you.

ihsan

11th July 2007, 18:54

Oh don't even try it. I am not.

This sounds pretty circular to me...

What is the particular image that the ostrich egg spreading out and flattening the dirt conveys?

We are referring to the word 'spread'. We are not referring to how 'spread' is used in the context of an ostrich and an egg. We are referring to how it is used in the context of the verses of the Quran.

Words are understood by their context. This is the point that you seem to be having a hard time grasping.

I say spread out means spread out, you say it means hospitality. So great, explain spread out in terms of hospitality with dahaha. You can't. But you can explain it in terms of spreading out and flattening out.

No, I said the Quran is employing figurative usage and imagery in the phrase, "spread out the earth". I said the word 'spread' cannot be undersood as an isolated phenomenon, but it is to be understood in it's context. The image being painted by the Quran is that of a host who lays out a carpet for his guest, and begins to serve him food. Thus, the quotation of verses that state immediately after this action of 'spreading out the earth' refer to men being provided with variou forms of sustenance.

The whole phrase conveys the image of hospitality and generous treatment. Just as when referring to ostriches and eggs, the phrase is referring to how an ostrich protects and nurtures its eggs.

Spread out a sheet over a chair. When he spread the earth like a carpet what was he spreading the earth over or on top of? And, why did it use the word carpet instead of blanket? This is getting a little desperate and silly.

1.

Again, you missed the point. The verse states that God made the earth a COUCH for man in Surah Baqarah. A couch is NOT flat. If the Quran was conveying the image that the earth is flat in the other verse, than why does God ALmighty say in surah Baqarah, he made the earth a COUCH for you?

2.

Further, you argued that the analogy of spreading the earth out like a carpet was to convey that the notion that the earth was flat. Yet, you can spread sheets over non-flat objects, including a couch and furniture. In fact, one does this all the time to protect a sofa from collecting dust.

If I say "I spread a sheet over my chair", does that mean my main intention is to illustrate the fact that the chair is a flat object? Or is the meaning of 'soread' defined by the context?

But let's stop for a moment to observe what's going on. First, the verse has nothing to do with shape at all, but is only signifying hospitality. Now, you are saying that just because it has to do with shape, doesn't mean it means that it's flat. See how you are jumping all over the place?

Uh, no. I said FURTHER. I brought this up because you argue that spreading a carpet is to convey the idea that the earth is flat. Yet, you can spread a sheet all over various objects. Can you, or can you not spread a sheet over a non-flat object?

Since when is the creation of mountains and valleys considered flattening the earth? Ridiculous. Try something else. I know you have more in your pocket.

But the earth is FLAT according to you. Yet, there are mountains and valleys. Does an ostrich, in order to flatten his nest, make mountains and valleys?

AND it also means spreading out and flattening out, just like dahaha does.
How many times do I have to repeat? Again, relate dahaha to honoring.

I don't think you know the distinction between a phrase and a word. A word is part of a sentence and it has different implications, depending on how it is used. I told you to open up a dictionary and than look at the various meanings of the word. Then, ask yourself, how is the meaning of the word determined? Could it be the sentence itself?

I have always said the phrase is 'spread the earth', but I said the imagery is meant to convey hospitality and honoring, i.e. it is playing off the imagery of spreading out a carpet for a guest. It is not meant to express any scientific reality.

All I needed was for them to admit the actual correct interpretation of one word. That is very possible to definitively do, and they did that. When it comes to the meaning of a whole verse or verses, they could make up whatever they want.

A word is understood by how it is said. As I said so many times:

"SPread the sheet out."
"The spread of the game was 20 points."

The word 'spread' has a different meaning in a different context. The meaning is understood from the sentence, not because a dictionary says the word can mean one thing.

Yes, speaking of context do you remember saying that a canopy or tent provides shade? What shade does the universe provide the earth? You still haven't answered this and I think it's probably the third time I asked you

Did I not say the Quran uses the literary technique of inversion? The night provides shade from the sun, and yes, it isn't to be taken literally.

Arnold

11th July 2007, 20:30

This sounds pretty circular to me...

No, I said the Quran is employing figurative usage and imagery in the phrase, "spread out the earth". I said the word 'spread' cannot be undersood as an isolated phenomenon, but it is to be understood in it's context. The image being painted by the Quran is that of a host who lays out a carpet for his guest, and begins to serve him food. Thus, the quotation of verses that state immediately after this action of 'spreading out the earth' refer to men being provided with variou forms of sustenance.

Great, now give me this context for dahaha.

The whole phrase conveys the image of hospitality and generous treatment. Just as when referring to ostriches and eggs, the phrase is referring to how an ostrich protects and nurtures its eggs.

So what does God do to be hospitable and generous? What does the ostrich do to be hospitable and generous? It spreads out and flattens the bottom of it's pit to make it suitable for it's egg.

But the earth is FLAT according to you. Yet, there are mountains and valleys. Does an ostrich, in order to flatten his nest, make mountains and valleys?

It was meant to show that the earth was not flat at one point, but God flattened it out. The mountains came later as pegs to hold down the newly flattened surface. So relative to what was previously a round earth, sure God flattened it out and THEN put pegs in it.

I don't think you know the distinction between a phrase and a word. A word is part of a sentence and it has different implications, depending on how it is used. I told you to open up a dictionary and than look at the various meanings of the word. Then, ask yourself, how is the meaning of the word determined? Could it be the sentence itself?

Yes, and even they said it refers to spreading, leveling, flattening...So what's the problem?

I have always said the phrase is 'spread the earth', but I said the imagery is meant to convey hospitality and honoring, i.e. it is playing off the imagery of spreading out a carpet for a guest.

The word 'spread' has a different meaning in a different context. The meaning is understood from the sentence, not because a dictionary says the word can mean one thing.

Yes, and even they (the article) said it refers to spreading, leveling, flattening... in context of the sentence. So what's the problem?

Did I not say the Quran uses the literary technique of inversion? The night provides shade from the sun, and yes, it isn't to be taken literally.

So the night sky shades the sun? BWAHAHAHAHA !!!! Why would anybody, poetic or not, ever mention the night sky providing shade for the sun? I've never seen that. Wow !!! you'll invent anything. Oh, that's right. It's inversion. So instead of the sun providing shade for the night sky, the night sky provides shade for the sun. ((chuckle chuckle))

ihsan

11th July 2007, 21:59

Great, now give me this context for dahaha.

Isn't this what I have been saying all along. That IS the context.

"Wal ardha WADAHAA lil anaam."
"Fee ha fakihutuw wanakhlu dhatul akhmaam."

And we spread the earth for his creatures.
"Therein is FRUIT and PALMS having sheathed clusters."

So what does God do to be hospitable and generous? What does the ostrich do to be hospitable and generous? It spreads out and flattens the bottom of it's pit to make it suitable for it's egg.

How many times does this need repeating?

We are NOT talking about an ostrich spreading dirt on his egg. We are talking about imagery, i.e. the 'earth being spread' out for man. One sentence is literal, the other is employing imagery, i.e. it is figurative.

It is the context of a statement that defines whether a word is employed literally or figuratively.

It was meant to show that the earth was not flat at one point, but God flattened it out. The mountains came later as pegs to hold down the newly flattened surface. So relative to what was previously a round earth, sure God flattened it out and THEN put pegs in it.

1.

You keep engagin in circular reasoning. You keep saying it was meant to show the earth as round, but God flattened it out, so it must be true. I asked you whe than does the Quran mention the earth in Surah Baqara as a COUCH? A couch isn't flat.

2.

No, the mountains are mentioned to convey the STABILITY of the earth that man inhabits, thus the phrase "so it quakes NOT". The stability of the land man lives on is the subject of the verses that revolve around the mountains. What enjoyment is there, if the environment of man isn't stability. The spreading of the earth is mentioned to the convey the GRACIOUNESS of the one who put man on the earth. This is why the mention of mountains is made immediately after the provision of sustenance. There are various images being painted. It is all poetic imagery, the finest there is.

Yes, and even they said it refers to spreading, leveling, flattening...So what's the problem?

They said that is one of the meanings, but they also said that the verse has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. They said it is being employed in a rhetorical sense. They acknowledge that certain phrases are not to be taken word for word. Which is the very point you fail to comprehend.

A word can be employed literally, and it can be employed figuratively.

Yes, and even they (the article) said it refers to spreading, leveling, flattening... in context of the sentence. So what's the problem?

Yes, the word is SPREAD in this context. But this is not what the PHRASE "He spread the earth for his creatures." It is the sentence that defines the meaning, which the link you provided says. The verse doesn't say the earth is flat or round. It is a style that is employed to convey the graciosuness of God, which is what I have been stating all along.

So the night sky shades the sun? BWAHAHAHAHA !!!! Why would anybody, poetic or not, ever mention the night sky providing shade for the sun? I've never seen that. Wow !!! you'll invent anything. Oh, that's right. It's inversion. So instead of the sun providing shade for the night sky, the night sky provides shade for the sun. ((chuckle chuckle))

Your lack of knowledge of hte matter does not predicate it not existing. In SUrah Sham, there is a verse that says the following:

YUSUFALI: By the Day as it shows up (the Sun's) glory;
PICKTHAL: And the day when it revealeth him,
SHAKIR: And the day when it shows it,

YUSUFALI: By the Night as it conceals it;
PICKTHAL: And the night when it enshroudeth him,
SHAKIR: And the night when it draws a veil over it,

The IT is referring to the sun. Neither the day shows the sun, nor does the night conceal the sun. The cause of day IS THE sun, and the cause of night is the LACK of sun. What is being employed is INVERSION. It is poetic.

But I guess I keep inventing things.

Camden202

11th July 2007, 22:42

But I guess I keep inventing things.

I guess you do (your own observation)..... im just agreeing with you.

Arnold

11th July 2007, 22:52

The_Other_Admin

11th July 2007, 23:28

2) The verse with dahaha. Since the dirt is spread out and flattened, it is denoting the efforts and hospitality of the mother ostrich.
Dude, if you ever seen an ostrich's nest, it is not flat or the egg will role out of the nest. Ostrich doesn't flatten the ground for her egg. So where did you get the flattening bit?

Arnold

11th July 2007, 23:52

ostrichs don't have nests. They're one of the very few birds that don't. BTW, cute pic. I love cats. Is it yours?

The_Other_Admin

11th July 2007, 23:56

ostrichs don't have nests. They're one of the very few birds that don't.
Wrong.

Ostriches nest in the dry season. The male ostrich makes several shallow scrapes in his territory. The lead female then lays up to 12 eggs over the next 3 weeks. Other females may lay eggs in this same nest, but only the male and lead female will guard and incubate the eggs.

http://www.thebigzoo.com/Animals/Ostrich.asp

Arnold

12th July 2007, 00:02

Ron

12th July 2007, 03:45

Hello Arnold,

Did you see a picture of this nest? Is it a ditch or is it in a tree? They're just using nest in a semi misleading way as they don't bother to clarify that this nest is a hole in the ground, not in a tree.

Are you saying that a nest is a nest only when it is in a tree?

Regards

Ron

12th July 2007, 04:29

One more question related to dahaha: did your friends tell you that it was related to shape? If so, what shape would that be?

Camden202

12th July 2007, 05:29

One more question related to dahaha: did your friends tell you that it was related to shape? If so, what shape would that be?

Ron,

Both Arnold and I have been told the shape is 'eliptical' ...

Regards,

Arnold

12th July 2007, 12:00

Hello Arnold,

Are you saying that a nest is a nest only when it is in a tree?

Regards

Oh please Ron. Why so trivial? The ostrich digs a ditch to lay it's egg. Isn't that the point here?

Arnold

12th July 2007, 12:06

One more question related to dahaha: did your friends tell you that it was related to shape? If so, what shape would that be?

No, the Muslim darling con artist Dr. Zakir Naik told me.
http://www.islamicvoice.com/september.2000/religion.htm

4. Earth is geo-spherical in shape

The Quran mentions the actual shape of the earth in the following verse: “And we have made the earth egg shaped”. [Al-Quran 79:30]

The Arabic word Dahaha means egg shaped. It also means an expanse. Dahaha is derived from Duhiya which specifically refers to the egg of an ostrich which is geo-spherical in shape, exactly like the shape of the earth.

Thus the Quran and modern established science are in perfect harmony.

Hmmmmm.....indeed. Pardon me while I snicker. :giggling: As they say, a sucker is born every day.

The_Other_Admin

12th July 2007, 18:24

Did you see a picture of this nest? Is it a ditch or is it in a tree? They're just using nest in a semi misleading way as they don't bother to clarify that this nest is a hole in the ground, not in a tree.
I grew up on a farm so I know what their nests are like. They are on ground like a shallow ditch (more precisely a depression in ground), not flat, that can hold all the eggs in one place and they are termed as nest by zoologists. Nests doesn't have to be on trees or built with twigs.

Ron

12th July 2007, 18:58

Arnold,

Oh please Ron. Why so trivial? The ostrich digs a ditch to lay it's egg. Isn't that the point here?
Let's not be so wily. You said:

Did you see a picture of this nest? Is it a ditch or is it in a tree? They're just using nest in a semi misleading way as they don't bother to clarify that this nest is a hole in the ground, not in a tree.
Either you don't know the definition of nest or something else is going on. The question was simple, but you didn't answer. Now if you want to focus on ostrich nests as you said it "digs a ditch" can you tell me how a ditch is flat? Which dictionary are you using? We now should look up "nest" and "ditch."

No, the Muslim darling con artist Dr. Zakir Naik told me.
http://www.islamicvoice.com/september.2000/religion.htm
So did you lie to me? Your friends didn't tell you anything? If you don't know Arabic and your friends didn't tell you then how do you know what dahaha means?

Hmmmmm.....indeed. Pardon me while I snicker. As they say, a sucker is born every day.
This is coming from the person that said:

ostrichs don't have nests. They're one of the very few birds that don't.
So far, you don't know the what the word "nest" means. You don't know what "ditch" means. You deny ostriches have nests. Yet you are here to give us lessons on Arabic.

Ron

12th July 2007, 19:02

Camden202,

Ron,

Both Arnold and I have been told the shape is 'eliptical' ...

Regards,
I didn't know you guys knew each other. Is it the same source? Would you please tell me which source this is?

Regards

Guest

12th July 2007, 19:05

So far, you don't know the what the word "nest" means. You don't know what "ditch" means. You deny ostriches have nests. Yet you are here to give us lessons on Arabic.LMAO! :giggling: :giggling:

ihsan

12th July 2007, 19:46

Okay, I think I know a way to clarify this. Here goes.

!) The verses about spreading and flattening. Since it is spread out and flattened like a carpet, it is denoting hospitality when it mentions spreading out.

2) The verse with dahaha. Since the dirt is spread out and flattened, it is denoting the efforts and hospitality of the mother ostrich.

So here, we have two completely different analogies, one involving a carpet, the other involving the bottom of the pit of an ostrich egg, that both refer to the hospitality of Allah when creating the earth, and they both refer to this hospitality by using analogies that both refer to spreading and flattening. Why does it need to refer to spreading and flattening in order to convey Allah's hospitality in both cases? Why is this repeated across analogies as well? The Quran is only choosing analogies that involve spreading out and flattening. Every single verse contains this common element in it's analogy. Don't you find that interesting? I do.

It seems that one cannot tell the difference between a figurative statement and a literal one. Thus the confusion in trying to relate a literal statement of an ostrich with a statement of poetic imagery. Just forget about the ostrich. It has basolutely nothing to do with the situation we are talking about.

The reason the Quran chooses the analogy of spreading out is because of the beduoin tents that were part of the environment of the Arabs. Hosting a guest was praised by the Arabs. Part of hosting a guest was that when he came into the tent, the host would make him sit down in a comfortable place. The 'landscape' of the interior of the tent was that of lush carpets. The 'spreading' of the earth is meant to capture this aspect.

This is precisely why in the same exact context, God says he raised the heavens like a ROOF, and as we discussed before, the word employed for roof is the same one of a BEDUOIN TENT. Further, the Quran than talks about the mountains as pegs. Pegs are hammered into the ground to hold up the roof of the tents. If there were no pegs, the tents would fall. In the same manner, the mounatins prevent the earth from quaking, thus the employment of the word pegs with mountains.

Literary imagery is NEVER exact, like scientific terminology. Nor is it meant to be exact, because it would lose the very effect it was meant to achieve.

"Your words cut through my heart like a knife."

The 'cutting of the hear' is only meant to convey the feeling of pain caused by the words of a person. The 'cutting' is not meant to be literal.

There is a picture being drawn in these verses. The Quran is not interested with scientific terminology, just as it is not concerned with scientific terminology when it calls the earth a COUCH, which is NOT a flat surface, but more of an oblong shape.

The_Other_Admin

12th July 2007, 23:37

I'm searching on the word Dahaha.

Camden202

13th July 2007, 05:16

Camden202,

I didn't know you guys knew each other. Is it the same source? Would you please tell me which source this is?

Regards

No we don't know each other.....but it seems we have been given the same information (or mis information depending on who you believe is telling you the truth).

My information came from Deedat and Nakir, You can ask Arnold where his came from...

My understanding of these two people is that they are 'prized' lecturers and highly regarded in Muslim Circles. They expound the view that the Quran says the Earth is Eliptical.

Seriously, why is this so confusing... either the Quran is right or its not...which one is it???

Arnold

13th July 2007, 12:01

Camden202,

I didn't know you guys knew each other. Is it the same source? Would you please tell me which source this is?

Regards

Ron, I've been on probably 6 other muslim forums, and it's very rare for a muslim to correct other muslims while they are all telling me the same thing Naik said. 95% of muslims that I mention flat earth to will immediately bring this up. So i have no idea why you are so confused as to where we could get this idea from and who we would get it from, when it's all over the place. It's a common answer.

I got my info that egg shaped is wrong from here
http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=1084&main_cat_id=31

So what's the problem? Got a problem with the spreading and flattening interpretation? Then take it up with them. By your reaction, you would think I'm getting this stuff from anti Islamic sites, but I'm not. I'd never bother because it would never be accepted and it would give people an excuse to claim bias and close the issue.

Arnold

13th July 2007, 12:03

I'm searching on the word Dahaha.

What's wrong with this link?

http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_se...main_cat_id=31

Seems to be a very reputable site with a reputable staff.

Arnold

13th July 2007, 12:11

No we don't know each other.....but it seems we have been given the same information (or mis information depending on who you believe is telling you the truth).

My information came from Deedat and Nakir, You can ask Arnold where his came from...

My understanding of these two people is that they are 'prized' lecturers and highly regarded in Muslim Circles. They expound the view that the Quran says the Earth is Eliptical.

Seriously, why is this so confusing... either the Quran is right or its not...which one is it???

It think that creating confusion is usually plan D or E. It usually comes after the translation card, which is usually plan C. If the issue cannot be solved head on, then it must be rearranged. But you can't do that with simplicity, so the first thing that is needed is complexity to create enough confusion and therefore, flexibility, to then make it possible to change things amidst the confusion. That's the only reason that I can figure when this stuff starts happening. And it is indeed a pattern that I see all of the time, and I'll bet you've seen it as well because it's pretty common. Like I said before. It's like they all have the same debating coach or something (taqiyya coach? just kiddin'). They all go through the same sort of logical steps in almost the same order. Odd.

Arnold

13th July 2007, 12:32

It seems that one cannot tell the difference between a figurative statement and a literal one. Thus the confusion in trying to relate a literal statement of an ostrich with a statement of poetic imagery. Just forget about the ostrich. It has basolutely nothing to do with the situation we are talking about.

The reason the Quran chooses the analogy of spreading out is because of the beduoin tents that were part of the environment of the Arabs. Hosting a guest was praised by the Arabs. Part of hosting a guest was that when he came into the tent, the host would make him sit down in a comfortable place. The 'landscape' of the interior of the tent was that of lush carpets. The 'spreading' of the earth is meant to capture this aspect.

This is precisely why in the same exact context, God says he raised the heavens like a ROOF, and as we discussed before, the word employed for roof is the same one of a BEDUOIN TENT. Further, the Quran than talks about the mountains as pegs. Pegs are hammered into the ground to hold up the roof of the tents. If there were no pegs, the tents would fall. In the same manner, the mounatins prevent the earth from quaking, thus the employment of the word pegs with mountains.

The mountains are pegs to hold down the sky? That's what you really said. Sometimes you're so creative, you out create yourself :giggling:

Literary imagery is NEVER exact, like scientific terminology. Nor is it meant to be exact, because it would lose the very effect it was meant to achieve.

"Your words cut through my heart like a knife."

The 'cutting of the hear' is only meant to convey the feeling of pain caused by the words of a person. The 'cutting' is not meant to be literal.

There is a picture being drawn in these verses. The Quran is not interested with scientific terminology, just as it is not concerned with scientific terminology when it calls the earth a COUCH, which is NOT a flat surface, but more of an oblong shape.

Wow, you guys really know how to blow smoke at people. Well, that might fit the carpet analogy, but then, it goes into something completely different, the ostrich pit, and yet it once again contains the concept of spreading and flattening. If it wanted to give another example of hospitality, it did not need to pick an analogy that once again involves spreading and flattening. There are a world of other analogies that could have been chosen to show hospitality that don't involve spreading out and flattening in the least, and could never be misunderstood as such. But the Quran chose none of them. Instead, it chose another analogy that involves spreading and flattening. That is a very solid logical connection. Seems like regardless of what analogy it picks, it seems to make sure that it involves spreading and flattening. It's a very clear, simple and obvious connection. You may be giving me stories that are made up by clever people to cover this. I'll bet you someone else saw the same problem I did hundreds of years ago, which is where all of these less than likely, completely counter intuitive interpretations come from. BTW, the floor in a tent is usually flat and the roof of the tent is dome shaped. The Arab pagans around the time of Muhammad believed that there were 7 domes, one on top of the other and the lowest dome was the one that we see. Sounds eerily familiar. The lowest of the seven heavens is adorned with the stars for beauty, isn't it? Domes and Bedouin tents are held up without visible pillars, aren't they? Tents can rip open, can't they? Their roof is raised above a flat surface, isn't it? And yet somehow, we completely ignore all of these startling similarities to the Arab pagan world view around that time, and go with a whole notion of hospitality, and nothing more than that. Sorry if I don't buy it.

vinod

13th July 2007, 13:27

My information came from Deedat and Nakir, You can ask Arnold where his came from...

My understanding of these two people is that they are 'prized' lecturers and highly regarded in Muslim Circles. They expound the view that the Quran says the Earth is Eliptical.

Camden, Arnold

Zakir Naik and Deedat are popular, no doubt. That doesn't make them right to me. Heck, I think I can find fault in their arguments, at times. Naik gets evolution terribly wrong, for example.

razwan1979

13th July 2007, 13:40

And yet somehow, we completely ignore all of these startling similarities to the Arab pagan world view around that time, and go with a whole notion of hospitality, and nothing more than that. Sorry if I don't buy it.

I'd be genuinely interested if you could show us examples from pagan Arab cosmology that confirm your view.

Arnold

13th July 2007, 13:46

Camden, Arnold

Zakir Naik and Deedat are popular, no doubt. That doesn't make them right to me. Heck, I think I can find fault in their arguments, at times. Naik gets evolution terribly wrong, for example.

That's great. Care to join the discussion? Care to tell me why, that no matter what analogy the Quran chooses when describing the creation of the earth, the analogy always involves spreading and flattening whether it's talking about an ostrich pit or a carpet? Why doesn't it pick any analogies that are void of spreading and flattening when describing the creation process of the earth? What should anyone think about this? Mere coincidence or is it telling us something? I think the latter is far more likely and I think any person who is capable of objective judgment would see it that way as well.

ihsan

13th July 2007, 17:07

The mountains are pegs to hold down the sky? That's what you really said. Sometimes you're so creative, you out create yourself :giggling:

This has gotten to the point of absurdity, especially when you accompany your comments that are smacking of ignorance with little giggly smiles. If you going to attribute a position to me, than do it accurately. Please show me where I stated that mountains are pegs that hold down the sky?

Further, the Quran than talks about the mountains as pegs. Pegs are hammered into the ground to hold up the roof of the tents. If there were no pegs, the tents would fall. In the same manner, the mounatins prevent the earth from quaking, thus the employment of the word pegs with mountains.

There are two points here:

1. The employment of the word mountains as PEGS, showing very clearly that the analogy of these verses is that of a tent. There are three main images employed:

a. The word employed for the sky is the same as that of the roof of a tent
b. The spreading of the earth is that of spreading of a carpet
c. The mountains are likened to pegs

The verse is CLEARLY playing off imagery, and the only person that would deny this is a person who cannot come to grips with reality, because he wants to simply win an argument.

2. What I stated is that the mountains prevent the EARTH from quaking, just as the pegs of a tent prevent a tent from falling apart. ANybody who has ever dealt with high literature knows that imagery is not meant to be technical. This is precisely why I gave you the statement:

"Your words cut right through my heart."

Your whol position is tantamount to saying that the words actually CUT the heart of a person, because the dictionary says that what is meant by cut is to RIP APART. This is the logical conclusion to your absurd position.

The whole discussion about an ostirch is irrelevant. I'm just astonished that you can't comprehent this simple point. The statement about an ostrich 'spreading' dirt over his egg has nothing do with the issue. This is simply a statement where a particular word 'spreading' is used in a sentence about ostriches. It is tantamount to the sentence, 'the spread of the game is 20 points'. They both employ various forms of the word 'spread', but the word 'spread' means different things in different contexts.

If you cannot comprehend how imagery is used, than there really is nothing left to do. The best advice I can give you is to go back to school and take a class in creative writing, or at least indulge in high school english courses again. You should also take a class in ethics, because your lack of abaility to quote something properly and attribute positions to people that aren't really there is another clear problem you have.

Wow, you guys really know how to blow smoke at people.

You inability to comprehend a point does not mean other people are blowing smoke. It only means you have trouble comprehending and appreciating finer literature.

Well, that might fit the carpet analogy, but then, it goes into something completely different, the ostrich pit, and yet it once again contains the concept of spreading and flattening.

Irrelevant. The Quran calls the earth a COUCH in a different verse, and a couch is NOT flat. The Quran also says to "walk on the SHOULDERS" of the earth. A flat object has no shoulders. The imagery that Quran employs is that of a camel. All of these verses are examples of higher imagery THAT IS COMMON in every single language, let alone Arabic.

The Quran is not employing scientific terminology, but the Quran is employing imagery. The two are way apart in their purpose.

BTW, the floor in a tent is usually flat and the roof of the tent is dome shaped.

No, tents are not usually dome shaped. There roofs are normally triangular. Very rarely do you ever find, in fact, almost never do you find a tent that has a dome shaped roof. It requires way too many poles to maintain a circular shape for the surrounding walls, let alone to maintain a dome shape.

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-11%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=bedouin%20tent

So what is your next excuse?

http://www.virginbushsafaris.com/gallery_photos2/front_of_bedouin_tent.jpg

Do you see the carpets and the analogy with the lush earth being spread for mankind?

http://www.haremnights.co.uk/bedouin_sitting.JPG

The Arab pagans around the time of Muhammad believed that there were 7 domes, one on top of the other and the lowest dome was the one that we see. Sounds eerily familiar. The lowest of the seven heavens is adorned with the stars for beauty, isn't it? Domes and Bedouin tents are held up without visible pillars, aren't they?

Actually, the lowest heaven is adorned with stars which the Quran refers to as LAMPS. The Arabs were desert travellers, and they also journeyed in the sea. And do you know how they knew they were going in the right direction? They were GUIDED by the stars, which the Quran figuratively calls LAMPS. Men carry lamps in the dark to know where they are going, i.e. to be rightly-guided. This is precisely why the various forms of imagery regarding the stars being lamps is in the context of the need for revelation, i.e. GUIDANCE. If man is provided with guidance to find his way in the material world, what about the spiritual guidance that is necessary in this life. Does man thing God would levae man alone with no guidance in the most important aspect of his life?

1.

You just keep speaking from more and more ignorance. Nobody in the history of the Arab world ever built the roof of their tents, with seven domes, one on top of the other. Nobody in the history of architecture has done that. You know why? Because there is no purpose to doing that, and it would be an architectural monstrosity. So why would Arabs believe the heavens to be one dome on top of the other? They understood that when the Quran was speaking about the heaven as the roof of abeduoin tent in a particular set of verses, it was using figurative imagery to convey higher realities about God. They did not think the world was one giant, big tent.

2.

No, beduoiuns tents are held with visible pillars, especially from the inside. Where do you think the POINT at the top of the tent comes from? Is it magically holding itself up? I'll refer you to same link that provides pictures of the inside of the tents as well.

Tents can rip open, can't they? Their roof is raised above a flat surface, isn't it? And yet somehow, we completely ignore all of these startling similarities to the Arab pagan world view around that time, and go with a whole notion of hospitality, and nothing more than that. Sorry if I don't buy it.

Who cares if you don't buy it? Your attempts to take away from the imagery are only revealing how obviously inept you are at how literature employs imagery to capture higher realities. I cannot help you in this respect.

Arnold

13th July 2007, 18:23

This has gotten to the point of absurdity, especially when you accompany your comments that are smacking of ignorance with little giggly smiles. If you going to attribute a position to me, than do it accurately. Please show me where I stated that mountains are pegs that hold down the sky?

In your analogy, you used pegs as something that holds up the roof of a tent. The roof of the tent is supposed to relate to the sky in the analogy.
Therefore, the mountains are pegs that hold up the sky. I was merely following the corrollated item of the analogy. But you switched it from the roof/sky to the earth/floor when talking about how it holds it down. This doesn't work as your analogy pointed at the sky, not the earth. It was an analogy that didn't match up properly, which is why I was giggling. You don't swap the players when you go from the analogy to it's corresponding reality, but you did exactly that.

There are two points here:

1. The employment of the word mountains as PEGS, showing very clearly that the analogy of these verses is that of a tent. There are three main images employed:

But in a tent, the pegs hold up the roof/heaven. But in the Quran story, the pegs (mountains) are used to keep the earth/floor down.

a. The word employed for the sky is the same as that of the roof of a tent

I know.

b. The spreading of the earth is that of spreading of a carpet

I know.

c. The mountains are likened to pegs

I know.

The verse is CLEARLY playing off imagery, and the only person that would deny this is a person who cannot come to grips with reality, because he wants to simply win an argument.

And again, I never said it wasn't imagery. It's what the imagery is pointing to that we are arguing about. How long will it take before you understand that?

2. What I stated is that the mountains prevent the EARTH from quaking, just as the pegs of a tent prevent a tent from falling apart.

But you arbitrarily criss crossed the players when going from the analogy to what it's supposed to represent in reality. That is faulty, which is why I was giggling. It's supposed to be the roof is held down by pegs, and the sky is held down by pegs as well. That's consistency between the analogy and what it points to, even though it's dumb.

ANybody who has ever dealt with high literature knows that imagery is not meant to be technical. This is precisely why I gave you the statement:

"Your words cut right through my heart."

I know that, but when it starts talking about the sun, earth, creation, the imagery is pointing to a physical reality and trying to explain it through the analogy. I showed you the consistency of spreading and flattening between two completely different analogies used to describe the creation of the earth. That is certainly sufficient to see a pattern emerging, which leads us to an understanding ioof what the Quran is attempting to tell us.

Your whol position is tantamount to saying that the words actually CUT the heart of a person, because the dictionary says that what is meant by cut is to RIP APART. This is the logical conclusion to your absurd position.

These are obviously figurative and anybody from any age could understand that. But I believe that people in the 7th century did indeed believe the sky was a covering and that these verse were not purely figurative, but were a poetic ways of pointing to an actual reality that Muhammad thought. You keep trying to dilute it, but I have a strong correlation between 79:30 and all the other carpet verses. It could have picked any analogy in the world to represent hospitality, but it, once again, picks an analogy that involves spreading and flattening, just like the other verses. That's consistency, which strengthens my point.

The whole discussion about an ostirch is irrelevant.

Oh no. No no no. It's plenty relevant. Now I'm becoming disturbed. I hate when people lie and blow smoke at me and try to make things disappear for no good reason (except to save their point). You don't think I and most other objective people can see this? Think again. Quit taking me for a fool. It doesn't work. The ostrich example provides the consistency between all other analogies used to describe the creation of the earth. It displays the consistency of spreading and flattening between multiple, completely different analogies, so it is quite relevant. And you're not stupid, so I conclude that you are attempting to cheat or stonewall, and I now have plenty of reason to not trust anything you say.

I'm just astonished that you can't comprehent this simple point.

I can, and I answer it every single time, and you keep repeating it as though it has not been answered. I have clearly explain to you the correlation between 79:30 and all the rest of the verses. This makes my point very very likely, and my point can survive regardless of whether your's is true or not. Don't you understand that?

The statement about an ostrich 'spreading' dirt over his egg has nothing do with the issue. This is simply a statement where a particular word 'spreading' is used in a sentence about ostriches.

It is tantamount to the sentence, 'the spread of the game is 20 points'. They both employ various forms of the word 'spread', but the word 'spread' means different things in different contexts.

We've already been through this. There were 4 definitions given for dahaha and I explained which one, based on the context, that dahaha meant, and I explained precisely why.

If you cannot comprehend how imagery is used, than there really is nothing left to do.

Oh I can comprehend the imagery alright. The question is, is the imagery pointing at what I say or you say or both? So stop with this stupid distraction of continually saying it's imagery when I agree, but I don't agree with what you claim the imagery points to. That is where the disagreement is and this isn't the first time I have told you this, but you keep returning to it as if I've said nothing. Stop with the diversions.

The best advice I can give you is to go back to school and take a class in creative writing, or at least indulge in high school english courses again. You should also take a class in ethics, because your lack of abaility to quote something properly and attribute positions to people that aren't really there is another clear problem you have.

Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.
Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.
Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.
Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.

Is that enough for you? And talk about ethics, you're the guy doing the tap dance here. I'm just going with the obvious meanings.

You inability to comprehend a point does not mean other people are blowing smoke. It only means you have trouble comprehending and appreciating finer literature.

You're just making claims and ad hominem, but you're very vague in backing yourself up. Very evasive.

Irrelevant.

Naturally. Why don't you just tell me that everything I say is irrelevant and make your problem go away in one full sweep? Obviously, anything that contradicts your point or that you can't answer is irrelevant. Not the first time I've seen this.

The Quran calls the earth a COUCH in a different verse, and a couch is NOT flat.

Well, you goofed there, because it is essentially flat. Rectangular yes, but with a flat top. So here, we have flatness once more even further reinforcing my interpretation. We certainly don't sit on a ball shaped couch. You keep digging yourself deeper. You beat yourself worse than I ever could.

The Quran also says to "walk on the SHOULDERS" of the earth. A flat object has no shoulders.

Shoulders aren't ball shaped. Anyway, I don't think that was talking about the shape, but the fact that the earth holds something up

The imagery that Quran employs is that of a camel. All of these verses are examples of higher imagery THAT IS COMMON in every single language, let alone Arabic.

Tell me which verses you are speaking of, and let's put them all together neext to each other. I don't know the camel verse that you're speaking of, unless it's the one where it says the sky will tear and will show red like a camel shows red when it's skin is torn.

The Quran is not employing scientific terminology, but the Quran is employing imagery. The two are way apart in their purpose.

Do you mean to tell me that imagery is never used to explain or point to physical realities? Are you kidding me?

No, tents are not usually dome shaped. There roofs are normally triangular. Very rarely do you ever find, in fact, almost never do you find a tent that has a dome shaped roof. It requires way too many poles to maintain a circular shape for the surrounding walls, let alone to maintain a dome shape.

Well, I'll have to find the article where it said that certain bedouin tents were actually rounded. But it's not immensely important to my point anyway. My basic point is the the Quran saw the sky as a covering of some sort

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-11%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=bedouin%20tent

So what is your next excuse?

http://www.virginbushsafaris.com/gallery_photos2/front_of_bedouin_tent.jpg

I don't need one.

Do you see the carpets and the analogy with the lush earth being spread for mankind?

Well, when you say lush earth being spread, you are giving the image that vegetation started in one place and then spread out from there. You start out with the peanut butter on one spot of the bread, and then you spread the peanut butter out over the bread. You spread the icing out all over the cake. Is that how it happened? Vegetation was only in one spot until allah spread it out?

http://www.haremnights.co.uk/bedouin_sitting.JPG

Actually, the lowest heaven is adorned with stars which the Quran refers to as LAMPS. The Arabs were desert travellers, and they also journeyed in the sea. And do you know how they knew they were going in the right direction? They were GUIDED by the stars, which the Quran figuratively calls LAMPS. Men carry lamps in the dark to know where they are going, i.e. to be rightly-guided. This is precisely why the various forms of imagery regarding the stars being lamps is in the context of the need for revelation, i.e. GUIDANCE. If man is provided with guidance to find his way in the material world, what about the spiritual guidance that is necessary in this life. Does man thing God would levae man alone with no guidance in the most important aspect of his life?

Okay, so we agree that the stars adorn the lowest heaven. So that means that the lowest heaven can't be the earth's atmosphere and we have to assume it must be the universe. But that can't really work well, because the earth is part of the universe, and therefore, we would have to say that the earth is part of the lowest heaven. But we can't say that either as the lowest heaven is treated as something different from the earth, and the clouds are certainly treated as something between the earth and lowest heaven. So the only thing that actually satisfies all verses, is if we pay attention to what the words actually say. A covering that is raised above the earth. Then, all the verses all make sense. No contradictions in the least, and it even helps explain how the stars can fire at the jinn, or how flames can lie in wait in ambush for them, because now, we only have a top of a covering that we are dealing with, rather than millions of miles of depth. If it makes all verses fit together without the slightest contradiction, then why shouldn't we go with this?

You just keep speaking from more and more ignorance.

Nobody in the history of the Arab world ever built the roof of their tents, with seven domes, one on top of the other. Nobody in the history of architecture has done that.You know why? Because there is no purpose to doing that, and it would be an architectural monstrosity.

Nice try. I didn't say anybody built 7 domes on top of each other and you're not stupid and you know I wasn't saying this. You really are trying to be crafty and trying any diversion you can aren't you. I clearly said that Arab pagans believed the sky consisted of 7 domes, one on top of the other. I never said a single peep about how anybody built 7 domes or even attempted to, so don't even try it. Quit trying to confuse things. It doesn't work

So why would Arabs believe the heavens to be one dome on top of the other?

Look, they did, alright? Go ask them. Why would Arabs not believe in one God for so long? Go ask them

They understood that when the Quran was speaking about the heaven as the roof of abeduoin tent in a particular set of verses, it was using figurative imagery to convey higher realities about God. They did not think the world was one giant, big tent.

Substantiate. So far, just an arbitrary opinion

2.

No, beduoiuns tents are held with visible pillars, especially from the inside. Where do you think the POINT at the top of the tent comes from? Is it magically holding itself up? I'll refer you to same link that provides pictures of the inside of the tents as well.

Again, I'll have to find the article where it talks about a specific type of tent used back then

Who cares if you don't buy it? Your attempts to take away from the imagery are only revealing how obviously inept you are at how literature employs imagery to capture higher realities. I cannot help you in this respect.

And I'll repeat this 4 more times for good measure.
Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.
Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.
Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.
Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.

Are we clear on that now? Am I going to hear about imagery anymore?

Ron

13th July 2007, 18:41

Camden202,

No we don't know each other.....but it seems we have been given the same information (or mis information depending on who you believe is telling you the truth).
So you're telling me you went off of some information and you've been arguing not knowing what you were arguing about?

My information came from Deedat and Nakir, You can ask Arnold where his came from...
Could you tell me then how you know they were wrong in their usages of the Arabic words in question?

My understanding of these two people is that they are 'prized' lecturers and highly regarded in Muslim Circles.
What academic circles are you speaking of? Are you speaking scholarly or are you referring to speakers that do conferences for the common person?

They expound the view that the Quran says the Earth is Eliptical.
And you're arguing against it based on what? Again, you don't know what the word means but you're having this discussion?

Seriously, why is this so confusing... either the Quran is right or its not...which one is it???
Yeah, seriously why don't you tell us seeing how you know so well?

Ron

13th July 2007, 18:54

Arnold,

Ron, I've been on probably 6 other muslim forums, and it's very rare for a muslim to correct other muslims while they are all telling me the same thing Naik said.
I don't think you get it.

95% of muslims that I mention flat earth to will immediately bring this up.
What does the other 5% say? Are you seeking knowldgeable people or are you pursuing whom you think you will reply as you preconceive?

So i have no idea why you are so confused as to where we could get this idea from and who we would get it from, when it's all over the place. It's a common answer.
Well then you were lying because you told me that your friends tell you about Arabic. How could your friends tell you what the word means and yet you create an argument based on an incorrect word?

I got my info that egg shaped is wrong from here
http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=1084&main_cat_id=31
So why do you continue to argue and not just say that dahaha is not so and so? You keep going to your "earth is flat" tirade and supposedly know what the words mean, how are we supposed to trust what someone like you says?

So what's the problem?
If you haven't figured it out then no one can help you.

Got a problem with the spreading and flattening interpretation?
I'm not with the problem. I simply asked if you knew what the word meant and you didn't answer until you found this site. It's been like two days till you found your source, even though you had your friends tell you what Arabic words mean.

Then take it up with them.
I don't have a problem with them.

By your reaction, you would think I'm getting this stuff from anti Islamic sites, but I'm not.
No, you got it from your friends who tell you what the Arabic words are and then you develop your arguments based on that, isn't that so?

I'd never bother because it would never be accepted and it would give people an excuse to claim bias and close the issue.
To be honest, it is quite hard to believe anything you write.

Arnold

13th July 2007, 19:23

Arnold,

I don't think you get it.

What does the other 5% say? Are you seeking knowldgeable people or are you pursuing whom you think you will reply as you preconceive?

Both. I'm simply telling you what I have experienced. I am simply seeking responses from ANY Muslim, as long as they seem reasonably intelligent. Quit trying to add things. It doesn't work. You are already showing a skewed and flawed sense of reasoning. I'm not too enthusiastic right now about where discussion with you will lead. You seem to like to wander from the point and make the whole issue about the person themselves. This is not a replacement for answers about the issue itself, but sometimes, people think it is, or try and make it that way.

Well then you were lying because you told me that your friends tell you about Arabic. How could your friends tell you what the word means and yet you create an argument based on an incorrect word?

I do have a friend who knows Arabic, but I have to post sources other than that because nobody will care what my friend thinks

So why do you continue to argue and not just say that dahaha is not so and so? You keep going to your "earth is flat" tirade and supposedly know what the words mean, how are we supposed to trust what someone like you says?

Trust the link i gave. you shouldn't be wasting my time like this and you should have read around more to get an understanding of my point. I'm having a conversation with someone who doesn't even know my original point.

If you haven't figured it out then no one can help you.

You're making a fiool out of yourself. you should have read and understood what's going on before commenting.

I
'm not with the problem. I simply asked if you knew what the word meant and you didn't answer until you found this site. It's been like two days till you found your source, even though you had your friends tell you what Arabic words mean.

I gave this source on other threads probably 4 days ago. It's all over the place, but you didn't take the time to read and are now paying the price by embarrassing yourself with foolish statements. I also explained to you why I wouldn't bother to quote my friend. So what say you now oh foolish one? I've known about that link for a year. When I go someplace with an issue, I know exactly where I'm going and why. Expect nothing less.

I don't have a problem with them.

Then quit squawking, okay?

No, you got it from your friends who tell you what the Arabic words are and then you develop your arguments based on that, isn't that so?

To be honest, it is quite hard to believe anything you write.

No. If you notice, all the things I post are either from Islamic websites or the Quran and hadeeths themselves. So you're wrong again. This was a very embarrassing post for you.

ihsan

13th July 2007, 19:26

In your analogy, you used pegs as something that holds up the roof of a tent. The roof of the tent is supposed to relate to the sky in the analogy. Therefore, the mountains are pegs that hold up the sky. I was merely following the corrollated item of the analogy. But you switched it from the roof/sky to the earth/floor when talking about how it holds it down. This doesn't work as your analogy pointed at the sky, not the earth. It was an analogy that didn't match up properly, which is why I was giggling. You don't swap the players when you go from the analogy to it's corresponding reality, but you did exactly that.

No, you giggled as if to give credence to your ridiculous opinion. Now your wavering like you tend to do.

The mountains are pegs to hold down the sky? That's what you really said. Sometimes you're so creative, you out create yourself

So what did I really say?

If you had read properly what I stated in the same paragraph, you would have known that I stated that imagery in higher literature is NEVER exact, NOR is it MEANT to be. This is well acknowledged in every single language. The difference between scientifice terminology and imagery is wide-apart. Scientific terminology is suppose to state a fact because it is relating a process. Imagery is painting a picture. To bring the discource of scientific terminology in the discourse of higher literature reveals the ignorance of the person doing the complaining, not the fault of higher imagery itself. Just as a moountain provides stability to the earth, pegs provide stability to the tent of a beduoin, even if the pegs hold up the roof of the tent. But we all know, if there was no tent the home of the beduoin would collapse. The picture is quite clear and only a buffoon would keep insisting on something otherwise.

Like I said, I cannot help if you cannot comprehend these facts.

And again, I never said it wasn't imagery. It's what the imagery is pointing to that we are arguing about. How long will it take before you understand that?

Yes you did, but when the fact became undeniable you changed your opinion. But as the discussion proceeds, it becomes obvious you are trying to waver between two sides. You don't want to admit your wrong, so now your saying we need to interpret the verse literally, and figuratively at the same time. That is why you keep trying to compare it the act of an ostrich as he spreads dirt across his nest, which is a literal statement that involves no imagery. The act of the ostrich is not being compared to anything. To keep speaking about an ostrich shows how woefully inequipped you are to disucss this topic.

But you arbitrarily criss crossed the players when going from the analogy to what it's supposed to represent in reality. That is faulty, which is why I was giggling. It's supposed to be the roof is held down by pegs, and the sky is held down by pegs as well. That's consistency between the analogy and what it points to, even though it's dumb.

I didn't arbitraily cross anything. Whatever I have stated is explicit in the Quran. The mountain stabilizes the earth. Just as apeg prevents the home of a beduoin from collapsing, the mountains prevent the enviironment men live in from becoming unstable.

And your opinion on what is dumb and what is not dumb in higher lierature and how imagery is employed in language is of no value to me. The world would be at it's end if your opinions on what is quality literature and what is not was taken with anything but a grain of salt. You continue to reveal how ignorant of poetry and figurative language you are.

I know that, but when it starts talking about the sun, earth, creation, the imagery is pointing to a physical reality and trying to explain it through the analogy. I showed you the consistency of spreading and flattening between two completely different analogies used to describe the creation of the earth. That is certainly sufficient to see a pattern emerging, which leads us to an understanding ioof what the Quran is attempting to tell us.

You see.. That is your ignorance talking. The ostrich spreading dirt over his egg is NOT an analogy. It is not employing any figurative imagery, and the person who makes the statement is not describing this act in comaprison to a carept, tents, or any other picture. On the other hand, when the Quran employes words about the sky being raised like a beduoin tent, the earth being spread like a carpet, and the mountains being pegs, than it is obvious that analogies are being employed and pictures are being drawn.

And yet, you keep telling us, like a parrot that repeats words over and over again, that the Quran is trying to tell the audience that the earth is flat. Yet, we keep telling you that the Quran states in other places how God calls the earth a couch, and tells men to walk on it's shoulders. Shoulders are not the image of a flat ground.

You keep IGNORING THIS. Your wrong, that is the end of the story.

These are obviously figurative and anybody from any age could understand that. But I believe that people in the 7th century did indeed believe the sky was a covering and that these verse were not purely figurative, but were a poetic ways of pointing to an actual reality that Muhammad thought. You keep trying to dilute it, but I have a strong correlation between 79:30 and all the other carpet verses. It could have picked any analogy in the world to represent hospitality, but it, once again, picks an analogy that involves spreading and flattening, just like the other verses. That's consistency, which strengthens my point.

You have no point. We have other verses which describe the earth in other ways. God tells men to walk on the earth's SHOULDERS and seek sustenance, but do not forget that one will have to return to God. The imagery is of men is that of fleas on the back of a camel. Does that mean Muhammad thought the earth was shaped like a camel or the shoulders of a camel?

As I stated, imagery is used according to CONTEXT, i.e. what the message is meant to demonstrate. And the Quran is not trying to demonstrate scientific realities, but that life would be futile without the idea of a Day of Judgement. It remarks of ingratitude to reject God, when he has been the BEST HOST. AS I said, the point or the MESSAGE of the imagery was to play on the idea of the honor of the Arabs, who held in utmost respect those that were generous hosts.

The Quran is pointing to the hypocrisy of the people with respect to the message Muhammad has brought. It is akin to saying, here you have God treating you in the best of ways, and yet your rejecting him. Do you think that God is going to leave you alone and not make you answer for your ingratitude?

Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.
Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.
Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.
Again, the issue is not imagery, the issue is what it points to.

You mean the MESSAGE it points to. What defines the message? Context? Isn't that what I've been telling you from the very beginning. What use does the existence of sub-atomic particles have to be attitude with respect to God? What use does telling men the scientific fact that the earth os flat have to do with engendering a proper relation with God?

Is that enough for you? And talk about ethics, you're the guy doing the tap dance here. I'm just going with the obvious meanings.

Actually, your revealing more and more your ignorance. You compare an analogy with a literal statement, and you call the literal statement an analogy. There is no tap dance on my part. I have been asserting from the very beginning what I have been asserting from now.

Well, I'll have to find the article where it said that certain bedouin tents were actually rounded. But it's not immensely important to my point anyway. My basic point is the the Quran saw the sky as a covering of some sort

It is never important to your point because it thoroughly demolishes your point from another angle. You make claims and don't back them up, and then when the proof is given to you, you repeat:

"It's not immensely important to my point anyways."

The fact is you have no point. Tents have pillars, which you stated otherwise. Tents have roofs that are primarily pointy, contrary to your assertion that they are domes.

I don't need one.

Of course you don't, because your not interested in learning. Of course you don't because this clearly demolishes your point from another angle. It is becoming clearer and clearer to everyone on this forum, what happens when your proven wrong. You go into a shell of denial, and then when denial fails, you start saying "it doesn't matter to my point anyways". Than you go into intepretative gymnastics such as the following simply to win a point:

Well, when you say lush earth being spread, you are giving the image that vegetation started in one place and then spread out from there. You start out with the peanut butter on one spot of the bread, and then you spread the peanut butter out over the bread. You spread the icing out all over the cake. Is that how it happened? Vegetation was only in one spot until allah spread it out?

You have no end to your imagination. The lengths at which you go to try and discredit a point are all too humorous. I would make a little giggly face, but that is childish in this context.

Okay, so we agree that the stars adorn the lowest heaven. So that means that the lowest heaven can't be the earth's atmosphere and we have to assume it must be the universe. But that can't really work well, because the earth is part of the universe, and therefore, we would have to say that the earth is part of the lowest heaven.

Even the english language, the earth is kept separate from the heavens. How many times does it need repeating that scientific terminoloy and normal usage in language are two different things. Is the english language wrong? The word heaven originated out of the fact that men needed a term to describe the world above. The word heaven was created out of the perspective of man, not out of the perspective of a scientific telescope.

Nice try. I didn't say anybody built 7 domes on top of each other and you're not stupid and you know I wasn't saying this.

Interesting. When did I say the following:

you are giving the image that vegetation started in one place and then spread out from there.

I am being sarcastic BTW. It seems that you have a problem when somebody shows you how foolish your examples are. I can smell hypocrisy all over you. And by smell, I don't actually smell the scent, even though the dictionary means that the stench has to reach my nose for me to smell something.

You really are trying to be crafty and trying any diversion you can aren't you. I clearly said that Arab pagans believed the sky consisted of 7 domes, one on top of the other. I never said a single peep about how anybody built 7 domes or even attempted to, so don't even try it. Quit trying to confuse things. It doesn't work

And in which world of the Arabs was there ever seven domes built one on top of the other? The Arabs thought the earth was flat because that is what they allegedly observed, but when it comes to the fact that they never observed 7 domes, your telling me that is what they obviously believed.

Like I said, I cannot help you in respect to your lack of appreciation of higher literature. That is something you need to resolve by going to some accredited college and studying literature from all across the world, not just Arabic.

Arnold

14th July 2007, 00:47

No, you giggled as if to give credence to your ridiculous opinion. Now your wavering like you tend to do.

So what did I really say?

If you had read properly what I stated in the same paragraph, you would have known that I stated that imagery in higher literature is NEVER exact, NOR is it MEANT to be.

And who said it was? I merely said that it points to something. Go back and read it. Diversion denied.

This is well acknowledged in every single language. The difference between scientifice terminology and imagery is wide-apart.

I know. I'm merely interested in what the imagery points to.

Scientific terminology is suppose to state a fact because it is relating a process. Imagery is painting a picture.

And imagery can paint a picture of what it believes to be reality. Analogies quite frequently try to point to reality. Often, they are the short concise way to do it. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and so is the picture that the analogy paints. But it always points to something else. You think it points to one thing, and one thing only, I think it points to either what I say, or both what you and I say, or not what you say, but certainly not what I say. ((chuckle)). You'll need to read that a few times. That was poetic. It could be interpreted 50 different ways.

To bring the discource of scientific terminology in the discourse of higher literature reveals the ignorance of the person doing the complaining

You know what? You're so puffed up, that I can tell you're a phony. Its like the puffer fish. None of this is necessary whatsoever for what we are discussing. It's a diversion. One must add complexity for added flexibility and stretch room. That's all you do, and you probably hate for someone to "peg" you doing this. :giggling: Hasn't anybody ever pegged you for this yet? Pretty obvious to me.

not the fault of higher imagery itself. Just as a moountain provides stability to the earth, pegs provide stability to the tent of a beduoin, even if the pegs hold up the roof of the tent.

Rather than the floor of the tent. This is getting ridiculous. Does this need to be said or explained? Isn't it obvious?

But we all know, if there was no tent the home of the beduoin would collapse. The picture is quite clear and only a buffoon would keep insisting on something otherwise.

Are you actually saying that the verse where the Quran says that Allah prevents heaven from falling on to the earth, was talking about the survival of the beduoin tent? I just don't know at this point, but look at how far out you are starting to get?

Like I said, I cannot help if you cannot comprehend these facts.

I don't think I've seen one single fact from you yet, but I raised a few, and yet, I'm the person that doesn't comprehend the facts. Sorry, but you haven't made this work yet, so therefore, for right now...your claim is....DENIED. Check back if you have a legitimate complaint about that.

Yes you did, but when the fact became undeniable you changed your opinion<snip>

Or you misunderstood? Oh no. no no no. that's impossible, right?

But as the discussion proceeds, it becomes obvious you are trying to waver between two sides. You don't want to admit your wrong, so now your saying we need to interpret the verse literally, and figuratively at the same time.

I have contended all along, that your interpretation is wrong, but even if it were right, mine would still be correct as well because it is possible for it to conceptually mean two things simultaneously, although I don't believe that to be the case. So even if your meaning WAS true, it still wouldn't negate mine. Get it? Get it? Get it Get it? Get it? Get it now? I think you got it before, but you are trying any little confusion angle you can. That's okay, I'm used to it. Carry on.

That is why you keep trying to compare it the act of an ostrich as he spreads dirt across his nest, which is a literal statement that involves no imagery. The act of the ostrich is not being compared to anything.

I thought you tried the angle to say it also meant hospitality for it's egg? You are starting to get very shifty and dishonest, and don't think it's going unnoticed. You are slowly painting yourself into a corner.

To keep speaking about an ostrich shows how woefully inequipped you are to disucss this topic.

What do you mean? It refers to what Allah did to create the earth. And, it uses the consistent element of spreading and flattening found in all other analogies where the creation of the earth is brought up.

I didn't arbitraily cross anything. Whatever I have stated is explicit in the Quran. The mountain stabilizes the earth. Just as apeg prevents the home of a beduoin from collapsing, the mountains prevent the enviironment men live in from becoming unstable.

I said you crossed up your analogy. Maybe you're not as bright as I originally thought. Maybe this will never go anywhere. I do believe that ignorance is actually the strongest force in the universe. Just look at history.

And your opinion on what is dumb and what is not dumb in higher lierature and how imagery is employed in language is of no value to me.

Again, we're not discussing imagery or what is imagery and what is not. This is just a stupid diversion/dilution/convolution that doesn't work. We are discussing what the imagery is pointing to. How many stinkin' times do I have to repeat that? Why are you so insistent about ignoring me when I say that so many times? Why do you need to preserve that angle? Drop it. It's been invalidated. Try something else. Thank you.

The world would be at it's end if your opinions on what is quality literature and what is not was taken with anything but a grain of salt. You continue to reveal how ignorant of poetry and figurative language you are.

diversion

You see.. That is your ignorance talking.

((chuckle chuckle)). Sorry. Excuse me while I don't give you your due respect by laughing.

The ostrich spreading dirt over his egg is NOT an analogy. It is not employing any figurative imagery<snip>

First of all, it's her egg not his, but no biggie. And secondly, it most certainly IS employing imagery. Are we supposed to literally think that a giant ostrich egg cleared the necessary space for the earth? So how can this not be imagery. Again, as I repeatedly tell you, time and time and time and time again, it's not the fact that it's imagery, it's what it is trying to point to. But you keep trying to repeat that it is imagery (something we both agree on) maybe as some sort of diversion or something. I don't know.

and the person who makes the statement is not describing this act in comaprison to a carept, tents, or any other picture. On the other hand, when the Quran employes words about the sky being raised like a beduoin tent, the earth being spread like a carpet, and the mountains being pegs, than it is obvious that analogies are being employed and pictures are being drawn.

Read above. What the hell does an ostrich pit have to do with the creation of the earth unless the Quran was employing imagery? So what is the imagery pointing at? That's the question that's on the table, not any of these distractive diversions you are trying. It uses both the imagery of a carpet spreading out and flattening out (as the words actually say without the word "honoring" or "hospitality" mentioned), and then, it picks a totally different analogy and STILL makes sure it incorporates notions of spreading out and flattening out. And, it gives no analogies about how the earth was created without the concepts of spreading and flattening. What more do you need? Well, I know. Nothing will suffice, no matter what. I understand and realize that. I would normally start into my ridicule routine at this point, because you're becoming deserving of it with the ridiculous reaches you are making, but I'll get booted. But it certainly isn't as if you don't deserve it. You're an invention factory.

And yet, you keep telling us, like a parrot that repeats words over and over again, that the Quran is trying to tell the audience that the earth is flat. Yet, we keep telling you that the Quran states in other places how God calls the earth a couch, and tells men to walk on it's shoulders. Shoulders are not the image of a flat ground.

A couch IS flat. Were ancient couches spheres? What's the matter with you? As far as me bringing up the earth as a couch, I think it was either YOU or someone else that brought that up. I merely acknowledged it and incorporated it into my point, because it actually reinforced it. As far as shoulders go. Again, it was someone ELSE who originally introduced this. Are you okay? Go back and look, it's all in writing. To answer what you or THEY said, shoulders have to be fairly flat to hold anything, don't they?. It's to the extent that they are flat that they can hold anything, when it comes to gravity. Since when are the shoulders a sphere that hold anything up? Yes, so what are you thinking? Whatever it is, please stop it. It doesn't make sense when pondered, examined, etc..... You keep shooting yourself in the foot and digging yourself deeper by not thinking it through thoroughly.

You keep IGNORING THIS. Your wrong, that is the end of the story.

Okay, looks like you're not a person to really get down to the nitty gritty with in dicussions. as soon as someone makes a blanket claim with no trailing substantiation like you're doing, then you know the conversation's going nowhere fast. Unsubstantiated blanket claims are very similar to ad hominem, and both show that the other person is running out of good answers.

You have no point. We have other verses which describe the earth in other ways.

Well, there are only one set of verses, right?

God tells men to walk on the earth's SHOULDERS and seek sustenance, but do not forget that one will have to return to God. The imagery is of men is that of fleas on the back of a camel. Does that mean Muhammad thought the earth was shaped like a camel or the shoulders of a camel?

No. Anytime throughout history, even greek literature, shoulders always denoted holding something up. But see, here's the difference. Anybody from any age of mankind, even thousands of years ago, knew that the earth didn't have shoulders. That's also like saying that heaven is like a mustard seed or "the world is but a stage". Anybody from any age would have clearly taken both of those as completely. 100% figurative and not pointing to any true physical reality. But when you tell a 7th century person that the sky is like or similar to a canopy, they're going to visualize something similar to a canopy because they had no idea what the sky really was, and canopy denotes a cover of some sort, which is where we get the references to being torn apart during the end days, and the day and night wrapping around like a turban. Put that together with the Arab pagan belief that the sky was 7 domes or coverings, and it's immistakable.

As I stated, imagery is used according to CONTEXT i.e. what the message is meant to demonstrate. And the Quran is not trying to demonstrate scientific realities,

You haven't sufficiently proven that yet. So far, I still see what I'm saying to be far more plausible. Mine is far more likely and intuitive. Let's face it. There's only one reason to go out on a limb and pick the least likely interpretation that requires all sorts of stretches, when the simplistic one suffices perfectly and completely adds up. not one single conflict in my interpretations.

but that life would be futile without the idea of a Day of Judgement. It remarks of ingratitude to reject God, when he has been the BEST HOST. AS I said, the point or the MESSAGE of the imagery was to play on the idea of the honor of the Arabs, who held in utmost respect those that were generous hosts.

The Quran is pointing to the hypocrisy of the people with respect to the message Muhammad has brought. It is akin to saying, here you have God treating you in the best of ways, and yet your rejecting him. Do you think that God is going to leave you alone and not make you answer for your ingratitude?

Wow. you sure added alot of words to that.

You mean the MESSAGE it points to. What defines the message? Context?

Context, and other instances where it is pointing to the same thing.

Isn't that what I've been telling you from the very beginning. What use does the existence of sub-atomic particles have to be attitude with respect to God? What use does telling men the scientific fact that the earth os flat have to do with engendering a proper relation with God?

Right. I don't know why the Quran bothered to go all into the cosmos, but it did. And I think that was the fatal error that Muhammad didn't realize at the time. He meant to be the person of the NT that would explain all things, so he had a tendency to try and explain everything, even if he didn't understand it. He had no idea that we were going to find out the truth about those beautiful stars that shot across the sky (shooting stars) and find out that they not only don't pursue the jinn, they don't even pursue anything and they don't even shoot across the sky and they have nothing to do with the stars (lamps) that adorned the lowest heaven.

Actually, your revealing more and more your ignorance. You compare an analogy with a literal statement, and you call the literal statement an analogy. There is no tap dance on my part. I have been asserting from the very beginning what I have been asserting from now.

Which literal statement did I call an analogy?

It is never important to your point because it thoroughly demolishes your point from another angle. You make claims and don't back them up, and then when the proof is given to you, you repeat:

"It's not immensely important to my point anyways."

No, you focus on and try to pick on little side comments that I have made that might bring up side issues that don't directly speak to the core issue. This is a sign that you don't like the core issue, and therefore choose to focus on any little side issue that you think might not be exactly correct. (Note to self. do not bring up side issues and comments as to give him an excuse for a change of focus).

The fact is you have no point. Tents have pillars, which you stated otherwise. Tents have roofs that are primarily pointy, contrary to your assertion that they are domes.

First of all, I told you there was an article I have to find. But I really don't need to. My larger point really doesn't have to mean that the sky is the shape of a dome. It just needs to be that the sky was indeed looked at as a physical covering of some sort. But again, you want to focus on a side issue to change the direction. Sorry. doesn't work. Denied. Try another angle. I'm sure you will.

Of course you don't, because your not interested in learning.

Yes, naturally, logical, substantiated disagreement merely amounts to someone who just doesn't want to learn. Why? Because you're right. Why are you right? Well you'll tell me, and if I have logical disagreements, it doesn't mean they are true, it just means that I don't want to learn. do you tell yourself this same thing about regular everyday issues of your life?

Of course you don't because this clearly demolishes your point from another angle. It is becoming clearer and clearer to everyone on this forum, what happens when your proven wrong. You go into a shell of denial, and then when denial fails, you start saying "it doesn't matter to my point anyways". Than you go into intepretative gymnastics such as the following simply to win a point:

You have no end to your imagination. The lengths at which you go to try and discredit a point are all too humorous. I would make a little giggly face, but that is childish in this context.

Even the english language, the earth is kept separate from the heavens. How many times does it need repeating that scientific terminoloy and normal usage in language are two different things. Is the english language wrong? The word heaven originated out of the fact that men needed a term to describe the world above. The word heaven was created out of the perspective of man, not out of the perspective of a scientific telescope.

[QUOTE=ihsan;101193]
Interesting. When did I say the following:

I am being sarcastic BTW. It seems that you have a problem when somebody shows you how foolish your examples are. I can smell hypocrisy all over you. And by smell, I don't actually smell the scent, even though the dictionary means that the stench has to reach my nose for me to smell something.

ignored.

And in which world of the Arabs was there ever seven domes built one on top of the other?

Why are you suggesting that they need to build a structure with 7 domes on top of each other to prove that they believed that the sky consisted of 7 domes? This is a very stupid attempt, Anyway, it's irrelevant, as this is an historical fact that they did indeed believe this. don't blame me, blame someone else..

The Arabs thought the earth was flat because that is what they allegedly observed, but when it comes to the fact that they never observed 7 domes, your telling me that is what they obviously believed.

According to what I've read about them, and nobody seems to refute this. It's pretty easy to look up at the sky and see it as a dome or covering of some sort. Think about it. If nobody taught you science and you looked up at the sky, what would you think? I would certainly think it's some kind of ceiling of sorts, even today, if nobody taught me otherwise. Why wouldn't I? Why would I possibly think otherwise? And then, when I observe that the sun doesn't travel straight across the sky, but instead, travels in an arch, then I'm going to think of it as a dome of some sorts, rather than a flat ceiling that goes straight across. There's a hadeeth that I've been meaning to find that talks about the sky being like the dome of a mosques and the stars being like lamps that hang from it. There is nothing in that hadeeth that contradicts the Quran in the least

Like I said, I cannot help you in respect to your lack of appreciation of higher literature. That is something you need to resolve by going to some accredited college and studying literature from all across the world, not just Arabic.

And like I said. This is an excuse, and I don't buy it, and I'll bet most, objective, thinking people wouldn't buy it either. Do you make weird, unlikely excuses and reaches like this in normal affairs of life, or is it just in the instance of defending the Quran any way that you can think of?

Ron

14th July 2007, 01:24

Arnold,

Both. I'm simply telling you what I have experienced. I am simply seeking responses from ANY Muslim, as long as they seem reasonably intelligent. Quit trying to add things. It doesn't work. You are already showing a skewed and flawed sense of reasoning. I'm not too enthusiastic right now about where discussion with you will lead. You seem to like to wander from the point and make the whole issue about the person themselves. This is not a replacement for answers about the issue itself, but sometimes, people think it is, or try and make it that way.
Then why don't you just answer the simple questions. I asked you if dahaha refers shape and you didn't answer. I asked for sources and you waited for a while and then claimed that your source is not your friend but the link you provided. So I asked how do you know for sure what is correct and you avoid them. So while you pose as this noble person trying to dialog, it is clear that you do nothing but avoid any sort of worthy discussion. Just look at how you respond to Ihsan and Hussein. You just don't accept any explanation because you already have a preconceived idea in your head and you won't let go no matter what anyone says.

I do have a friend who knows Arabic, but I have to post sources other than that because nobody will care what my friend thinks

I'm glad that you have a friend that knows Arabic, has he told you that the translations are wrong? What did he tell you dahaha meant? I asked you if it referred to a shape, what did he say?

Trust the link i gave. you shouldn't be wasting my time like this and you should have read around more to get an understanding of my point. I'm having a conversation with someone who doesn't even know my original point.
I'm not having a discussion with a link, I'm having a discussion with you. As for your original point, here it is:

Does the Quran say the earth is flat? Seems like it is from what I've read. How is this explained?
Do you forget what you say?

You're making a fiool out of yourself. you should have read and understood what's going on before commenting.
Would you like me to quote what Jesus (pbuh) said about those who call others "fools?" This scapegoat won't work, I just quoted your point...

I gave this source on other threads probably 4 days ago. It's all over the place, but you didn't take the time to read and are now paying the price by embarrassing yourself with foolish statements. I also explained to you why I wouldn't bother to quote my friend. So what say you now oh foolish one? I've known about that link for a year. When I go someplace with an issue, I know exactly where I'm going and why. Expect nothing less.
Name-calling? Is that what happens when one is frustrated and has nothing to say? You can project whatever you want on me but your words are clear for all to see.

Then quit squawking, okay?
Insults...

No. If you notice, all the things I post are either from Islamic websites or the Quran and hadeeths themselves. So you're wrong again. This was a very embarrassing post for you.

I'm embarrassed that someone would have the type of conversation you would. It's a shame.

Arnold

14th July 2007, 01:43

Arnold,

Then why don't you just answer the simple questions. I asked you if dahaha refers shape and you didn't answer.

It;s because you're way behind Ron. I told you, read what's been going on.

I asked for sources and you waited for a while and then claimed that your source is not your friend but the link you provided. So I asked how do you know for sure what is correct and you avoid them. So while you pose as this noble person trying to dialog, it is clear that you do nothing but avoid any sort of worthy discussion. Just look at how you respond to Ihsan and Hussein. You just don't accept any explanation because you already have a preconceived idea in your head and you won't let go no matter what anyone says.<snip>

Ron, have you discussed anything about this issue besides me? Stop it. It's stupid. When are you going to discuss the issue? Do you have anything at all to offer? And, I've wasted my time answering all of your stupid personal questions about me, rather than the issue and you still haven't answered my one little question. Why not? Do you expect me to keep communicating with you if you keep this up?

vinod

14th July 2007, 12:06

That's great. Care to join the discussion?

No thanks, Arnold. I haven't been following the discussion in close detail.

Regards

Ron

14th July 2007, 13:28

Arnold,

It;s because you're way behind Ron. I told you, read what's been
going on.
I've read it.

Ron, have you discussed anything about this issue besides me?
Yes I have, but you haven't replied.

When are you going to discuss the issue?
I have been.

Do you have anything at all to offer?
Yes I do.

And, I've wasted my time answering all of your stupid personal questions about me, rather than the issue and you still haven't answered my one little question.
I didn't ask any personal questions of you, I don't even know if you're a man or woman but the name would assume male. Your one "little" question came as a way to sidetrack what I was saying.

Why not? Do you expect me to keep communicating with you if you keep this up?
So are you quitting? If not, then let's start slowly. What is the meaning of "dahaha?" Please quote the verse where you claim the Qur'an says the earth is flat.

You want a discussion then answer these and don't continue the way you've been so far.

Arnold

14th July 2007, 14:44

I've said what I believe to be the meaning of dahaha at least 6 different times on this forum. This is what I mean about you not reading Here's the 7th. I agree with the meaning that this link says it means. It seems like they know Arabic and have a degree of integrity.

http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=1084&main_cat_id=31
http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=1084&main_cat_id=31
http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=1084&main_cat_id=31
http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=1084&main_cat_id=31

Due to the fact that the word conveys the meaning of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”, the Arabs named the place where an ostrich incubates and hatches its egg udhiyy. This is a hollow pit in the ground around 30 to 60 centimeters deep. The Arabic word for this shallow depression is derived from the triliteral root d-h-w. The reason for this is that the ostrich spreads out and flattens this area with its legs before laying its egg in it. The ostrich uses neither a nest nor a burrow for its eggs.

Here are the other verses where it refers to spreading and flattening when referring to the creation of the earth and tafsir. I don't know what else you could ask for.

088.020
YUSUFALI: And at the Earth, how it is spread out?
PICKTHAL: And the earth, how it is spread?
SHAKIR: And the earth, how it is made a vast expanse?

Interpretation given in Al-Jalalein:

At the earth how it is spread out(*) (Arabic: sutihat): meaning it was stretched, so they can see in it a sign for the power of Allah ... and his saying sutihat makes it obvious that the earth is flat, and this is certified by Ulama' ash-shar'a (the shari'a theologians), not a globe as it is said by ahlul-hay'a (the laymen)." (Tafseer Al-Jalalein. printed in Damascus 1964. Al-Mallah Printshop and Bookstore)

The Tafsir of Surat Al-Ghashiyah
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=88&tid=58044
(17. Do they not look at the camels, how they are created) (18. And at the heaven, how it is raised) (19. And at the mountains, how they are rooted) (20. And at the earth, how it is outspread)

Ibn Kathir
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=88&tid=58076
[أَفَلاَ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى الإِبِلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ ]

(Do they not look at the camels, how they are created) Indeed it is an amazing creation, and the way it has been fashioned is strange. For it is extremely powerful and strong, yet gentle, carrying heavy loads. It allows itself to be guided by a weak rider. It is eaten, benefit is derived from its hair, and its milk is drunk. They are reminded of this because the most common domestic animal of the Arabs was the camel. Shurayh Al-Qadi used to say, "Come out with us so that we may look at the camels and how they were created, and at the sky and how it has been raised.'' Meaning, how Allah raised it in such magnificence above the ground. This is as Allah says,

[أَفَلَمْ يَنظُرُواْ إِلَى السَّمَآءِ فَوْقَهُمْ كَيْفَ بَنَيْنَـهَا وَزَيَّنَّـهَا وَمَا لَهَا مِن فُرُوجٍ ]

(Have they not looked at the heaven above them, how we have made it and adorned it and there are no rifts on it) (50:6) Then Allah says,

[وَإِلَى الْجِبَالِ كَيْفَ نُصِبَتْ ]

(And at the mountains, how they are rooted) meaning, how they have been erected. For indeed they are firmly affixed so that the earth does not sway with its dwellers. And He made them with the benefits and minerals they contain.

[وَإِلَى الاٌّرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ ]

(And at the earth, how it is outspread) meaning, how it has been spread out, extended and made smooth. Thus, He directs the bedouin to consider what he himself witnesses. His camel that he rides upon, the sky that is above his head, the mountain that faces him, and the earth that is under him, all of this is proof of the power of the Creator and Maker of these things. These things should lead him to see that He is the Lord, the Most Great, the Creator, the Owner, and the Controller of everything. Therefore, He is the God other than Whom none deserves to be worshipped.

079.030
YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);
PICKTHAL: And after that He spread the earth,
SHAKIR: And the earth, He expanded it after that.

Ibn Kathir:
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=79&tid=56986

[وَأَخْرَجَ ضُحَـهَا]

(And He brings out its forenoon.) meaning, He illuminated its day. Then Allah says,

[وَالاٌّرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ دَحَـهَا ]

(And after that He spread the earth,) He explains this statement by the statement that follows it,

[أَخْرَجَ مِنْهَا مَآءَهَا وَمَرْعَـهَا ]

(And brought forth therefrom its water and its pasture.) It already has been mentioned previously in Surat Ha Mim As-Sajdah that the earth was created before the heaven was created, but it was only spread out after the creation of the heaven. This means that He brought out what was in it with a forceful action. This is the meaning of what was said by Ibn `Abbas and others, and it was the explanation preferred by Ibn Jarir. In reference to the statement of Allah.

Again, let us consult Tafsir Al-Jalalein:

That is: "Basataha" as it was created before heaven without "Dahoo".

We see that Al-Jalalein is emphasizing the issue of "flattening". The interpreters are saying: "That is, He flattened it since it was not made flat before heaven was created."

Reading the context of this aya, Sura 79:27-33, the message of the Qur'an seems to be: Originally the earth was not flat (but somehow crumbled up?). After first creating the heaven over it (see 79:28-29), Allah flattened the earth (to make it inhabitable: ("A provision for you and for your cattle" 79:33).

COMMENT:

Udhi'ya or Udhu'wa, are two names for the egg of the ostrich. The verb Da'ha (Ydahoo: present tense) is not derived from Udhi'ya or Udhu'wa, because names are derived from the "verb of origin" (fi'l al masdar), and the verb of origin is not derived from a name. The verb of origin is "dahawa" from which the verb "da'ha" and "yadhoo" are derived, and so is the name of the noun denoting the egg. The verb "da'aha" does not mean "kaw'wara" (made round) or made something in the shape of an egg, whether it is an ostrich egg or a chicken's egg. As a matter of fact, the verb "da'ha" means the complete opposite to the concept of the roundness. Here is what "Al-munjid fil'lugha wal'alam" has to say:

* "da'ha da'hwan ... God `da'ha' earth that is `basataha'."
And that is exactly what Al-Jalalein has said.
* "da'ha idhiwa'an: `inbisatan'." (that is: flattening)
* "al-udh'y, al-idhi'y, al-udhu'wa, al-udhi'ya: The egg of the ostrich in the sand."

We must pay attention to what Al-Munjid is saying here: "The egg of the ostrich `in the sand'" and the following is the reason for this expression:

When the female ostrich fears a danger threatening her egg, she immediately digs into the sand to hide the egg, then "tadhoo" (flattens) the earth above it, so that it would not be seen by the vultures of the air who are always in search of such a delicacy for their next meal. Therefore, the word "al-udhu'wa" is used as a name of the ostrich egg since it is something (with the sand) flattened (over it). That is where the name came from. The Arabic dictionary never states that the verb "da'ha" means "made round" or "made in the shape of the egg of an ostrich".

015.019
YUSUFALI: And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.
PICKTHAL: And the earth have We spread out, and placed therein firm hills, and caused each seemly thing to grow therein.
SHAKIR: And the earth-- We have spread it forth and made in it firm mountains and caused to grow in it of every suitable thing.

Here, Ihsan has been arguing that carpet means hospitality and has nothing to do with shape. It's the whole basis for his argument. And yet, we find it as nothing but an additional commentary by Yusuf Ali only, and not by the other two.

Ibn Kathir
(16. And indeed, We have put the big stars in the heaven and We beautified it for the beholders. ) (17. And We have guarded it (near heaven) from every outcast Shaytan (devil).) (18. Except him (devil) who steals the hearing, then he is pursued by a clear flaming fire.) (19. And We have spread out the earth, and have placed firm mountains in it, and caused all kinds of things to grow in it, in due proportion.) (20. And in it We have provided means of living, for you and for those whom you provide not.)

[تَبَارَكَ الَّذِى جَعَلَ فِى السَّمَآءِ بُرُوجاً]

(Blessed be He Who has placed the big stars in the heavens.) [25:61] `Atiyah Al-`Awfi said: "Buruj here refers to sentinel fortresses.'' He made the "shooting stars'' to guard it against the evil devils who try to listen to information conveyed at the highest heights. If any devil breaches it and advances hoping to listen, a clear "shooting star'' comes to him and destroys him........

Then Allah mentions His creation of the earth and how He spread it out, and the firm mountains, valleys, lands and sands that he has placed in it, and the plants and fruits that He causes to grow in their appropriate locations.

071.019
YUSUFALI: "'And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out),
PICKTHAL: And Allah hath made the earth a wide expanse for you
SHAKIR: And Allah has made for you the earth a wide expanse,

Here again, only YusufAli adds the carpet bit. I don't think i would be trying Ihsan's angle.

Ibn Kathir

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=71&tid=55394

[وَاللَّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُمُ الاٌّرْضَ بِسَاطاً ]

(And Allah has made for you the earth a wide expanse.) meaning, He spread it out, leveled it, settled it, and stabilized it with firm and lofty mountains.

[لِّتَسْلُكُواْ مِنْهَا سُبُلاً فِجَاجاً

051.048
YUSUFALI: And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!
PICKTHAL: And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!
SHAKIR: And the earth, We have made it a wide extent; how well have We then spread (it) out.

Ibn Kathir
48. And We have made the earth a Firash; how excellent spreader (thereof) are We!

[وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ]

(Verily, We are able to extend the vastness of space thereof.) means, `We made it vast and We brought its roof higher without pillars to support it, and thus it is hanging independently.'

[وَالاٌّرْضَ فَرَشْنَـهَا]

(And We have made the earth a Firash), meaning, `We have made it a resting place for the created,'

[فَنِعْمَ الْمَـهِدُونَ]

078.006
YUSUFALI: Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,
PICKTHAL: Have We not made the earth an expanse,
SHAKIR: Have We not made the earth an even expanse?

Geez. That's enough for now. I'm out of breath. Have I satisfactorily answered your questions as to where I get this from now? So what about my very simple question? You could answer it in one sentence. Shees, and then some. I hate it when people try to be coy. It's not clever in the least.

Ron

14th July 2007, 15:41

Arnold,

I've said what I believe to be the meaning of dahaha at least 6 different times on this forum. This is what I mean about you not reading Here's the 7th. I agree with the meaning that this link says it means. It seems like they know Arabic and have a degree of integrity.
You see, there you go again. I asked you a simple question and you reply with links. I asked you what it means. Don't give me a link just tell me what it means and if you'd like then you can tell me what your source is. But I simply want you to tell me what it means. Do you or do you not know what it means?

Here are the other verses where it refers to spreading and flattening when referring to the creation of the earth and tafsir. I don't know what else you could ask for.
Now you want to get into another word before we've even got past dahaha. Let's focus on that before you get all mixed up. Just simply answer the question, what does dahaha mean?

I look forward to your reply without any evasive extras.

Arnold

14th July 2007, 15:58

Arnold,

You see, there you go again. I asked you a simple question and you reply with links. I asked you what it means. Don't give me a link just tell me what it means and if you'd like then you can tell me what your source is. But I simply want you to tell me what it means. Do you or do you not know what it means?

Now you want to get into another word before we've even got past dahaha. Let's focus on that before you get all mixed up. Just simply answer the question, what does dahaha mean?

I look forward to your reply without any evasive extras.

How can I tell you what dahaha means when I don't speak arabic and have to rely on sources? Do you want to know what I think? I think it means just what the translators said it means.

079.030
YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);
PICKTHAL: And after that He spread the earth,
SHAKIR: And the earth, He expanded it after that.

Why should I think it means anything else?

Ron

14th July 2007, 17:40

Arnold,

How can I tell you what dahaha means when I don't speak arabic and have to rely on sources?
So what are you arguing about?

Do you want to know what I think?
Sure.

I think it means just what the translators said it means.
You provided three translations; two of them say "extended" and the other says "spread." If this is what you think it means where is the issue of flat?

Why should I think it means anything else?
Do you have a sentence in mind?

Arnold

14th July 2007, 19:36

Arnold,

So what are you arguing about?

I think the Quran points to a flat earth, and it most certainly doesn't point to anything remotely like a round one, and i am explaining why.

You provided three translations;

And you haven't provided any.

two of them say "extended" and the other says "spread." If this is what you think it means where is the issue of flat?

079:030

079:030 Khan And after that He spread the earth;

079:030 Maulana And the earth, He cast it after that.

079:030 Pickthal And after that He spread the earth,

079:030 Rashad He made the earth egg-shaped.

079:030 Sarwar After this, He spread out the earth,

079:030 Shakir And the earth, He expanded it after that.

079:030 Sherali And the earth, along with it, HE has spread forth.

079:030 Yusufali And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);

Ibn Kathir
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=79&tid=56986

30. And after that He spread the earth,
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=79&tid=56986
[رَفَعَ سَمْكَهَا فَسَوَّاهَا ]

(He raised its height, and has perfected it.) meaning, He made it a lofty structure, vast in its space, with equal sides, and adorned with stars at night and in the darkness. Then Allah says,

[وَأَغْطَشَ لَيْلَهَا وَأَخْرَجَ ضُحَـهَا ]

(Its night He covers and He brings out its forenoon.) meaning, He made its night dark and extremely black, and its day bright, luminous, shining and clear. Ibn `Abbas said, "He did Aghtasha of its night means that He made it dark.'' Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr and a large group have said this as well. In reference to Allah's statement,

[وَأَخْرَجَ ضُحَـهَا]

(And He brings out its forenoon.) meaning, He illuminated its day. Then Allah says,

[وَالاٌّرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ دَحَـهَا ]

(And after that He spread the earth,) He explains this statement by the statement that follows it,

[أَخْرَجَ مِنْهَا مَآءَهَا وَمَرْعَـهَا ]

(And brought forth therefrom its water and its pasture.) It already has been mentioned previously in Surat Ha Mim As-Sajdah that the earth was created before the heaven was created, but it was only spread out after the creation of the heaven. This means that He brought out what was in it with a forceful action. This is the meaning of what was said by Ibn `Abbas and others, and it was the explanation preferred by Ibn Jarir. In reference to the statement of Allah,

If we're still not sure, maybe we can look at another verse that talks of the same exact thing

088:020 Khan And at the earth, how it is spread out?

088:020 Maulana And the earth, how it is spread out?

088:020 Pickthal And the earth, how it is spread?

088:020 Rashad And the earth and how it is built.

088:020 Sarwar and how the earth is spread out?.

088:020 Shakir And the earth, how it is made a vast expanse?

088:020 Sherali And at the earth, how it is spread out?

088:020 Yusufali And at the Earth, how it is spread out?

When you spread something out, you tend to flatten it. Also, according to what my sources say, dahaha does refer to a flattened depression. Other verses refer to a bed. People don't use terms like this to describe a sphere.

Ron

14th July 2007, 23:56

Arnold,

I think the Quran points to a flat earth, and it most certainly doesn't point to anything remotely like a round one, and i am explaining why.
Now you have stated your case, this is a good step. Your claim is that the Qur'an says that the earth is flat, correct? If so, then please explain in relation to dahaha how this is so. For right now let's just deal with dahaha because I believe we will have a more fruitful conversation. So in light of your statement regarding to the Qur'an can you explain how dahaha means that the earth is flat?

And you haven't provided any.
I don't need to. I'm discussing what you've provided.

If we're still not sure, maybe we can look at another verse that talks of the same exact thing
No, let's just focus on dahaha for now. We'll keep in mind that all the translations you provided refer to "expanding/spreading/vastness" etc...So at this point there is no explicit mention of flat earth in any of the translations, do we agree? Also, do we agree that dahaha does not mean flat or to flatten? If we can agree to that we can move on.

When you spread something out, you tend to flatten it.
You see, this is what I've trying to tell you all along. Here, you are arguing interpretations and translations. You are no longer dealing with the Qur'an per se because you are applying linguistic rules from one language to another. If we can agree that you are not arguing the Qur'an but mere translation then I think we'd be heading in a positive direction. Do you agree? Now let's take a look at the word "spread," is it in fact as narrow as you claim here?

1. To open to a fuller extent or width; stretch: spread out the tablecloth; a bird spreading its wings.

2.To make wider the gap between; move farther apart: spread her fingers.

3.
a. To distribute over a surface in a layer: spread varnish on the steps.
b. To cover with a layer: spread a cracker with butter.
c. To distribute widely: The tornado spread destruction.
d. To make a wide or extensive arrangement of: We spread the bicycle parts out on the floor.
e. To exhibit or display the full extent of: the scene that was spread before us.
f. To prepare (a table) for eating; set.
g. To arrange (food or a meal) on a table.

4.
a. To distribute widely: The tornado spread destruction.
b. To make a wide or extensive arrangement of: We spread the bicycle parts out on the floor.
c. To exhibit or display the full extent of: the scene that was spread before us.
d. To prepare (a table) for eating; set.
e. To arrange (food or a meal) on a table.

5. To cause to become widely seen or known; scatter or disseminate: spread the news; spread the beam of the flashlight.

6.
a. To prepare (a table) for eating; set.
b. To arrange (food or a meal) on a table.

7. To flatten (a rivet end, for example) by pounding.

v. intr.

To be extended or enlarged.
To become distributed or widely dispersed.
To increase in range of occurrence; become known or prevalent over a wide area: The word spread fast.
To be exhibited, displayed, or visible in broad or full extent: the vista spread seemingly to infinity.
To become or admit of being distributed in a layer.
To become separated; be forced farther apart.

n.

The act of spreading.
Dissemination, as of news; diffusion.
An open area of land; an expanse.
A ranch, a farm, or an estate.
Two facing pages of a magazine or newspaper, often with related matter extending across the fold.
A story or advertisement running across two or more columns of a magazine or newspaper.
A position taken in two or more options or futures contracts in order to profit from a change in their relative prices.
The difference between the price asked and bid for a particular security.

An open area of land; an expanse.
A ranch, a farm, or an estate.
Two facing pages of a magazine or newspaper, often with related matter extending across the fold.
A story or advertisement running across two or more columns of a magazine or newspaper.
A position taken in two or more options or futures contracts in order to profit from a change in their relative prices.
The difference between the price asked and bid for a particular security.
The extent or limit to which something is or can be spread; range.
A cloth covering for a bed, table, or other piece of furniture.
Informal An abundant meal laid out on a table.
A food to be spread on bread or crackers.

Two facing pages of a magazine or newspaper, often with related matter extending across the fold.
A story or advertisement running across two or more columns of a magazine or newspaper.
A position taken in two or more options or futures contracts in order to profit from a change in their relative prices.
The difference between the price asked and bid for a particular security.
A difference, as between two figures or totals.

A position taken in two or more options or futures contracts in order to profit from a change in their relative prices.
The difference between the price asked and bid for a particular security.
A number of points offered to equalize the chances of winning in a wager on a competition, usually between sports teams. Also called point spread.
Wingspread.
I have quoted an entire section of the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Only in number 7 is there the connotation of the word spread to mean flatten. Look at all the other examples for the word, they even have examples (in red bold) regarding land. So now that we know that the word spread does not mean flatten. In fact, most of the definitions and their connotations do not indicate so. At this point I think you and I should agree that "spread" in the English language does not mean flatten (unless you use it in the proper context).

Also, according to what my sources say, dahaha does refer to a flattened depression.
Your sources say no such thing. If you are basing it on that website, this is what they say:

Due to the fact that the word conveys the meaning of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”, the Arabs named the place where an ostrich incubates and hatches its egg udhiyy. This is a hollow pit in the ground around 30 to 60 centimeters deep. The Arabic word for this shallow depression is derived from the triliteral root d-h-w. The reason for this is that the ostrich spreads out and flattens this area with its legs before laying its egg in it. The ostrich uses neither a nest nor a burrow for its eggs. From this, we must understand that the word is not used for the egg itself but rather for the flattened depresion where the ostrich deposits its egg.
-source (http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=1084&main_cat_id=31)
While I may not agree with this explanation (mostly because it may cause confusion, how does one flatten a depression? I think they were trying to indicate smoothing out). The point of what they were saying was that the action of the ostrich of "spreading/scattering/scratching" the ground is dihya and udhiya is the depression in the ground; that is, the nest. If you would like go ahead and use the imagery of a comfortable nest being built as an analogy for the nest we call Mother Earth.

Interestingly enough, you said your sources stated that dahaha "flattened depression." Do they really say that or are you trying to pull one over on us? Let's see:

In any case, verse 30 of Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât – that mentions the verb dahâ in reference to the Earth – is not discussing the shape of the Earth at all. It cannot be used as proof that the Earth is flat or round or egg-shaped. The verse is silent on the matter. And Allah knows best.

That's the same source...your source. But you have misrepresented their position. I don't know if it's intentional, but I hope you admit your mistake.

Other verses refer to a bed.
We'll get to all the verses in due time. For now I think we are closer than before.

People don't use terms like this to describe a sphere.
But you already know now that dahaha is not related to a sphere, your own source said so.

I look forward to putting dahaha past us and moving on to the other words. I think there is ample evidence here both in English and Arabic that clarify that the Qur'an is not referring to any shape (not spherical and not flat). Anyone stating so is incorrect and should be corrected. We agree don't we?

Arnold

15th July 2007, 00:42

Arnold,

Now you have stated your case, this is a good step.

Like it wasn't obvious anyway? Oh please. ((eyes roll))

Your claim is that the Qur'an says that the earth is flat, correct?

It strongly indicates it across multiple situations and gives us not one indication of roundness. Is that precise enough for you? The author of the Quran does not think the earth is spherical, but rather spread out and hence flattened out.

If so, then please explain in relation to dahaha how this is so.

Because the Islamic article I read indicated that dahaha involved spreading out, flattening out, leveling out etc.... and there are many other verses that seem to suggest the same sort of thing. All these verses I posted and you tried to ignore and invalidate as not relevant at this time. I posted them for a reason and you ignored them for a reason.

For right now let's just deal with dahaha because I believe we will have a more fruitful conversation.

If we get into gray areas, it is right to consult other verses that speak of the same exact thing. You're not being coy nor clever, so don't bother.

So in light of your statement regarding to the Qur'an can you explain how dahaha means that the earth is flat?

Yes. I believe that one of the most likely conclusions that one can make about an object that is being spread out, is that it is being flattened to the extent that it is spread. Spheres are created in almost the opposite fashion, where things aren't spread, but rather brought together or rolled together, none of which we see in the least.

No, let's just focus on dahaha for now. We'll keep in mind that all the translations you provided refer to "expanding/spreading/vastness" etc...So at this point there is no explicit mention of flat earth in any of the translations, do we agree? Also, do we agree that dahaha does not mean flat or to flatten? If we can agree to that we can move on.

No, we do not agree because the article I posted does not agree with you. Shall I quote again for further clarity?

Due to the fact that the word conveys the meaning of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”, the Arabs named the place where an ostrich incubates and hatches its egg udhiyy. This is a hollow pit in the ground around 30 to 60 centimeters deep. The Arabic word for this shallow depression is derived from the triliteral root d-h-w. The reason for this is that the ostrich spreads out and flattens this area with its legs before laying its egg in it. The ostrich uses neither a nest nor a burrow for its eggs.

From this, we must understand that the word is not used for the egg itself but rather for the flattened depresion where the ostrich deposits its egg.

You see

No, you don't see. Or maybe you do, and that's what all this counter intuitive twisting and gyrations are about.

this is what I've trying to tell you all along. Here, you are arguing interpretations and translations. You are no longer dealing with the Qur'an per se because you are applying linguistic rules from one language to another.

Don't you think the people in this article I posted know Arabic and researched this? Diversion denied. Try something else. This is a fun game.

If we can agree that you are not arguing the Qur'an but mere translation then I think we'd be heading in a positive direction.

Well, we cannot agree on that, and if you think I'm saying the wrong understanding of dahaha, then you need to take it up with the people in that website, and they'll obviously tell you different, and tell you why you are wrong, which they already have, and you ignore. They didn't just make the claim, they explained it. so refute it or stop questioning it.

Do you agree?

No. you've gotten nowhere. and don't blame me, because I've explained precisely why you've gotten nowhere and it is indeed correct.

Now let's take a look at the word "spread," is it in fact as narrow as you claim here?

I have quoted an entire section of the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Only in number 7 is there the connotation of the word spread to mean flatten. Look at all the other examples for the word, they even have examples (in red bold) regarding land. So now that we know that the word spread does not mean flatten<snip>

Wrong. A consequence of a physical spreading out is flattening of the object being spread, but the dictionary is not supposed to mention consequences of said word, only what the word means. Nice try though. Denied.

In fact, most of the definitions and their connotations do not indicate so. At this point I think you and I should agree that "spread" in the English language does not mean flatten (unless you use it in the proper context).

Nope. See above. Answered definitively and without question. Sorry you didn't expect your post to go this way. Sorry you didn't think of these things. Not my fault.

Your sources say no such thing. If you are basing it on that website, this is what they say:

What? Ridiculous. Quoted verses and tafsir are quoted verse and tafsir. This is sounding desperate or something.

Due to the fact that the word conveys the meaning of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”, the Arabs named the place where an ostrich incubates and hatches its egg udhiyy. This is a hollow pit in the ground around 30 to 60 centimeters deep. The Arabic word for this shallow depression is derived from the triliteral root d-h-w. The reason for this is that the ostrich spreads out and flattens this area with its legs before laying its egg in it. The ostrich uses neither a nest nor a burrow for its eggs. From this, we must understand that the word is not used for the egg itself but rather for the flattened depresion where the ostrich deposits its egg.
-source (http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=1084&main_cat_id=31)
While I may not agree with this explanation (mostly because it may cause confusion, how does one flatten a depression?

It creates a depression. These are dumb questions. Shows you're trying any angle or question you can think of, but there just isn't really any good angle.

I think they were trying to indicate smoothing out)

So you mean it was indicating the smoothing out of the land, but not the spreading and flattening of the earth itself. Even though it didn't say land, dirt....but said earth instead, let's entertain this for a moment. So what you are saying, is that the land had big hills or mountains, which would make the land very unlevel, but Allah leveled the mountains and hills out, and then, turned around and added mountains. See why that doesn't work? Why didn't you think of that?

The point of what they were saying was that the action of the ostrich of "spreading/scattering/scratching" the ground is dihya and udhiya is the depression in the ground; that is, the nest. If you would like go ahead and use the imagery of a comfortable nest being built as an analogy for the nest we call Mother Earth.

I quoted whwere they said the action of flattening, leveling etc...., but apparently, you just want to ignore that. No surprise.

Interestingly enough, you said your sources stated that dahaha "flattened depression." Do they really say that or are you trying to pull one over on us? Let's see:

In any case, verse 30 of Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât – that mentions the verb dahâ in reference to the Earth – is not discussing the shape of the Earth at all. It cannot be used as proof that the Earth is flat or round or egg-shaped. The verse is silent on the matter. And Allah knows best.

I've already been through this with everybody else here. If it's the meaning of the word, there is less flexibility and they need to be honest to uphold their reputation. If it's an entire phrase, then there's a lot more flexibility. You don't think these people were going to go so far as to say that the Quran says the earth is flat do you? That's impossible for any Muslim mind. So they do the scholarly thing and admit what the word really means, and then try to whisk the issue away completely by saying the Quran doesn't say anything about the shape of the earth (a wise thing to do). What's so hard to understand about that? Why did you even need to ask? It's common sense.

That's the same source...your source. But you have misrepresented their position. I don't know if it's intentional, but I hope you admit your mistake.

Sure, once you show me. But you haven't. You've blown smoke at me so far.

We'll get to all the verses in due time. For now I think we are closer than before.

Still think that? Sorry if the grand design isn't working as planned. Like I said, people that think they're coy and clever bother me. Especially when they're not.

But you already know now that dahaha is not related to a sphere, your own source said so.

Right.

I look forward to putting dahaha past us and moving on to the other words.

Sorry, but you didn't see the holes in what you were saying. You need to consider it more thoroughly before offering it. But I would be more than happy to move on to the other verses, because they support my position as well.

I think there is ample evidence here both in English and Arabic that clarify that the Qur'an is not referring to any shape (not spherical and not flat). Anyone stating so is incorrect and should be corrected. We agree don't we?

Not in the least. Sorry. Hey, at least I took the time to tell you precisely why. What else can someone do?

Ron

15th July 2007, 01:22

Arnold,

Like it wasn't obvious anyway? Oh please. ((eyes roll))
You should really get that checked.

It strongly indicates it across multiple situations and gives us not one indication of roundness. Is that precise enough for you? The author of the Quran does not think the earth is spherical, but rather spread out and hence flattened out.
I think your argument at this point has flattened out. Again, we have to keep adding to your vocabulary: "nest" "ditch" and now "spread."

Because the Islamic article I read indicated that dahaha involved spreading out, flattening out, leveling out etc.... and there are many other verses that seem to suggest the same sort of thing. All these verses I posted and you tried to ignore and invalidate as not relevant at this time. I posted them for a reason and you ignored them for a reason.
You can't admit that dahaha does not relate to shape so you're pulling on anything, it's not working. I didn't ignore anything, I'm addressing each point one by one. I don't think you can handle it so why don't you just quit as you wanted to earlier.

If we get into gray areas, it is right to consult other verses that speak of the same exact thing. You're not being coy nor clever, so don't bother.
There are no gray areas. We are discussing a word and all its definitions. I neither need to be coy or clever with you, that would be crediting yourself too much.

Don't you think the people in this article I posted know Arabic and researched this? Diversion denied. Try something else. This is a fun game.
They know Arabic? How do you know that? Besides, what is their definition of dahaha, is it flat? Is it flat earth? Or to they make it explicitly clear that dahaha does not even relate to shape? Don't be so childish in playing games, either have a discussion or just ramble to defend your basless position.

No. you've gotten nowhere. and don't blame me, because I've explained precisely why you've gotten nowhere and it is indeed correct.
Notice how you've avoided just about every question and point? It's too bad we're right back where we started...you learning a few English words and having imaginary friends that know Arabic.

Wrong. A consequence of a physical spreading out is flattening of the object being spread, but the dictionary is not supposed to mention consequences of said word, only what the word means. Nice try though. Denied.
I think we're going to create a new dictionary for you, "Arnold's Dictionary of the Made Up Language." The words "nest," "ditch," and "spread" will be blank of course till you learn what they are.

Nope. See above. Answered definitively and without question. Sorry you didn't expect your post to go this way. Sorry you didn't think of these things. Not my fault.
You are desperately trying to be witty and it is so apparent that it is almost saddening. Just be yourself and have an honest discussion; you've gone so far as to refute the dictionary...what more can one say?

What? Ridiculous. Quoted verses and tafsir are quoted verse and tafsir. This is sounding desperate or something.
Re-read what I wrote. You're not even comprehending. Your sources say dahaha means spreading, expansion, vastness...no where do they say anything about the word meaning flat in shape...you are arguing against your own sources. Your aruging with everyone...now even yourself.

It creates a depression. These are dumb questions. Shows you're trying any angle or question you can think of, but there just isn't really any good angle.
Wait, now flattening creates a depression? I think we have a new entry for your dictionary. Your angle is that you make up the language as you go. It's really not the wisest thing to do.

So you mean it was indicating the smoothing out of the land, but not the spreading and flattening of the earth itself. Even though it didn't say land, dirt....but said earth instead, let's entertain this for a moment. So what you are saying, is that the land had big hills or mountains, which would make the land very unlevel, but Allah leveled the mountains and hills out, and then, turned around and added mountains. See why that doesn't work? Why didn't you think of that?
You're just being silly now. Dahaha relates to the expanse of the earth in that verse, the earth was spread for life. Don't make up theories.

I quoted whwere they said the action of flattening, leveling etc...., but apparently, you just want to ignore that. No surprise.
I quoted it and it is clear. The link is there. Stop being deceptive.

I've already been through this with everybody else here. If it's the meaning of the word, there is less flexibility and they need to be honest to uphold their reputation. If it's an entire phrase, then there's a lot more flexibility. You don't think these people were going to go so far as to say that the Quran says the earth is flat do you? That's impossible for any Muslim mind. So they do the scholarly thing and admit what the word really means, and then try to whisk the issue away completely by saying the Quran doesn't say anything about the shape of the earth (a wise thing to do). What's so hard to understand about that? Why did you even need to ask? It's common sense.
Wait, they tell you what the word means and explain the verse and because of your preconceived notions you want to fault them for not saying what you want them to say...that's pretty unwise of you to suggest.

Still think that? Sorry if the grand design isn't working as planned. Like I said, people that think they're coy and clever bother me. Especially when they're not.
Of course you're bothered. Why wouldn't you be?

Sorry, but you didn't see the holes in what you were saying. You need to consider it more thoroughly before offering it. But I would be more than happy to move on to the other verses, because they support my position as well.
Too bad you can't show me the holes.

Not in the least. Sorry. Hey, at least I took the time to tell you precisely why. What else can someone do?
Be honest. And maybe open a dictionary.

Arnold

15th July 2007, 01:37

Arnold,

You should really get that checked.

I think your argument at this point has flattened out. Again, we have to keep adding to your vocabulary: "nest" "ditch" and now "spread."

You can't admit that dahaha does not relate to shape so you're pulling on anything, it's not working.

It involves flattening. leveling. that's what the article said, but you ignore it.

I didn't ignore anything, I'm addressing each point one by one. I don't think you can handle it so why don't you just quit as you wanted to earlier.

Why would you want me to?

They know Arabic? How do you know that? Besides, what is their definition of dahaha, is it flat? Is it flat earth? Or to they make it explicitly clear that dahaha does not even relate to shape? Don't be so childish in playing games, either have a discussion or just ramble to defend your basless position.

They tells us that dahaha involves spreading, leveling and flattening

Notice how you've avoided just about every question and point?

I answer every three sentences you post, so what are you talking about?

It's too bad we're right back where we started...you learning a few English words and having imaginary friends that know Arabic.

I don't think you know Arabic very weell yourself. Just a guess. You sure haven't displayed it. In fact, you haven't said much of anything, except how you object to what I say. That's all. Pretty funny that you think nobody would notice.

I think we're going to create a new dictionary for you, "Arnold's Dictionary of the Made Up Language." The words "nest," "ditch," and "spread" will be blank of course till you learn what they are.

So what. The article says it involves spreading, flattening and leveling.

You are desperately trying to be witty and it is so apparent that it is almost saddening. Just be yourself and have an honest discussion; you've gone so far as to refute the dictionary...what more can one say?

I haven't refuted the dictionary. The dictionary says spread out as well, and flattening is the consequence of spreading out

Re-read what I wrote. You're not even comprehending. Your sources say dahaha means spreading, expansion, vastness...no where do they say anything about the word meaning flat in shape...you are arguing against your own sources. Your aruging with everyone...now even yourself.

No, the article I posted say spreading, flattening, leveling.

Wait, now flattening creates a depression? I think we have a new entry for your dictionary. Your angle is that you make up the language as you go. It's really not the wisest thing to do.

According the the article, the Ostrich flattens the bottom of the pit. But there is an anti Islamic source that actually says that it's talking about when the egg is threatened, the ostrich digs a pit, puts the egg in it, and then flattens the dirt out over top of it to hide it from predators. Either explanation can fit my point.

You're just being silly now. Dahaha relates to the expanse of the earth in that verse, the earth was spread for life. Don't make up theories.

What does spread for life mean? How does spreading the earth out cause life?

Wait, they tell you what the word means and explain the verse and because of your preconceived notions you want to fault them for not saying what you want them to say...that's pretty unwise of you to suggest.

No. I simply explained that it is impossible for them to outright admit an error of the Quran, so the wisest thing to do is to get rid of the issue all together by saying that the Quran makes no comment about the shape of the earth.

Too bad you can't show me the holes.

I did, left and right, and you didn't answer them very well.

Arnold

15th July 2007, 15:44

If I remember correctly, you said something about no definition for spread that mentions flattening. but that's not true. Here's what I found
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spread

spread /sprɛd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spred] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, spread, spread·ing, noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. to draw, stretch, or open out, esp. over a flat surface, as something rolled or folded (often fol. by out).
2. to stretch out or unfurl in the air, as folded wings, a flag, etc. (often fol. by out).
3. to distribute over a greater or a relatively great area of space or time (often fol. by out): to spread out the papers on the table.
4. to display or exhibit the full extent of; set out in full: He spread the pots on the ground and started hawking his wares.
5. to dispose or distribute in a sheet or layer: to spread hay to dry.
6. to apply in a thin layer or coating: to spread butter on a slice of bread.
7. to overlay or cover with something: She spread the blanket over her knees.
8. to set or prepare (a table), as for a meal.
9. to extend or distribute over a region, place, period of time, among a group, etc.
10. to send out, scatter, or shed in various directions, as sound, light, etc.
11. to scatter abroad; diffuse or disseminate, as knowledge, news, disease, etc.: to spread the word of the gospel.
12. to move or force apart: He spread his arms over his head in surrender.
13. to flatten out: to spread the end of a rivet by hammering.
14. Phonetics.
a. to extend the aperture between (the lips) laterally, so as to reduce it vertically, during an utterance.
b. to delabialize. Compare round (def. 57c), unround.
–verb (used without object)

So it's there. But the real point is still that flattening is frequently a consequence of the spreading, becoming more ball shaped is never a consequence.

ihsan

15th July 2007, 17:10

And who said it was? I merely said that it points to something. Go back and read it. Diversion denied.

You mean language actuall points to something? Eureka!

I know. I'm merely interested in what the imagery points to.

But you already know wha the imagery allegedly points to. If the Quran employs imagery to describe the sky as the roof of a beduoin tent, and the mountains, as pegs, what other possible image for the earth could it use?

And imagery can paint a picture of what it believes to be reality. Analogies quite frequently try to point to reality. Often, they are the short concise way to do it. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and so is the picture that the analogy paints. But it always points to something else. You think it points to one thing, and one thing only, I think it points to either what I say, or both what you and I say, or not what you say, but certainly not what I say. ((chuckle)). You'll need to read that a few times. That was poetic. It could be interpreted 50 different ways.

And imagery can be figurative and not meant to describe a scientific reality. What really is your point? Haven't we been through the discussion about context, and how it defines how an imagery is being employed.

You know what? You're so puffed up, that I can tell you're a phony. Its like the puffer fish. None of this is necessary whatsoever for what we are discussing. It's a diversion. One must add complexity for added flexibility and stretch room. That's all you do, and you probably hate for someone to "peg" you doing this. :giggling: Hasn't anybody ever pegged you for this yet? Pretty obvious to me.

Are you saying my cheeks are as round a puffer fish, and that I have spikes all over my body like a puffer fish? How can you assert such a thing, when you haven't even seen me? Obviously, your imagery is pointing to some 'reality'?

Rather than the floor of the tent. This is getting ridiculous. Does this need to be said or explained? Isn't it obvious?

As I stated before, you lack and skills in appreciation of higher literature. That is just the reality of your state.

Are you actually saying that the verse where the Quran says that Allah prevents heaven from falling on to the earth, was talking about the survival of the beduoin tent? I just don't know at this point, but look at how far out you are starting to get?

I am quite sure you know what it means. Your juyst being rather petty to win an argument.

I don't think I've seen one single fact from you yet, but I raised a few, and yet, I'm the person that doesn't comprehend the facts. Sorry, but you haven't made this work yet, so therefore, for right now...your claim is....DENIED. Check back if you have a legitimate complaint about that.

More opinion.

Or you misunderstood? Oh no. no no no. that's impossible, right?

No, your in denial. This is further substantiated by statement such as:

"Even if it is, it still isn't important to my point anyways."

The very phrase implies that you reject any evidence that doesn't suit your opinion.

I have contended all along, that your interpretation is wrong, but even if it were right, mine would still be correct as well because it is possible for it to conceptually mean two things simultaneously, although I don't believe that to be the case. So even if your meaning WAS true, it still wouldn't negate mine. Get it? Get it? Get it Get it? Get it? Get it now? I think you got it before, but you are trying any little confusion angle you can. That's okay, I'm used to it. Carry on.

It is rather convenient that you always say, "even if your right, doesn't mean I'm wrong".

You claim that the verse is employing imagery, and at the same time, you assert that you don't believe it to be the case. Sio the verse is either employing imagery or it is stating the earth is flat. How can one have a dicussion when you aren't even sure what you believe?

BTW, you really need a class in logic, besides higher literature. Just because it does not necessarily negate yours, does not mean that yours is correct. There are other factors which clearly negate yours, i.e context:

1. The Quran speaks about the sky as being like abeduoin tent, yet beduoin tents were pointy as a result of the pillars that held them up

2. Mountains don't look exactly like tent pegs. In fact, the mountains of desert Arabia were just like huge protruding boulders.

3. The Quran, in other places, calls the earth a couch, as well as employs the imagery of a camel. Neither couches, nor camels are flat objects.

I thought you tried the angle to say it also meant hospitality for it's egg? You are starting to get very shifty and dishonest, and don't think it's going unnoticed. You are slowly painting yourself into a corner.

Who is being shift and dishonest? Notice the very beginning of your statement that is highlighted, "I thought". This clearly means that you ASSUMED, and yet, there is absolutely no evidence from any of points to indicate such an assumption. To me, it looks like your just trying to be shifty. I'ver been asserting from the very beginning that the issue of an ostrich has nothing to do with the earth being spread. The Quran employs imgaery in the verse related to the earth, and the statement about an ostrich spreading dirt over it's eggs is simply a LITERAL statement.

It isn't that hard to grasp.

What do you mean? It refers to what Allah did to create the earth. And, it uses the consistent element of spreading and flattening found in all other analogies where the creation of the earth is brought up.

You do know the difference between a literal statement and a figurative statement. I can employ a verb in one instance, and the employment of the verb in the second instance is totally unrelated to it. The statement related to an ostrich spreading dirt over it's egg has nothing to do with the issue of God spreading the earth like a carpet. It is that simple.

All it simply means is that the two sentences employ the SAME VERB. Other than that, they have nothing to do with each other.

I said you crossed up your analogy. Maybe you're not as bright as I originally thought. Maybe this will never go anywhere. I do believe that ignorance is actually the strongest force in the universe. Just look at history.

No, you just either can't read properly, or just trying to defend your ego yet again.

Again, we're not discussing imagery or what is imagery and what is not. This is just a stupid diversion/dilution/convolution that doesn't work. We are discussing what the imagery is pointing to. How many stinkin' times do I have to repeat that? Why are you so insistent about ignoring me when I say that so many times? Why do you need to preserve that angle? Drop it. It's been invalidated. Try something else. Thank you.

Actually, we are. One can employ imagery and not mean it in a literal sense. I keep telling you to open up a dictionary. I keep pointing to you various verses in the Quran that employ imagery and never use this imagery in the sense of scientific terminology. We already discussed the issue of literary inversion.

Just by saying something is invalidated does not mean it is invalidated.

((chuckle chuckle)). Sorry. Excuse me while I don't give you your due respect by laughing.

Is this similar to a LMAO statement...

First of all, it's her egg not his, but no biggie. And secondly, it most certainly IS employing imagery. Are we supposed to literally think that a giant ostrich egg cleared the necessary space for the earth? So how can this not be imagery. Again, as I repeatedly tell you, time and time and time and time again, it's not the fact that it's imagery, it's what it is trying to point to. But you keep trying to repeat that it is imagery (something we both agree on) maybe as some sort of diversion or something. I don't know.

An ostrich spreads dirt over it's egg is a literal statement, and is not employing imagery. It is a statement of fact. Your english skills are so pathetic, it is unbelieveable. And I mean it in a purely observational sense.

Read above. What the hell does an ostrich pit have to do with the creation of the earth unless the Quran was employing imagery?

The Quran never refers to an ostrich pit. What are you talking about? I told you like 100 hundred posts ago to forget the ostrich. I keep telling you the only relation between the two situations is that they employ the same verb.

"He ran two hundred miles."
"He ran for president."

The only similarity between the two sentences is the employment of the same verb, yet the employment of the same verb does not constitue the same meaning.

This is like high-school english 101 I am teaching you.

So what is the imagery pointing at? That's the question that's on the table, not any of these distractive diversions you are trying.

Uh, that God is a generous host, and has provided men with comfortab;le living, and also provided men with all sorts of sustenance. SO why is man going to disrespect him by not showing gratitude.

It uses both the imagery of a carpet spreading out and flattening out (as the words actually say without the word "honoring" or "hospitality" mentioned), and then, it picks a totally different analogy and STILL makes sure it incorporates notions of spreading out and flattening out. And, it gives no analogies about how the earth was created without the concepts of spreading and flattening. What more do you need? Well, I know. Nothing will suffice, no matter what. I understand and realize that. I would normally start into my ridicule routine at this point, because you're becoming deserving of it with the ridiculous reaches you are making, but I'll get booted. But it certainly isn't as if you don't deserve it. You're an invention factory.

Actually, I don't understand what your trying to say, because it is absurd. The Quran simply states God spread out the earth like a carpet for men. It than follows that up with telling men how he has granted sustenance for them as they sit on the carpet. What does covering an egg up have to do with this situation?

A couch IS flat. Were ancient couches spheres? What's the matter with you?

A couch is in the shape of a rectangle. Further, it's cushions have round edges. It is NOT flat. It is that simple.

As far as me bringing up the earth as a couch, I think it was either YOU or someone else that brought that up.

Of course I brought it up. Where di I seay I didn't bring it up? The point is that the Quran employs another image in describing the earth, yet it isnm't referring to the earth in a scientific sense. Do the math...

I merely acknowledged it and incorporated it into my point, because it actually reinforced it. As far as shoulders go. Again, it was someone ELSE who originally introduced this. Are you okay?

Of course I brought it up. What does this have to do with the discussion. It isn't even a point of argument. The point is that shoulders are ROUND, they are not flat.

No. Anytime throughout history, even greek literature, shoulders always denoted holding something up. But see, here's the difference. Anybody from any age of mankind, even thousands of years ago, knew that the earth didn't have shoulders. That's also like saying that heaven is like a mustard seed or "the world is but a stage". Anybody from any age would have clearly taken both of those as completely. 100% figurative and not pointing to any true physical reality. But when you tell a 7th century person that the sky is like or similar to a canopy, they're going to visualize something similar to a canopy because they had no idea what the sky really was, and canopy denotes a cover of some sort, which is where we get the references to being torn apart during the end days, and the day and night wrapping around like a turban. Put that together with the Arab pagan belief that the sky was 7 domes or coverings, and it's immistakable.

Of course, and the Arabs understood that the earth wasn't a giant carpet. They also knew taht the roof wasn't the roof of a beduoin tent. They also knew that the ountains weren't pegs that held up the sky. They understood this all as imagery.

You still haven't given your proof that the Arabs considered the sky as being of seven domes. You just keep asserting what they believed without giving any evidence. Now you've brought Greeks into the picture, as if your knowledge about the Greeks is impressive. You tend to keep making things up as you go along, so excuse me, if I take your statements from now on with anything other than a grain of salt.

Right. I don't know why the Quran bothered to go all into the cosmos, but it did. And I think that was the fatal error that Muhammad didn't realize at the time. He meant to be the person of the NT that would explain all things, so he had a tendency to try and explain everything, even if he didn't understand it. He had no idea that we were going to find out the truth about those beautiful stars that shot across the sky (shooting stars) and find out that they not only don't pursue the jinn, they don't even pursue anything and they don't even shoot across the sky and they have nothing to do with the stars (lamps) that adorned the lowest heaven.

Based upon your ability to look into the unseen?

First of all, I told you there was an article I have to find. But I really don't need to. My larger point really doesn't have to mean that the sky is the shape of a dome. It just needs to be that the sky was indeed looked at as a physical covering of some sort. But again, you want to focus on a side issue to change the direction. Sorry. doesn't work. Denied. Try another angle. I'm sure you will.

You mean the heavens is some physical object of some SORT? Wow... I need to publish the results that Arnold has found out thart the Arabs believes the heavens was a physical object of some sort with bodies moving around in it.

ignored.

Surprising you keep ignoring points that clearly refute you.

Why are you suggesting that they need to build a structure with 7 domes on top of each other to prove that they believed that the sky consisted of 7 domes? This is a very stupid attempt, Anyway, it's irrelevant, as this is an historical fact that they did indeed believe this. don't blame me, blame someone else..

Because seven domes, one on top of the other, would be poor architecture. ANy common person let alone an Arab would understand this as an architecyural monstrosity. But hey, it's not me that is asserting this is what the Arabs allegedly believe.

There's a hadeeth that I've been meaning to find that talks about the sky being like the dome of a mosques and the stars being like lamps that hang from it. There is nothing in that hadeeth that contradicts the Quran in the least

So we are supopsoe to believe you withoiut providing sources. Didn't we already go through a historical discussion about how domes weren't even employed in masjids until well after the death of the Prophet. Yet, you keep parroting these alleged facts as if they are true, without even providing your sources. Maybe the problem is you and your inabaility to keep any of your ideas staright in your head.

And like I said. This is an excuse, and I don't buy it, and I'll bet most, objective, thinking people wouldn't buy it either. Do you make weird, unlikely excuses and reaches like this in normal affairs of life, or is it just in the instance of defending the Quran any way that you can think of?

Your appreciation of hgiher literature needs some real work. Especially considering you think parables about 'mystics' waking up, and timelessness and yada yada yada are worthy posts for heart-softeners.

ihsan

15th July 2007, 17:13

If I remember correctly, you said something about no definition for spread that mentions flattening. but that's not true. Here's what I found
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spread

spread /sprɛd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spred] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, spread, spread·ing, noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. to draw, stretch, or open out, esp. over a flat surface, as something rolled or folded (often fol. by out).
2. [B]to stretch out or unfurl in the air, as folded wings, a flag, etc. (often fol. by out).
3. to distribute over a greater or a relatively great area of space or time (often fol. by out): to spread out the papers on the table.
4. to display or exhibit the full extent of; set out in full: He spread the pots on the ground and started hawking his wares.
5. to dispose or distribute in a sheet or layer: to spread hay to dry.
6. to apply in a thin layer or coating: to spread butter on a slice of bread.
7. to overlay or cover with something: She spread the blanket over her knees.
8. to set or prepare (a table), as for a meal.
9. to extend or distribute over a region, place, period of time, among a group, etc.
10. to send out, scatter, or shed in various directions, as sound, light, etc.
11. to scatter abroad; diffuse or disseminate, as knowledge, news, disease, etc.: to spread the word of the gospel.
12. to move or force apart: He spread his arms over his head in surrender.
13. to flatten out: to spread the end of a rivet by hammering.
14. Phonetics.
a. to extend the aperture between (the lips) laterally, so as to reduce it vertically, during an utterance.
b. to delabialize. Compare round (def. 57c), unround.
–verb (used without object)

So it's there. But the real point is still that flattening is frequently a consequence of the spreading, becoming more ball shaped is never a consequence.

I think we all know that one of the meanings of 'spread' is to flatten out.

Rhetorically it can be used in another instance, as high-lighted above. And you would wonder why God immediately follows the spreading of the earth with feeding men all types of sustenance?

Ron

15th July 2007, 17:36

Arnold,

It involves flattening. leveling. that's what the article said, but you ignore it.
The article says and I quoted them explicitly that dahaha is not related to any shape.

Why would you want me to?
I don't want you to. You stated you didn't want to continue if I didn't comply with how you wanted things. So, please don't quit, stick around.

They tells us that dahaha involves spreading, leveling and flattening
Even if the word dahaha meant flattening, and it doesn't, you have only chosen this connotation and are running with it. Much like the English word "spread" you're picking the one word which they used to try to prove your point. Can you show me one Arabic dictionary or hadith or any realiable source that dahaha means flat? All you need is one. An internet website is not what I'm looking for, it could be on the net but it has to be from a realiable source. Just one.

I answer every three sentences you post, so what are you talking about?
I won't even argue this point. It is clear for anyone who reads this.

I don't think you know Arabic very weell yourself. Just a guess. You sure haven't displayed it. In fact, you haven't said much of anything, except how you object to what I say. That's all. Pretty funny that you think nobody would notice.
Maybe I don't know Arabic very well, maybe I do. But the one thing I didn't do is lie about "my friends" who know Arabic. And I own up to everything I've written but you've distanced yourself from knowing Arabic speaking people and instead searched the net for a site to prove your point, which you haven't accomplished.

So what. The article says it involves spreading, flattening and leveling.
We know what the article says.

I haven't refuted the dictionary. The dictionary says spread out as well, and flattening is the consequence of spreading out
You're making things up. All one has to do is look up in the dictionary. I don't need to argue something so obvious.

According the the article, the Ostrich flattens the bottom of the pit. But there is an anti Islamic source that actually says that it's talking about when the egg is threatened, the ostrich digs a pit, puts the egg in it, and then flattens the dirt out over top of it to hide it from predators. Either explanation can fit my point.
Why don't you look up how an ostrich creates it, then have a discussion about it. It seems that you got your information about nests from the same link. Neither point fits your explanation and we'll see if either is correct.

What does spread for life mean? How does spreading the earth out cause life?
I think it is clear that God established the earth's vastness as a place for life. Much like the nest of an ostrich, the earth is made to foster the life upon it. Don't twist my words.

No. I simply explained that it is impossible for them to outright admit an error of the Quran, so the wisest thing to do is to get rid of the issue all together by saying that the Quran makes no comment about the shape of the earth.
How can you say that the Qur'an has an error when the very source you are using to make your point is against you? Not only that, but what's worse is that you can't verify whether they are right or wrong. You're stuck on their explanation and you're having this argument about it. And now you are arguing just to argue.

I did, left and right, and you didn't answer them very well.
I'll let others be the judge of that, just concentrate on this simple word: dahaha. You still don't know what it means.

Ron

15th July 2007, 17:47

Arnold,

If I remember correctly, you said something about no definition for spread that mentions flattening. but that's not true. Here's what I found
For heaven's sake, this is getting ridiculous. You obviously don't remember correctly. In my post #78 I wrote:

I have quoted an entire section of the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Only in number 7 is there the connotation of the word spread to mean flatten. Look at all the other examples for the word, they even have examples (in red bold) regarding land. So now that we know that the word spread does not mean flatten. In fact, most of the definitions and their connotations do not indicate so. At this point I think you and I should agree that "spread" in the English language does not mean flatten (unless you use it in the proper context).
I hope that clarifies it.

So it's there. But the real point is still that flattening is frequently a consequence of the spreading, becoming more ball shaped is never a consequence.
So now "it's there." Before you said that spread means to flatten, when in fact it is not even in the top definitions. Again, you're off the mark and grabbing at anything.

Do you have a problem with this:

To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy [endureth] for ever. -Psalms 136:6 (KJV)

Or is this ok with you?

Arnold

15th July 2007, 18:15

This word conveys one concept in the Arabic language: that of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”. Allah mentions this to us in the verse to show us something of his providence to us. He explains what he means by stretching the Earth out and smoothing it out in the following verses: “He brought forth from it its water and its pasturage, and He made the mountains firmly fixed.” [Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât : 31-32]

So here, it looks like they're saying saying God spread out the land (not the earth), or flattened it out or smoothed it out, and this is why they say it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth at all. So, according to them, The land of the earth or surface (not the shape of it) was smoothed out, which means all the previous hills and mountains were all leveled out, and then, next, he added mountains. Is this correct?

Arnold

15th July 2007, 18:20

Do you have a problem with this:

To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy [endureth] for ever. -Psalms 136:6 (KJV)

Or is this ok with you?

I would say that most likely it's talking about a flat earth. The Bible even says the sky will be rolled up like a scroll. The Quran says it will be torn. One more example of the sky being a physical covering of some sort. It's rampant. If I didn't know anything about science, even today, in the 21st century, I would look up at the sky and assume it's a covering of some sorts.

Camden202

15th July 2007, 18:32

Do you have a problem with this:

To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy [endureth] for ever. -Psalms 136:6 (KJV)

Or is this ok with you?

Ron,

You should know better than to take one verse and use it in isolation, without context etc. Your comment is not better than a 'University of Cut-and-Paste" special.

Psalm 136

1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good.
His love endures forever.

2 Give thanks to the God of gods.
His love endures forever.

3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords:
His love endures forever.

4 to him who alone does great wonders,
His love endures forever.

5 who by his understanding made the heavens,
His love endures forever.

6 who spread out the earth upon the waters,
His love endures forever.

7 who made the great lights—
His love endures forever.

8 the sun to govern the day,
His love endures forever.

9 the moon and stars to govern the night;
His love endures forever.

10 to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt
His love endures forever.

11 and brought Israel out from among them
His love endures forever.

12 with a mighty hand and outstretched arm;
His love endures forever.

13 to him who divided the Red Sea [a] asunder
His love endures forever.

14 and brought Israel through the midst of it,
His love endures forever.

(NRSV/Eng - "His steadfast love endures forever") (NIV "His love endures forever")

I am not concerned with the Mercy/Love usage, clearly the context remains unchanged.

There... thats better. Now the context is plain to see. Also it should be pointed out that King David wrote this Psalm and it should be seen in its literary context as well as its biblical/theological context.

If you are in doubt Ihsan professes to be an expert in 'higher literature'.

Kind Regards.

Arnold

15th July 2007, 18:35

Arnold,
Maybe I don't know Arabic very well, maybe I do.
Well, wait a second. you continually insisted that I answer this question, but you won't answer it. So what does that say about you?

But the one thing I didn't do is lie about "my friends" who know Arabic.

And I DIDN'T lie and I TOLD YOU why I don't post anything from this person. Nobody would accept it. People like ishan don't even accept my IslamToday link, so what makes you think anybody is going to give credence to one unknown person who happens to know Arabic? Besides, i doulbt the person would even want to bother to come on here.

And I own up to everything I've written but you've distanced yourself from knowing Arabic speaking people and instead searched the net for a site to prove your point, which you haven't accomplished.

And i explained it above and I explained it before. Now, let's talk about how you don't tell us whether to know arabic or not, you don''t clearly tell us what YOU think dahaha means and precisely why, and yet, for the grand finale, I'm the person who avoids and doesn't answer questions. All throughout this entire conversations, it's been nothing but you dictating the demands, and me needing to meet them, while you've done absolutely nothing. I'm not that stupid and my patience with you avoiding my requests is dwindling.

I think it is clear that God established the earth's vastness as a place for life. Much like the nest of an ostrich, the earth is made to foster the life upon it. Don't twist my words.

So after God created the earth, he went back and made it more vast so that it could support life?

How can you say that the Qur'an has an error when the very source you are using to make your point is against you?

No it agrees with my point, then escapes out the back door after that. Anyway, God leveled and flattened the hills and mountains and then added the mountains?

Ron

15th July 2007, 19:21

Arnold,

This word conveys one concept in the Arabic language: that of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”. Allah mentions this to us in the verse to show us something of his providence to us. He explains what he means by stretching the Earth out and smoothing it out in the following verses: “He brought forth from it its water and its pasturage, and He made the mountains firmly fixed.” [Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât : 31-32]

So here, it looks like they're saying saying God spread out the land (not the earth), or flattened it out or smoothed it out, and this is why they say it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth at all. So, according to them, The land of the earth or surface (not the shape of it) was smoothed out, which means all the previous hills and mountains were all leveled out, and then, next, he added mountains. Is this correct?
I don't think you get it. The description is related to the sustence of God. The vastness of the earth is there spread for humanity and all the life that is on it.

I would say that most likely it's talking about a flat earth. The Bible even says the sky will be rolled up like a scroll. The Quran says it will be torn. One more example of the sky being a physical covering of some sort. It's rampant. If I didn't know anything about science, even today, in the 21st century, I would look up at the sky and assume it's a covering of some sorts.
Ever considered that it is your very narrow definition of each word according to what your preconceived notion is that's playing out here?

Well, wait a second. you continually insisted that I answer this question, but you won't answer it. So what does that say about you?
That's funny, you assumed something. Why don't you quote where you asked if I knew the language and I didn't answer. See just as this is wrong so are your posts. You're just too into the arguement to even appreciate the truth.
And I DIDN'T lie and I TOLD YOU why I don't post anything from this person.
Nobody would accept it. People like ishan don't even accept my IslamToday link, so what makes you think anybody is going to give credence to one unknown person who happens to know Arabic? Besides, i doulbt the person would even want to bother to come on here.
Your friends don't need to come here. All you had to do was ask what the word meant according to their knowledge. Then you could ask them what sources they had. They speak Arabic I'm sure they'd have a dictionary or lexicon of sorts...even online. But you didn't do that. You based your opinion on an article which you didn't cite till much later in the conversation and the whole time you've been stuck on that. When asked to provide a dictionary or something reliable you didn't do so. You wanted to go with their usage of the word "flattened" to prove that the Qur'an says the earth is flat but are now pretty much exposed for not knowing what you're talking about. Even the article you used refutes you.

And i explained it above and I explained it before. Now, let's talk about how you don't tell us whether to know arabic or not, you don''t clearly tell us what YOU think dahaha means and precisely why, and yet, for the grand finale, I'm the person who avoids and doesn't answer questions. All throughout this entire conversations, it's been nothing but you dictating the demands, and me needing to meet them, while you've done absolutely nothing. I'm not that stupid and my patience with you avoiding my requests is dwindling.
Your assumptions are becoming more and more absurd. What is dwindling is your attitude and respect for any proper conversation or sharing of information. You have pulled everything you can to muster an argument and in the end we find out that it's all based on an internet article that you cannot verify if it is correct or not. How do you know that dahaha doesn't mean egg-shape...is it because that article says so? It amazes me that you trust it so much, but only for your purposes. You can neither say they are right or wrong but you are trying to bolster your opinion because they used the word "flattened" in describing what an ostrich does. Even when I asked you how an ostrich flattens a hole/ditch you didn't know. JWhen you ask questions I answered, you're just getting frustrated because in reality your argument has dwindled.

So after God created the earth, he went back and made it more vast so that it could support life?
Where in the verse does it say God created the earth and then made it more vast? Please show me. This is quite sad.

No it agrees with my point, then escapes out the back door after that. Anyway, God leveled and flattened the hills and mountains and then added the mountains?
Again, that's blatantly lying. You say the Qur'an says the earth is flat. They say that the Qur'an is not referring to any shape...how on could you possibly make such an impudent remark like it "agrees with your point?"

Ron

15th July 2007, 19:29

Camden202,

You should know better than to take one verse and use it in isolation, without context etc. Your comment is not better than a 'University of Cut-and-Paste" special.
And you should know better than to jump on something you don't even understand. I'm not showing that the Bible says the earth is flat, I'm showing a verse that applies the gratitude for God's blessings of giving us this vast planet to live on. I don't know what your problem is but you should really get it together.

There... thats better. Now the context is plain to see. Also it should be pointed out that King David wrote this Psalm and it should be seen in its literary context as well as its biblical/theological context.
King David wrote them...their part of the Bible are they not? Are they not the inspired word of God? What is your point? Are you just revved up to argue?

If you are in doubt Ihsan professes to be an expert in 'higher literature'.
He says no such thing and your snide remarks are unappreciated. You want to literary matters in relation to the Bible but throw jabs at him if he explains something. You're disingenuous. Next time understand what is being written before you dive head first into what you don't know.

Arnold

15th July 2007, 21:32

Arnold,

I don't think you get it. The description is related to the sustence of God. The vastness of the earth is there spread for humanity and all the life that is on it.]

Spread in what respect and for what reason? I haven't made the connection between spreading and sustenance, even though the two are mentioned in succeeding verses. Why is the spreading out the sustenance? Seems like the rain, pastures, etc....are the sustenance. Are we talking about the land, where it was manicured and leveled out and/or something so that it made it suitable for human existence? If we are, then it gets back to the truth that Allah flattened the land (not the earth) for our sustenance, and then unflattened it by re-adding the mountains.

Ever considered that it is your very narrow definition of each word according to what your preconceived notion is that's playing out here?

Of course that's possible. And all you have to do is to show that in a convincing way, that I can't answer. But I think it's YOU (and alot of Muslims), that are doing the playing around with meaning.

That's funny, you assumed something. Why don't you quote where you asked if I knew the language and I didn't answer. See just as this is wrong so are your posts. You're just too into the arguement to even appreciate the truth.
And I DIDN'T lie and I TOLD YOU why I don't post anything from this person.
Your friends don't need to come here. All you had to do was ask what the word meant according to their knowledge.

That would be irrelevant because he doesn't care about any of this. He's an engineer originally from Iran and then lived in Saudi Arabia. All I was trying to say is that if I get smoke blown at me, I do actually know someone who knows Arabic. But it's much easier and more easily substantiated to simply use internet links. As I told you before, Ihsan has already attacked the validity of my IslamToday link. Go figure, right?

Then you could ask them what sources they had. They speak Arabic I'm sure they'd have a dictionary or lexicon of sorts...even online. But you didn't do that. You based your opinion on an article which you didn't cite till much later in the conversation and the whole time you've been stuck on that.

And I've told you exactly why, now for the fourth time. Because nobody cares about a post where I say "my friend says". Get it? Get it? Get it? People don't even care if it comes from a reputable site if it doesn't meet their needs.

When asked to provide a dictionary or something reliable you didn't do so.
You wanted to go with their usage of the word "flattened" to prove that the Qur'an says the earth is flat but are now pretty much exposed for not knowing what you're talking about. Even the article you used refutes you.

The article acknowledges it's relationship to spreading and flattening. Then, it says it means nothing about shape but provision, with no particularly compelling explanation as to why or how spreading and flattening mean provision, except to create space. But in which manner was the space created? The only alternative seems to be that the article was saying it did not refer to the shape of the earth, but instead, when it referenced something involving spreading, leveling or flattening, it was talking about flattening the land, and not the shape of the earth. What else could it be?

Your assumptions are becoming more and more absurd. What is dwindling is your attitude and respect for any proper conversation or sharing of information. You have pulled everything you can to muster an argument and in the end we find out that it's all based on an internet article that you cannot verify if it is correct or not. How do you know that dahaha doesn't mean egg-shape...is it because that article says so? It amazes me that you trust it so much, but only for your purposes. You can neither say they are right or wrong but you are trying to bolster your opinion because they used the word "flattened" in describing what an ostrich does. Even when I asked you how an ostrich flattens a hole/ditch you didn't know.

What do you mean? How does anything flatten a hole or ditch? It spreads the dirt out and then pats in down. What happens when you pat something down? Why did you even bring this question up? Maybe that's why I didn't answer it. I don't even remember it being asked because I probably skipped it as irrelevant..

When you ask questions I answered, you're just getting frustrated because in reality your argument has dwindled.

Substantiate it. Don't just make the claim, show it. But you can't, so instead, you attempt to simply make the claim. Doesn't work. BTW, I don't know how many questions I've answered of yours, but you still won't tell me where or what the lowest heaven is. Remember that question? That was the deal as far as I understood it back then. It was me first answering one question of yours, and then you answering a question of mine. But when it became your turn, you sidestepped it and said it won't be attempted to be answered until we first fully go all throughout the question that you want to explore. I didn't forget that part.

Where in the verse does it say God created the earth and then made it more vast? Please show me. This is quite sad.

The earth was first created, then the heaven was created, then the earth was spread out and then held stable with the mountain pegs and then sustenance came about through rain and pastures.

Again, that's blatantly lying. You say the Qur'an says the earth is flat. They say that the Qur'an is not referring to any shape...how on could you possibly make such an impudent remark like it "agrees with your point?"

Because in the respect that they acknowledge that it deals with the action of spreading, leveling and flattening, then it does agree with my point. It keeps on freaking me out why the Quran keeps on mentioning stuff like this when it says how it created the earth. And yet, we're not supposed to think any notions of shape whatsoever? If it's talking about splitting the earth for vegetation, then why does it mention that it was made as a wide expanse? Wide expanse seems to refer to size or changing it's shape. Why does the size of the earth have anything to do with how inhabitable it is? It doesn't. But, if you thought a round rock would be problematic in that it's possible to ultimately fall off, and therefore not yet suitable for human existence, with proper stability and proper roads, then, it would be pretty important to level out that rock/ball so that humans can live on it and things can grow, and to put pegs down to keep it from shaking. (BTW, how does one put pegs in a round object?). This is not a stupid interpretation in the least. There's only one thing that makes it stupid. Modern science.

Camden202

16th July 2007, 09:42

He says no such thing ... Next time understand what is being written before you dive head first into what you don't know.

Oh yes he does.... clearly.

Ihsan has given Arnold and myself 'higher literature' lectures in this very thread... you would do well to read them...

As for understanding what is written... I understood it fully. You however decidedly used ONE verse out of the context which it was given.

Clearly to even grasp why that verse states what it does... and cannot be used in isolation (which you clearly attempted to do)... requires those verses around it to give CONTEXT.

I simply 'corrected' what you left out. My observation is well made.

Camden202

16th July 2007, 09:50

Camden202,

And you should know better than to jump on something you don't even understand. I'm not showing that the Bible says the earth is flat, I'm showing a verse that applies the gratitude for God's blessings of giving us this vast planet to live on. I don't know what your problem is but you should really get it together.

King David wrote them...their part of the Bible are they not? Are they not the inspired word of God? What is your point? Are you just revved up to argue?

He says no such thing and your snide remarks are unappreciated. You want to literary matters in relation to the Bible but throw jabs at him if he explains something. You're disingenuous. Next time understand what is being written before you dive head first into what you don't know.

You should know better than to use verses like that in isolation. What is more is if that was your intention... then perhaps you should 'spell it out' next time instead of leaving it as ambigous as you have.

Lets be quite blunt..... you don't appreciate others who are not of Islam quoting Quranic Text out of context.... and you should know that others do not appreciate having THEIR holy books taken out of context. So please.. spare me the lectures and be respectful.

hasan

16th July 2007, 10:36

hasan

16th July 2007, 10:57

It had only been recently discovered also that the Moon spins around on an axis

Arnold

16th July 2007, 11:59

What should be curious to the discerning mind is that Qualified exegetes of the Holy Quran have never stated the Earth was flat or that the Sun had revolved around it. It should be interesting to note that it was common knowledge to Muslims, based on Qualified exegetes of the Holy Quran, that celestial bodies spun around while in Orbit, including the Sun. This knowledge was promulgated by exegetes and jurists like but not limited to al-Dahhak who lived in the 8th century, al- Kalbi in the 9th, al-Razi, in the 12th, Baidawi in the 13th & Asiruddin-i Abhari in the 14th century and Hasret Ibn Abbas who lived in the 7th century, who was a companion of our Beloved Prophet and considered blessed in his exegete of the Holy Quran, said himself that celestial bodies "revolve like a spinning wheel, in a circle.

Are you sure it wasn't talking about their orbits rather than their spin? How?

Let's take a look at the verse that says this.

The famous Ibni Hazm Ali bin Ahmad proved in his book Al-Fasl that the earth was round through ayats and hadiths nine centuries ago. The earth's diameter and inclination angles toward the sun was measured in the deserts of Sinjar and Kufa by Musa bin Shakir's sons, Ahmad and Muhammad, in the time of Khalifa Mamun. The tools for astronomy made by these two brothers are clear documents for the importance which the Muslims of that time laid on knowledge and science. Ahmad died in 265, and Muhammad died in 259 [873 A.D.].

Actually, it was Ptolemy who first calculated the circumference of the earth

The Indian Mulla Qudsi, in his book Asrar-i malakut, collected the meanings which Islamic savants had given to those ayats about the earth, the moon, the sun, the sky and the stars and to this day all fully agree with today's modern discoveries.

The meaning THEY gave. If I knew the earth was round, I would try and give the same meanings they did in order to make the Quran work. But here's a question. If the verses say the moon orbits the earth, then why does it NOT say the sun orbits the earth as well? There's no good distinction made between their orbits. And clearly, it does reference rounded courses, and that does not sound like spinning to me in the least. Courses do not involve spinning, they involve traveling.

However Heliocentricism, the idea espoused by secular humanists as the idea that sprung the renaissance is in fact incorrect. The modern data we have now show that the universe does not revolve around a stationary Sun but that the Sun itself revolves around in its own orbit.

So, the Quran says that both the sun and moon orbit, and we are supposed to believe it meant the moon orbiting the earth, but not the sun orbiting the earth as well? Why? There's no reason given except for modern science. The earth is clearly referenced all over the Quran, but there's never any mention of the concept of galaxies. And yet it's telling us the sun orbits the galaxy and not the earth? And, it tells us that Allah prevents the two's orbits from catching up to each other or outstripping each other? Seems to me that one would only make a statement like this if they thought the two were orbiting in the same general space. Otherwise, the statement has no relevance or real meaning. But if the two are orbiting the same area, then the statement suddenly becomes very meaningful and important. 39:5 references day and night, which obviously deal with the earth, and then, in the same exact verse, it deals with the orbits of the sun and moon, and yet, we're supposed to arbitrarily throw the galaxy in there out of nowhere rather than thinking it's talking about the earth? Not very likely, to say the least.

Here's a hadith:

Bukhari:V4B54N421 "I walked hand in hand with the Prophet when the sun was about to set. We did not stop looking at it. The Prophet asked, ‘Do you know where the sun goes at sunset?' I replied, ‘Allah and His Apostle know better.' He said, ‘It travels until it falls down and prostrates Itself underneath the Throne. The angels who are in charge of the sun prostrate themselves, also. The sun asks permission to rise again. It is permitted. Then it will prostrate itself again but this prostration will not be accepted. The sun then says, "My Lord, where do You command me to rise, from where I set or from where I rose?" Allah will order the sun to return whence it has come and so the sun will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the statement of Allah in the Qur'an.'"

Arnold

16th July 2007, 12:07

It had only been recently discovered also that the Moon spins around on an axis

Where does the Quran tell us the moon spins?

It would have been even a little more important if it told us the earth spins.

Arnold

16th July 2007, 12:10

Oh yes he does.... clearly.

Ihsan has given Arnold and myself 'higher literature' lectures in this very thread... you would do well to read them...

Yes, he makes embarrassing claims that can be avoided if he read the thread. Ishan has most certainly been giving higher literature lessons. It's all over his posts, just like he said that spreading out was meant as a sign of hospitality (rolling out the carpet) and Ron contradicted that and claimed Ihsan never said such a thing. These guys could argue amongst themselves.

Ron

16th July 2007, 12:37

Camden202,

Oh yes he does.... clearly.
Then quote Ihsan where he says he's a literary expert. If you have an ounce of truth in you you will back up your statements. But we know you well enough now on this forum and you don't back much of anything up, you just like to go on tirades.

Ihsan has given Arnold and myself 'higher literature' lectures in this very thread... you would do well to read them...
He explained this to you and even tried to simplify the matter but you either aren't sharp enough or are just refusing to accept any explanation. Because he explains something does not mean he claims to be a literary expert much like when you explain a Biblical verse does not make you a Christian scholar...or are you making this claim?

As for understanding what is written... I understood it fully. You however decidedly used ONE verse out of the context which it was given.
You are so zealous that you are willing to argue a point that I was in support of. I wasn't claiming that the Bible said the earth was flat. This is so ridiculous, you must really have nothing better to do. And by the way, Arnold is the one that says the verse states that the earth is flat I'm surprised you haven't defended your position against him or are you of the mentality my enemies enemy is my friend? Or is it that you cannot intellectually defend it?

Clearly to even grasp why that verse states what it does... and cannot be used in isolation (which you clearly attempted to do)... requires those verses around it to give CONTEXT.
Why don't you give us an exposition of what the verses are about. Let's hear what you have to say.

I simply 'corrected' what you left out. My observation is well made.
You want to argue. You didn't correct anything...because to correct I would have had to have stated something wrong.

You should know better than to use verses like that in isolation. What is more is if that was your intention... then perhaps you should 'spell it out' next time instead of leaving it as ambigous as you have.
When did you get your powers to know peoples' intentions? As for "spelling it out," not everybody needs that done for them. Some people understand a thing without it being spoon fed.

Lets be quite blunt..... you don't appreciate others who are not of Islam quoting Quranic Text out of context.... and you should know that others do not appreciate having THEIR holy books taken out of context. So please.. spare me the lectures and be respectful.
Again, why don't you tell us what the context is and how it is related to the discussion? We are discussing the concept of flat earth, how will your context clarify that the Bible is or isn't speaking about that? Do let us know. In regards to respect I think you should consider how you approach someone about something before jumping all over them about it. If you had simply said something to the effect that you would appreciate that I quote the Bible verse in context, even if the topic didn't necessitate it, then I would have obliged. What happened to being a little nice? Surely it hasn't been lost in Christianity, so why are you acting this way?

Ron

16th July 2007, 12:51

Arnold,

Yes, he makes embarrassing claims that can be avoided if he read the thread. Ishan has most certainly been giving higher literature lessons. It's all over his posts, just like he said that spreading out was meant as a sign of hospitality (rolling out the carpet) and Ron contradicted that and claimed Ihsan never said such a thing. These guys could argue amongst themselves.
That's so sweet, two peas in a pod. Both making false claims about another person. Quote where he claimed he was a literary expert. Then about your other lie, quote where I contradicted his claim. Not only do you fabricate things about the Qur'an but now you're doing it about others right before our eyes.

You can't quote either of those two points but I know you'll figure out a way to argue you by rationalizing it. The same has been true of one simple word that you cannot seem to grasp: dahaha. I asked you to find ONE dictionary, encyclopedia, lexicon, hadith, tafsir, etc... just one reliable source that says dahaha means flat or that the verse refers to a flat earth...that's all you need is one source. Don't continue with your prattle and quote ONE source. Don't give me links to Islamic websites, just one source from a dictionary, lexicon, or one of the other things that I've mention. Go ahead, be on your way and look up the word dahaha.

Guest

16th July 2007, 13:00

Peace Arnold, Camden

I have been following this thread with interest and amusement, and have seen all of your questions answered by both Ronnie and Ihsan. I think that you should both learn a scholarly principle, and that is to accept the correct answer when it is presented. With all due respect, Ronnie smashed your silly "earth is flat" nonsense into the depression of the ground, and now that it is over, you cannot admit that you were in the wrong about the Qur'an and about the 'Arabic, so instead you resort to ad hominems. Quite unscholarly, if I do, most humbly, say so.

Regards

Arnold

16th July 2007, 13:51

Peace Arnold, Camden

I have been following this thread with interest and amusement, and have seen all of your questions answered by both Ronnie and Ihsan.

And you have seen me answer them back explaining the holes in their answers. What about that? Is that to be ignored? If someone provides AN answer, whether it's a good one or not, is the matter immediately solved? Seems like in your mind it is. Words suffice as an answer, even if they have holes in them.

I think that you should both learn a scholarly principle, and that is to accept the correct answer when it is presented.

So what is the correct answer? God smoothed out the land, the mountains and hills to make the earth inhabitable and then turned around and re-added the mountains? That doesn't work. Why do you think it does?

With all due respect, Ronnie smashed your silly "earth is flat" nonsense into the depression of the ground, and now that it is over,

I loved the word "smashed". Shows your anger. So God smoothed out the land by smoothing out the hills and mountains, only to add the mountains again? I haven't seen one single good answer for this. Do you have one? They don't as of yet. So why would you think the matter is settled?

you cannot admit that you were in the wrong about the Qur'an and about the 'Arabic, so instead you resort to ad hominems. Quite unscholarly, if I do, most humbly, say so.

Regards

Actually, you must be reading with a pair of goggles on, as clearly Ron and Ihsan have engaged in ad hominem more than I. But amazingly, you appear to skip over that as if you are hypnotizied or something. Maybe it's because, in your mind, they are justified to practice ad hominem because of what I am saying, and therefore, their ad hominem goes unnoticed. In fact, it goes so unnoticed that you didn't even notice yourself practicing ad hominem when you said my silly argument was smashed. That's how unaware you are. You guys are pretty funny. Like Ron saying that Ihsan was not giving lectures on fine literature, when clearly he was and it's in front of everybody's face. I can't understand where this strange behavior comes from.

Camden202

16th July 2007, 14:46

If you already knows what it means, why did you even come on this forum asking for an explanation? Have you ever studied higher literature? Have you ever studied poetry, let alone pre-Islamic poetry and their heavy use of imagery?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and, as is clear from your posts, your wandering into territroy you do not even belong. Poetry was their life.

Wars originated out of poetry, and Arabs use to humiliate tribes by their words. Poetry was THEIR culture. The Quran is a literary miracle and it challenged the Arabs with what was essentially their life and religion. The Quran employed all the best things of their language, such as eloquence for it's message, idioms, and yes, that is right:

IMAGERY...

I will repeat for you one more time:

What I am talking about is literary usage, and your giving me nonsensical evidence.

OMG... Are you now going to assert the Arabs never employed idioms, figurative language, and heavy imagery in their language? The Arabs of that time understood their language much better than I did. Their poetry testifies to their eloquence. You haven't studied any higher literature have you?

OK, your right... That is how the verse is to be understood. Because you say so, I will accept it. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

You would get a F in any higher literature course...

You have no idea what your talking about.

No, it says without pillars. The "YOU SEE" is a rhetorical comment. It is akin to a conversation in English ,when a magician says he can make the coin disappear. You deny him. He makes the coin disappear. He then says, "I made the coin disappear.. YOU SEE!".. And that You See! is done while opening his hand, and it is said in a voice of amazement. You have absolutely NO CLUE what your talking about. You have no idea about how the Arabs use to recite their verse before audiences. You have no idea about iltifaat, and shifts in discourse. You have no idea about dialogue embedded in narration. It is best you keep silent. In fact, the majority of th etranslations you are referencing are not even close to the original Arabic. While they may provide 'fahm' or understanding, they are very inadequate in their translations.

Keep living in self-delusion. The explanationm was quite clear, beyond any tap-dancing whatsoever, and your pretty much impressed. The reason for being impressed is because you never expected an answer of such sorts. And it shocked you, how really eloquent the Quran is. You would have never expected that what is being employed is imagery. Your stuck in this 'sciece' in the Quarn world-view which is nothing but a fad of the last 50 or so years.

No, he is just in your head. That is the reality of it. Just because he makes a few mistakes does not negate the fact that he knows all these other scriptures.

Ron: mmm sounds like a literary genius to me.... self proclaimed

You have got to be kidding me. Are you this incompetent in literature, especially as it relates to eloquence?

How can you tell me I'm incorrect, when you have absolutely no working knowledge of Arabic. Why do you think the Quran, when referring to the sun and stars, calls them LAMPS if the Quran isn't employing imagery. Where do you hang lamps in a tent? As I stated before, the Quran is EMPLOYING imagery. It does this in many verses, and the imagery it employs depends on the context.

Why is it, that whenever the Quran speaks about spreading out the earth, it follows with God providing all sorts of sustenance to men. Could it be that the Quran is talking about how hospitable God is?

LOL... You, having absolutely no knowledge of Arabic language, and you are telling us how the understanding of the verse operated back then. I guess the pre-Islamic Arabs, considering there whole culture was based on poetry, had no working knowledge of imagery, depsite their poetry playing on it in so many ways. Despite the fact that classical Arabic does not just use imagery, but makes use of HEAVY imagery.

I really don't know whether to laugh or just make fun of how one can think of their 'objections' are really that impressive.

Uh, it has everything to do with the issue, because the statements are made in the context of proving why denial of the Hereafter is tantamount to foolishness. It is called contextualization.

Zakir Naik isn't a Prophet and he is wrong in this case. But Zakir Naik is quite well-versed in Biblical criticism. Has he gotten into your head to make you this upset?

While the Quran may not be speaking about science, it is definitely a miraculous book.

Ron.....more ....literary Genius....

Ihsan... the self professed 'higher literature' expert......

Probably never read Keats.... but still a self professed expert.

There you go Ron... ALL the evidence you need. No apology required.... I think its good enough you have at least ONE serve of humble pie.

Regards

Camden202

16th July 2007, 14:50

I asked you to find ONE dictionary, encyclopedia, lexicon, hadith, tafsir, etc... just one reliable source that says dahaha means flat or that the verse refers to a flat earth...that's all you need is one source. Don't continue with your prattle and quote ONE source. Don't give me links to Islamic websites, just one source from a dictionary, lexicon, or one of the other things that I've mention. Go ahead, be on your way and look up the word dahaha.

If its good enough for Islamic web sites to 'promote' Islam.... then you should simply address your venom to them....

How can we, as mearly as observers, believe one thing when the same people (Muslims) say another???

Are you asking us to chose one over the other?? are you saying the web site is incorrect? faulty.. propogating lies and deceiving anyone who reads it and wants to consider Islam?

False information is the fastest way to LOSE anyone, so maybe you need to work out whats the fact.. and whats fiction... then worry about dealing with the fiction so the rest of us are not so badly mislead.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 15:15

Ron: mmm sounds like a literary genius to me.... self proclaimed

Ron.....more ....literary Genius....

Ihsan... the self professed 'higher literature' expert......

Probably never read Keats.... but still a self professed expert.

There you go Ron... ALL the evidence you need. No apology required.... I think its good enough you have at least ONE serve of humble pie.

Regards

It seems like you too need a course on logic. By arguing that Arthur is ignorant of higher literature does not necessitate that I am an expert. From what is high-lighted, prove where I stated I was an expert.

Arnold

16th July 2007, 15:25

Camden, I'll explain what's going on. First, Ihsan says the verses that say spread out refer to God's hospitality as one spreads out a carpet for ones guest. When he gets to an analogy that doesn't involve a carpet, (dahaha) he still claims it is merely showing the mother ostrich's efforts to make things hospitable. But in no way does the Quran speak about the shape of the earth. He contends that spread out means the earth cracked and allowed vegetation to grow through it, even though some verses say that the earth was made a wide expanse, which seems to deal with the size of the earth and not cracks in it for vegetation.

Then, Ron says that Ihsan is not saying that, just like he said he was not giving literature lessons. But Ron does contend something similar as he does say that it does not refer to shape. He says it was spread out for life, but does not specifically indicate how spreading out promotes life. He does not relate it to the earth cracking open and sprouting vegetation, because he is aware of the verses that refer to the earth as being made a large expanse, not something cracked open. So, he doesn't explain what he really means, he just says it was spread for life, which means absolutely nothing, but maybe he intends it that way as he seems not to want to commit to anything and stay as flexible as possible. Afterall, look at how he has behaved? He doesn't answer a single question until you first lay everything on the table while he sits back and keeps his cards under his sleeve. And he knows he's doing this and probably thinks it's clever. Who cares, right?

Then, we have the article I posted. Now, the article says that it does involve spreading and flattening and leveling, but it also says that this does not refer to the shape of the earth. Notice, the earth is in bold. So if it does refer to shape, but not the shape of the earth, then it must be referring to the shape of the land, and that smoothed out or flattened out land makes the earth better for habitation. So in order to accept this angle, we must believe that God first spread out or leveled or flattened the land (as per their acknowledgment of what dahaha involves), which invariably means he smoothed out and flattened out the hills and mountains. Then, he turned around and added mountains.

If this doesn't add up for you, as it does not for me, then another alternative is to say that the Quran was explaining that God flattened out the shape of the earth to make it inhabitable. This makes pretty good sense and seems to be fairly obvious from all the verses and requires no far stretches or reaches whatsoever. But, the only problem with this, is that it conflicts with modern science, and this is not allowed.

That's where I think the conversation is at right now. We appear to be working out why God flattened out the mountains (leveled out the land), and then, turned around and added the mountains.

Oh,, and then, you have the other guy stand up out of nowhere and claim that I have been smashed. That's probably the weirdest thing that I have ever noticed about Muslims. They tend to stand up in the middle of the discussion and declare victory for no truly apparent reason. I think they believe that if they simply make the claim strongly enough, and act confident of it, then it should be accepted. How odd.

Ron

16th July 2007, 15:47

Arnold,

When he gets to an analogy that doesn't involve a carpet, (dahaha) he still claims it is merely showing the mother ostrich's efforts to make things hospitable.
You have finally done it ... you have stuck the proverbial nail in the coffin. In one sentence you have completely discredited yourself. All that time and effort you put yourself through typing all those words...all that woodwork burning to come up with some way argue your baseless point and in the end what do you do? Completely embarass yourself by saying that dahaha means carpet. You mean this whole time you thought that that's what the Arabic word for carpet is? It's quite disgraceful that you went on this long and didn't even have the basic meaning of the word down.

Now not only did you blunder but you still are going on with the nonsense even when I asked you for ONE source only. Just ONE.

Arnold

16th July 2007, 16:07

Arnold,

You have finally done it ... you have stuck the proverbial nail in the coffin. In one sentence you have completely discredited yourself. All that time and effort you put yourself through typing all those words...all that woodwork burning to come up with some way argue your baseless point and in the end what do you do? Completely embarass yourself by saying that dahaha means carpet.

Here's what I said

When he gets to an analogy that doesn't involve a carpet, (dahaha) he still claims it is merely showing the mother ostrich's efforts to make things hospitable.
Ron, go back and read it. I meant that Ihasan first claimed that all the verses involving spread out with the translators note of (like a carpet) meant that it was referring to hospitality as people spread out a carpet for their guest as a sign of hospitality. Then, I explained that I brought up dahaha to him and told him that it is a completely different analogy and yet still involves notions of spreading out, even when there is no notion of the hospitality of a carpet. And he replied that dahaha was an example of hospitality as well, as the mother is preparing a hospitable environment for it's egg. And Ihsan will agree with this because he knows that's what happened. So what are you talking about? Go back and read it. You completely flubbed this. Should I still be embarrased? I know, you won't answer that.

You mean this whole time you thought that that's what the Arabic word for carpet is? It's quite disgraceful that you went on this long and didn't even have the basic meaning of the word down.

Who's a disgrace now?

Now not only did you blunder but you still are going on with the nonsense even when I asked you for ONE source only. Just ONE.

Who's the blunderer now? And besides Ron, you no longer dictate the rules of the conversation. I have been more than gracious by allowing you to completely dictate what gets discussed and how it gets discussed, but that's probably enough at this point. I can't allow this forever, I just thought I was bending over backwards to do things on your terms so that there would be no question that I am fair and flexible. You, however, do not appear to be fair and flexible and you seek to dictate the exact terms of the discussion. And I know why you attempt this. I'm not stupid, and I hope you didn't think I was or you were getting over on me while I was allowing you to dictate every term of the conversation. Besides, you still never told me the answer to my simple question of where the lowest heaven is according to Islam, even though you agreed to if I answered your questions first. Do you recall that?

Camden202

16th July 2007, 16:08

It seems like you too need a course on logic. By arguing that Arthur is ignorant of higher literature does not necessitate that I am an expert. From what is high-lighted, prove where I stated I was an expert.

Ok... so I'll add 'logictian' to you list of expertise. Your superiority complex on this matter is evidence enough of your self pronouncements... blatent. You don't (or can't) explain yourself without resorting to this pretense of being academically superior... yes.. pretense, its transparent.

Arnold is not ignorant of 'higher literature'... What Arnold is saying is right, however based on Nakir's various public lectures... yet you and others say he is Incorrect??

Did anyone bother to tell Nakir? Because those lectures are still around online.... I don't see any Muslims doing a bit of Self-Correction.... and as a result (according to your 'interpretation/translation' of 'higher literature') he is perpetuating a LIE... commiting a MALFESENCE... he's a FRAUD and a FAKE.

Quite frankly I find Nakir annoying... and virtually impossible to understand at the best of times. Deedat and Yasin are JUST as bad. All talk... no substance.

So much for giving the world the 'message of Islam'... they can't even get it right (apparently).... so why should we, the common man looking in, accept it or even bother with it????

How complex is the Quran in respect to 'creation'.... I mean it goes from having the mountains proping things up... to using an Ostrich to explain something....mmmmm yeh.... its REAL easy.... mmm ppffft....

Can't you get ONE explaination... or is this like taking a poll, ask 10 Muslims and accept the majority who say one thing and forget the rest... why isn't there just ONE explaination????

ihsan

16th July 2007, 16:19

ihsan

16th July 2007, 16:22

ihsan

16th July 2007, 16:25

Ron, go back and read it. I meant that Ihasan first claimed that all the verses involving spread out with the translators note of (like a carpet) meant that it was referring to hospitality as people spread out a carpet for their guest as a sign of hospitality. Then, I explained that I brought up dahaha to him and told him that it is a completely different analogy and yet still involves notions of spreading out, even when there is no notion of the hospitality of a carpet. And he replied that dahaha was an example of hospitality as well, as the mother is preparing a hospitable environment for it's egg. And Ihsan will agree with this because he knows that's what happened. So what are you talking about? Go back and read it. You completely flubbed this. Should I still be embarrased? I know, you won't answer that.

I will not agree to confirm conversations that happen only in your own imagination. It was YOU that stated that one can carry my analogy to the situation of the ostrich and eggs, when I have been telling you to forget about ostriches.

The only resemblance between the two sentences is they employ the same verb.

It's like talking to an elementary school child...

Arnold

16th July 2007, 16:28

Ok... so I'll add 'logictian' to you list of expertise. Your superiority complex on this matter is evidence enough of your self pronouncements... blatent. You don't (or can't) explain yourself without resorting to this pretense of being academically superior... yes.. pretense, its transparent.

No question about it. and it's in writing.

Arnold is not ignorant of 'higher literature'... What Arnold is saying is right, however based on Nakir's various public lectures... yet you and others say he is Incorrect??

Did anyone bother to tell Nakir? Because those lectures are still around online.... I don't see any Muslims doing a bit of Self-Correction.... and as a result (according to your 'interpretation/translation' of 'higher literature') he is perpetuating a LIE... commiting a MALFESENCE... he's a FRAUD and a FAKE.

This is true. You know, I even wrote this one website months ago informing them that they are publishing a Naik article with a big fat mistake or lie in it, figuring I would at least inform them of the potential embarrassment and they still never took it down.

http://www.islamicvoice.com/september.2000/religion.htm

Case and point.

Quite frankly I find Nakir annoying... and virtually impossible to understand at the best of times. Deedat and Yasin are JUST as bad. All talk... no substance.

So much for giving the world the 'message of Islam'... they can't even get it right (apparently).... so why should we, the common man looking in, accept it or even bother with it????

A complex weave of excuses. Nobody is better at it. Nobody works harder at it.

How complex is the Quran in respect to 'creation'.... I mean it goes from having the mountains proping things up... to using an Ostrich to explain something....mmmmm yeh.... its REAL easy.... mmm ppffft....

Can't you get ONE explaination... or is this like taking a poll, ask 10 Muslims and accept the majority who say one thing and forget the rest... why isn't there just ONE explaination????

Because some recognize errors and re-translate to make them go away. Others who do not recognize the errors do not re-translate. The perfect example of this is in the Jinn and shooting stars thread. Here, an article for a publication called an Invitation to Islam, posted on what is deemed to be a respectable site (thetruereligion.org), says that shooting stars chase the Jinn. They don't know science very well, so they interpret the verses as they were intended. THEN, you talk to a Muslim who knows science and truly understands the true nature of meteors, then, suddenly the verses have absolutely nothing to do with shooting stars or even meteors. This is the sort of intellectual dishonesty that goes on all of the time, which is why I have displayed my mistrust for what Muslims tell me about the Quran. It's just too important and too much of an emotional issue for them to be able to expect any objectivity from them.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 16:29

ihsan

16th July 2007, 16:31

Did anyone bother to tell Nakir? Because those lectures are still around online.... I don't see any Muslims doing a bit of Self-Correction.... and as a result (according to your 'interpretation/translation' of 'higher literature') he is perpetuating a LIE... commiting a MALFESENCE... he's a FRAUD and a FAKE.

How is he perpetuating a lie? To attribute a lie to somebody is to confirm malice, which you haven't done. It just reveals at most that he holds an incorrect opinion. No human being is perfect.

Your wrong, so just deal with it. Whatever your throwing around now is just side-tracking of the issue. Yor further attributing positions to people that they never held. In fact, your so lost now that the positions you attribute to me are the very one's that YOU claimed. And when all else fails, you than bring up totally different verses which are unrelated to the specific topic as if this will somehow miraculously make us forget your incompetence as it relates to imagery and it's employment in the Quran.

Arnold

16th July 2007, 16:35

How does the earth cracking open for vegetation relate to making the earth a wide expanse?

ihsan

16th July 2007, 16:36

How does the earth cracking open for vegetation relate to making the earth a wide expanse?

You tell me... The two are obviously unrelated... And yet, your trying to relate the two... Is this another one of your attempts to bring totally unrelated issues and trying to employ them in the same situation? Or are you going to ascribe to me some other position that I never held.

Camden202

16th July 2007, 16:42

How is he perpetuating a lie? To attribute a lie to somebody is to confirm malice, which you haven't done. It just reveals at most that he holds an incorrect opinion. No human being is perfect.

Please explain why he has not been taken to task by his own religious community???

Why does he hold an incorrect opinion... it seems reasonable to me??? what makes his opinion worthless... or do you hold a Doctorate?? because he does... he's educated.. why should I NOT believe him....thousands of others have.

Instead of saying his 'opinon is incorrect'... how about demonstrating it.

Then... do something about it. So long as he continues to propgate this 'incorrect opinion'... it surely does nothing for the cause of Islam. Indeed it continues to cast Islam in a distinctly BAD light...

Camden202

16th July 2007, 16:46

And I can say without a shred of boasting and pride, that I am surely more equipped to deal with the following that either you or Arnold:

1. Logic
2. Higher Literature
3. Scriptural Criticism

This doesn't mean I'm an expert, but I am surely better than both of you at them.

Clearly your a self professed expert.

Do you have any academic qualifications??? I do.. but hey, thats not the issue... im just enjoying you demonstrate your pride and ignorance, manifest as an obvious superiority complex.... which does nothing for the outsider looking in.

If there were two people in the room... and the whole future of Islam was at stake... I pray to Allah that one of them wasn't you. Because you have done more HARM that good... with this 'attitude' of yours... quite self effacing.

Arnold

16th July 2007, 16:59

Can you explain to me what's going on as well, because from this explanation, it also seems that I got my own explanation all wrong. I thought I said that you need to forget about the ostrich, because it has nothing to do with the situation.

And after I kept pressing and didn't allow you to arbitrarily throw it out, you explained that a mother is being hospitable to her egg with her efforts

I thought I said the only resemblance between the two sentences is that they employ the same verb. I thought I said that one sentence employs imagery, and the other statement is a literal statement.

That was one attempt.

But what could I know about what I MYSELF STATED.

By going back and reading it. Maybe you are inventing more excuses than you can keep track of.

The whole phrase conveys the image of hospitality and generous treatment. Just as when referring to ostriches and eggs, the phrase is referring to how an ostrich protects and nurtures its eggs.

There it is. Any questions?

All this besides what Ron stated. You really do have no idea what your talking about. You can't even keep one word straight, let alone the concept of literally sentences versus one's that employ imagery.

Seems klike you can't remember what you say as evidenced above. but we all know you will come up with an clever and unlikely explanation for this.

Was I right when I said you related thiose other verses to the concept of hospitality as signified by rolling out a carpet? Yes.

Was I right when you said that the ostrich mother's action involveds hospitality as well, as an answer to me bringing that verse up and asking you how it relateds to hosip

I have always said the phrase is 'spread the earth', but I said the imagery is meant to convey hospitality and honoring, i.e. it is playing off the imagery of spreading out a carpet for a guest. It is not meant to express any scientific reality.

Roll out, spread out. Is there really any difference or are you just looking for any nitpick you can find to change the focus?

When did I say 'spreading out' refers to being cracked. I thought that when I said the earth is 'open', i.e. it is employing a different verb than 'spread', it is referring to vegetation coming forth from the land. But that could just be me.

Open up in the sense that it cracks. That's the only way we can see opening up as it relates to vegetation. I still don't see how this relates to making the earth a wide expanse.

I thought I stated that the Quran refers to the earth in other places as:

1. Couch - a couch is not flat
2. Similar to a camel and to walk on it's shoulders - shoulders are not flat

And I told you that the surface that we sit on on a couch is flat, and the part of shoulders holding anything up would have to be the flat or most flat part of the shoulders as this is how shoulders hold anything up. And people do not rest on the hump of a camel, they rest on the flat part.

I thought I stated what other analogy would the Quran employ for the earth when referring to the sky as being RAISED like the roof of a beduoin tent, and the mountains being placed in the earth like pegs... What other analogy do you think would be more suited to the earth than SPREADING like a carpet for a beduoin tent? A round ball, because that is the shape of the earth??

Sure. The earth is like a rock that slowly turns in front of a lamp. That's poetic imagery too, except for this imagery points to the accurate reality.

As I said, you need to take a higher literature course to understand imagery....

And as I said, I never denied that it was imagery. The point that I am discussing is what the imagery is trying to point to, but you keep going back to this insistence that it be about whether it is imagery or not as if it's a hiding place of some sort.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 17:00

Please explain why he has not been taken to task by his own religious community???

Why does he hold an incorrect opinion... it seems reasonable to me??? what makes his opinion worthless... or do you hold a Doctorate?? because he does... he's educated.. why should I NOT believe him....thousands of others have.

Instead of saying his 'opinon is incorrect'... how about demonstrating it.

Then... do something about it. So long as he continues to propgate this 'incorrect opinion'... it surely does nothing for the cause of Islam. Indeed it continues to cast Islam in a distinctly BAD light...

Haven't we been discussing why the opinion is incorrect? And my religion is not based on personalities such as Zakir Naik. And no, it does not cast Islam in a bad light. Human beings make errors all the time.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 17:06

And after I kept pressing and didn't allow you to arbitrarily throw it out, you explained that a mother is being hospitable to her egg with her efforts

You keep having conversations in your imagination that have no direct relevance to reality. You haven't pressed anybody into any corner, nor did this alleged situation ever happen. It was you that, after being shown that you were wrong, tried to take the analogy of hospitality to the ostrich and her egg. You keep relating a literal statement with a figurative statement.

Open up in the sense that it cracks. That's the only way we can see opening up as it relates to vegetation. I still don't see how this relates to making the earth a wide expanse.

It has nothing to do with making the earth a wide expanse. What are you talking about? The two situations are totally unrelated.

And I told you that the surface that we sit on on a couch is flat, and the part of shoulders holding anything up would have to be the flat or most flat part of the shoulders as this is how shoulders hold anything up. And people do not rest on the hump of a camel, they rest on the flat part.

No, a couch is compsed of cushions which aren't flat objects. Cushions can have round edges. Shoulders are round objects. The Quran says to WALK on IT'S SHOULDERS, and shoulders are round. The verse isn't even talking about resting on the back of a camel. Yet, you keep trying to argue away a point your absolutely ignorant of. The game is up for you, and has been for a long time.

You have no idea what your even arguing, let alone talking about. You have no idea which verse I am talking about, and yet you keep trying to refute imaginary concepts in your head.

Sure. The earth is like a rock that slowly turns in front of a lamp. That's poetic imagery too, except for this imagery points to the accurate reality.

A rock isn't round. Further, I asked you what other imagery for the earth would the Quran use when speaking about the sky being raised like a beduoin tent, and mountains being placed in the earth like pegs of the tent. Tents are primarily composed of:

1. pegs holding it up
2. a roof
3. and a carpet

The imagery in the first two sentences already captures two elements, i.e. the wide sky highlights the vastness of the tent, and the mountains highlight the stability. The only thing left is that of providence and being granted sustenance. What does a round ball capture if it were to be used in this imagery? Absolutely nothing, and if a round ball was even used than the whole imagery would be absolutely negated and look absurd.

As I said, your lack of appreciation of higher literature is your downfall.

And as I said, I never denied that it was imagery. The point that I am discussing is what the imagery is trying to point to, but you keep going back to this insistence that it be about whether it is imagery or not as if it's a hiding place of some sort.

You keep bumbling yourself with your self-contardictions. You deny it, and then you affirm it. All language points to something, even imagery. And imagery that it is pointing to does not have to be literal, but can serve rhetorical purposes. Imagery does not have ot express scientific realities, and rarely does. This is the case for all languages.

Like I said, take a class in higher literature. It will serve your ignorance about the subject quite well.

Camden202

16th July 2007, 17:08

Haven't we been discussing why the opinion is incorrect? And my religion is not based on personalities such as Zakir Naik. And no, it does not cast Islam in a bad light. Human beings make errors all the time.

Of course it casts your entire religion in a bad light.... the same bad light that brought the world Deedat and Khalid Yasin. They can't get enough of hearing their own voice!!!!

How many hundreds of thousands of people go to these peoples lectures (not Deedat, he's dead).... and how many of those people are now 'influenced' by those lectures... talk series.

But hey... I have the same problem with Benny Hinn... and Jimmy Swaggart (thank goodness he's goneand I have no problem saying it... I don't have to defend them. They do MORE HARM than good.

Which brings me to my point... at least WE did something about Swaggart and the Bakers.... why hasn't the Muslim Community bought these Islamic charlatons to heel??? Perhaps because your not allowed to be critical??? Is there some sacred cow there????

It's a bit like a Muslim in America, being wholly obsessed with the 'Palestinian' situation because it involves their 'Muslim Brothers'..... Do you seriously think that those people would give you the time of day??? hell no, they only care about themselves..... yet we have this HUGE Islamic 'brotherhood at all costs' mentality.... again... liberty, fraternaty.. stupidity.

Slay the sacred cows... get rid of the charletons... get your position 'straight'... then you might get somewhere.

Arnold

16th July 2007, 17:11

I will not agree to confirm conversations that happen only in your own imagination. It was YOU that stated that one can carry my analogy to the situation of the ostrich and eggs, when I have been telling you to forget about ostriches.

The only resemblance between the two sentences is they employ the same verb.

It's like talking to an elementary school child...

The whole phrase conveys the image of hospitality and generous treatment. Just as when referring to ostriches and eggs, the phrase is referring to how an ostrich protects and nurtures its eggs.

Well, an elementary school child remembers more of what's going on than you do. so what does that say about you?

Arnold

16th July 2007, 17:12

Haven't we been discussing why the opinion is incorrect? And my religion is not based on personalities such as Zakir Naik.

You did say something to that effect. I remember. what you questioned wasn't Nakir as he had nothing to do with it anymore. you questioned the article i posted.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 17:17

Well, an elementary school child remembers more of what's going on than you do. so what does that say about you?

DO you like to take statements out of context? Why not quote the whole paragraph so we can see what I really said... Why not post the zillion posts I stated before and after the related post which deals with the issue. Your worse than even a child. At least a child can be excused for ignorance, but you can't.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 17:18

You did say something to that effect. I remember. what you questioned wasn't Nakir as he had nothing to do with it anymore. you questioned the article i posted.

And they are both based on the same premise. What is your point? If the premise is fault for Zakir, it is faulty for te article you posted. BTW, the article you posted affirms that it proves neither a round earth nor a flat earth. It is a rhetorical feature of the Quran.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 17:22

Which brings me to my point... at least WE did something about Swaggart and the Bakers.... why hasn't the Muslim Community bought these Islamic charlatons to heel??? Perhaps because your not allowed to be critical??? Is there some sacred cow there????
.

You mean the courts of law did, which had nothing to do with the Church. Nor is Zakir Naik embezzling money nor is he running around with prostitutes, at the expense of the church money. If you can't tell the different between an incorrect opinion and embezzlement, tax evasion, and fraud, than really, what reasoning power do you have?

Camden202

16th July 2007, 17:30

And they are both based on the same premise. What is your point? If the premise is fault for Zakir, it is faulty for te article you posted. BTW, the article you posted affirms that it proves neither. It is a rhetorical feature of the Quran.

So you say... but again.. it is based on mearly a premise.... and not factual.

It strikes me that if the Quran IS suppose to be a message for the common man from God... that it is awefully complex. If I were sending a message to the mass population... I would NOT make it so that it is virtually impossible to understand without taking 'higher literature'..... or to have to refer to ancilliary sources (Hadiths - even disputed ones)....

Given this 'complexity'... how can the average man looking-in (existing outside)... see anything which does not confuse or confound??

I mean, here we are trying to get a grasp on the creation discourse... and there is not ONE clear standpoint. It's all over the place.

On one hand we read the Quran in its literal form.. grasp its discourse.. then we apply 'imagery' etc... but yet I have always found that an 'image' means different things to different people... so again, if I was writing the Quran.. wouldn't you want it to be self evident?? no confusion??

As for Rhetoric... mmmm its not clear.. it just adds to the confusion. If Rhetoric is to mean self-evident, then it must rely on context to support it. If it is used as persuasion ("You See" (requires recognition of fact/observation).. that is different to a literal observation of "you see" (with your eyes - acnkowledgement, recognition of reality).

Again... I fail to understand how or why I should accept one view over the other than to suggest that BOTH have faults and the real truth lies somewhere in between. Don't ask me what it is... its too confusing.

Creation account.. or confusion account. mmmm

Camden202

16th July 2007, 17:32

You mean the courts of law did, which had nothing to do with the Church. Nor is Zakir Naik embezzling money nor is he running around with prostitutes, at the expense of the church money. If you can't tell the different between an incorrect opinion and embezzlement, tax evasion, and fraud, than really, what reasoning power do you have?

No actually your referring to 'secular' matters... which have nothing to do with anything and are not relevant.

Your problem here is that you have 'blurred' two distinctly clear issues (you have a habit of doign that).... one is Secular, the other is Non-Secular.

If you need a Dictionary to work out the difference, I recommend Oxford Online.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 17:36

No actually the Church was the one who 'handed him over'... otherwise he would be still at it. Nice try...

After he was already implicated. He was guilty of a crime and was going to be arrested. As for Swaggart, the Church he led forgave him after his shedding of crocodile tears. He was still employed even after the event. You have the Catholic Church covering up alleged child abuse scandals for many years, and it is only when they are challenged in court do they negotiate settlements.

But explain to me hwo this relates to an incorrect opinion of Zakir Naik, and how Zakir Naik is allegedly like them...

I wanna know how old you are Camden... Maybe' it's just your educational level that doesn't allow you to grasp these arguments. Tell me so I can know if I should bother or not.

Camden202

16th July 2007, 17:51

After he was already implicated. He was guilty of a crime and was going to be arrested. As for Swaggart, the Church he led forgave him after his shedding of crocodile tears. He was still employed even after the event. You have the Catholic Church covering up alleged child abuse scandals for many years, and it is only when they are challenged in court do they negotiate settlements.

But explain to me hwo this relates to an incorrect opinion of Zakir Naik, and how Zakir Naik is allegedly like them...

I wanna know how old you are Camden... Maybe' it's just your educational level that doesn't allow you to grasp these arguments. Tell me so I can know if I should bother or not.

It has nothing to do with Nakir.... they are SECULAR issues... they are irrelevant.

Why do you persist with this... or did you NOT look up the dictionary for the meaning of the word 'Secular'???

Given your expertise in Poetry, Imagery, 'higher literature'.... it should not pose a problem.

What might be a problem is keeping to the issue.. that is Nakir (an others) expounding the Quran... being 'incorrect'. This is not a secular issue.

It is however, relevant as it goes to inconsistancy in learning and also the potential for corruptibility of what is expounded.

Grab a dictionary, stop playing the fool. Your pretense is transparent.

Arnold

16th July 2007, 17:53

You keep having conversations in your imagination that have no direct relevance to reality.

"The whole phrase conveys the image of hospitality and generous treatment. Just as when referring to ostriches and eggs, the phrase is referring to how an ostrich protects and nurtures its eggs."

You haven't pressed anybody into any corner, nor did this alleged situation ever happen. It was you that, after being shown that you were wrong, tried to take the analogy of hospitality to the ostrich and her egg. You keep relating a literal statement with a figurative statement.

"The whole phrase conveys the image of hospitality and generous treatment. Just as when referring to ostriches and eggs, the phrase is referring to how an ostrich protects and nurtures its eggs."

It has nothing to do with making the earth a wide expanse. What are you talking about? The two situations are totally unrelated.

All the verses relate to what happened when the earth was created. Thet are all talking about the creation of the earth. Some say spread out, other translators say that he made it a wide expanse.

088.020
YUSUFALI: And at the Earth, how it is spread out?
PICKTHAL: And the earth, how it is spread?
SHAKIR: And the earth, how it is made a vast expanse?

Interpretation given in Al-Jalalein:

At the earth how it is spread out (Arabic: sutihat): meaning it was stretched, so they can see in it a sign for the power of Allah ... and his saying sutihat makes it obvious that the earth is flat, and this is certified by Ulama' ash-shar'a (the shari'a theologians), not a globe as it is said by ahlul-hay'a (the laymen)." (Tafseer Al-Jalalein. printed in Damascus 1964. Al-Mallah Printshop and Bookstore)

The Tafsir of Surat Al-Ghashiyah
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=88&tid=58044
(17. Do they not look at the camels, how they are created) (18. And at the heaven, how it is raised) (19. And at the mountains, how they are rooted) (20. And at the earth, how it is outspread)

[وَإِلَى الاٌّرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ ]

(And at the earth, how it is outspread) meaning, how it has been spread out, extended and made smooth. Thus, He directs the bedouin to consider what he himself witnesses. His camel that he rides upon, the sky that is above his head, the mountain that faces him, and the earth that is under him, all of this is proof of the power of the Creator and Maker of these things. These things should lead him to see that He is the Lord, the Most Great, the Creator, the Owner, and the Controller of everything. Therefore, He is the God other than Whom none deserves to be worshipped.

079.030
YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);
PICKTHAL: And after that He spread the earth,
SHAKIR: And the earth, He expanded it after that.

Again, let us consult Tafsir Al-Jalalein:

That is: "Basataha" as it was created before heaven without "Dahoo".

We see that Al-Jalalein is emphasizing the issue of "flattening". The interpreters are saying: "That is, He flattened it since it was not made flat before heaven was created."

Reading the context of this aya, Sura 79:27-33, the message of the Qur'an seems to be: Originally the earth was not flat (but somehow crumbled up?). After first creating the heaven over it (see 79:28-29), Allah flattened the earth (to make it inhabitable: ("A provision for you and for your cattle" 79:33).

015.019
YUSUFALI: And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.
PICKTHAL: And the earth have We spread out, and placed therein firm hills, and caused each seemly thing to grow therein.
SHAKIR: And the earth-- We have spread it forth and made in it firm mountains and caused to grow in it of every suitable thing.

Ibn Kathir
(16. And indeed, We have put the big stars in the heaven and We beautified it for the beholders. ) (17. And We have guarded it (near heaven) from every outcast Shaytan (devil).) (18. Except him (devil) who steals the hearing, then he is pursued by a clear flaming fire.) (19. And We have spread out the earth, and have placed firm mountains in it, and caused all kinds of things to grow in it, in due proportion.) (20. And in it We have provided means of living, for you and for those whom you provide not.)

تَبَارَكَ الَّذِى جَعَلَ فِى السَّمَآءِ بُرُوجاً]

(Blessed be He Who has placed the big stars in the heavens.) [25:61] `Atiyah Al-`Awfi said: "Buruj here refers to sentinel fortresses.'' He made the "shooting stars'' to guard it against the evil devils who try to listen to information conveyed at the highest heights. If any devil breaches it and advances hoping to listen, a clear "shooting star'' comes to him and destroys him........

Then Allah mentions His creation of the earth and how He spread it out, and the firm mountains, valleys, lands and sands that he has placed in it, and the plants and fruits that He causes to grow in their appropriate locations.

First the earth was spread out, then the mountains were applied, then things grew.

No, a couch is compsed of cushions which aren't flat objects. Cushions can have round edges.

:giggling: yeah? and? They have flat tops, don't they? I don't understand why you even tried this.

Shoulders are round objects.

That have flat areas between the the neck and the side of the arm. Since when do you support things with a round, ball shaped object? Since when do things stand on a round object?

The Quran says to WALK on IT'S SHOULDERS, and shoulders are round.

No they aren't. Far from it.

The verse isn't even talking about resting on the back of a camel. Yet, you keep trying to argue away a point your absolutely ignorant of. The game is up for you, and has been for a long time.

It's taking about the camel holding things up? If the camel holds something up, or holds someone on top of it, or baggage on top of it, the only way it can do that is if the object being held up is on the flat part of it's back. Essentially, the back of a camel is flat with bumps on it. If we correspond this imagery with that of the earth, we get a flat earth with mountains on it. It certainly doesn't even remotely refer to a sphere of any sort.

Y
ou have no idea what your even arguing, let alone talking about.

And again, you and Ron just keep on insulting, but you don't have good answers. and then, the weirdest part, is that Ron turns around and says I'm merely practicing ad hominem. This attempt at flipping the tables for no reason doesn't work

You have no idea which verse I am talking about, and yet you keep trying to refute imaginary concepts in your head.

Then you should say precisely which verse you are talking about.

A rock isn't round.

Many rocks are essentially round. But, for better clarity, we'll add the word round. The earth is like a round rock that slowly turns in front of the lamp. there. Clarified. Fixed. Thanks.

Further, I asked you what other imagery for the earth would the Quran use when speaking about the sky being raised like a beduoin tent, and mountains being placed in the earth like pegs of the tent. Tents are primarily composed of:

1. pegs holding it up
2. a roof
3. and a carpet

I wouldn't use that imagery at all as it would do nothing but create a false impression for my readers. It would make it too easy to think of the sky as a covering of some sort, and I'm sure many did. The only reason that this was used, is because Muhammad thought this accurately referred to reality through the best imagery it could.

The imagery in the first two sentences already captures two elements, i.e. the wide sky highlights the vastness of the tent, and the mountains highlight the stability.

And there are verse referring to the vastness of the earth as a wide expanse.

The only thing left is that of providence and being granted sustenance.

Not if you actually DID believe that the sky was a covering. Then, it's perfectly understandable why this analogy was used.

What does a round ball capture if it were to be used in this imagery?

The truth?

Absolutely nothing, and if a round ball was even used than the whole imagery would be absolutely negated and look absurd.

Well then, we shouldn't interpret anything about the Quran except for what people back then would have thought. Therefore, all of these reinterpretations that have come out in light of modern science should all be null and void. Surely it couldn't have meant that because the people of that time couldn't have understood that. That's your logic. Of course, we have an easy solution, which is to say that Muhammad really believed the sky was a cover of some sort, but naturally, this is unacceptable, no matter how simple it is and how much clear sense it makes.

You keep bumbling yourself with your self-contardictions. You deny it, and then you affirm it.

I never denied that it was not employing imagery, I only argued about what the imagery is pointing to.

All language points to something, even imagery. And imagery that it is pointing to does not have to be literal, but can serve rhetorical purposes. Imagery does not have ot express scientific realities, and rarely does. This is the case for all languages.

Well, when it tells us that first the earth was created, and then the heavens were created, what am I supposed to think? It's using imagery to tell us what happened during creation, and what God did, and what he did first (which is to create the earth, and THEN the heaven.).

Like I said, take a class in higher literature. It will serve your ignorance about the subject quite well.

Sorry, but I still think this is nothing but an excuse. I believe this imagery is telling us what God did when he created the earth and not just telling us how kind God was, and I have explained exactly why I think this. Yes, you have attempted to answer this, but I have also pointed out clear holes in your answers over and over again.

Camden202

16th July 2007, 17:53

I wanna know how old you are Camden... Maybe' it's just your educational level that doesn't allow you to grasp these arguments. Tell me so I can know if I should bother or not.

Well considering your trying to overlay a Secular issue with a Non-Secular issue... and then to suggest that I don't understand this because somehow I have a deficient education level... is ... rather pathetic and inept.

The only thing you need to bother about is getting a dictionary.

Arnold

16th July 2007, 18:01

DO you like to take statements out of context? Why not quote the whole paragraph so we can see what I really said... Why not post the zillion posts I stated before and after the related post which deals with the issue. Your worse than even a child. At least a child can be excused for ignorance, but you can't.

This is a little bit different than you saying I'm imagining things, like what was your tune earlier.. Anyway, I showed where you said it. Question answered.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 18:58

This is a little bit different than you saying I'm imagining things, like what was your tune earlier.. Anyway, I showed where you said it. Question answered.

There is no different tune, and you are imagining things, such as me being confronted and pestered by you. This is why I keep telling you to provide me with what I was saying before the post in question and after the post in question.

It was YOU that asserted that the imagery employed by the earth being spread is carried to the ostrich. I have been telling the same thing from the very beginning that the two are unrelated. But EVEN in the context of the ostrich, the spreading of the dirt over the egg is specifically for the protection and nurturing of the egg. But it is still not figurative language nor is there any picture being painted. You cannot tell the difference between the two, and that is the reality.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 18:59

Well considering your trying to overlay a Secular issue with a Non-Secular issue... and then to suggest that I don't understand this because somehow I have a deficient education level... is ... rather pathetic and inept.

The only thing you need to bother about is getting a dictionary.

Your age is very relevant, because I need to understand whether you can assimilate information or not. And it seems that your situation is tilting towards the not.

Arnold

16th July 2007, 20:55

There is no different tune, and you are imagining things,

Why? You don't explain. You just make the claim. Claim rejected because it has no substantiation.

such as me being confronted and pestered by you. This is why I keep telling you to provide me with what I was saying before the post in question and after the post in question.

We were both there in the thread. We both know how you tried to make the ostrich instance irrelevant because it didn't meet you point. We both know how I pressed you on the issue of hospitality that you mentioned, since this is what you made it about, and finally I pressed you so much, that you gave the answer that I re-posted about how it also relates the the ostrich analogy because you were logically forced to answer where you clearly avoided it before.

It was YOU that asserted that the imagery employed by the earth being spread is carried to the ostrich.

Of course I did, because both involve the concept of spreading out and flattening out as it relates to the creation of the earth for our inhabitance, even though they use entirely different examples to convey this, which makes the point even more consistent and therefore stronger.

I have been telling the same thing from the very beginning that the two are unrelated.

But when pressed to logically relate the two, in terms of your overall concept that all these verses speak about nothing but hospitality, you had to explain that the ostrich example does indeed also relate to hospitality, like the other verses, in the respect that the mother does this for the egg. That's what you had to do when logically cornered, and it's there in writing.

But EVEN in the context of the ostrich, the spreading of the dirt over the egg is specifically for the protection and nurturing of the egg.

Okay, fine. But what does it do to accomplish this? It spreads dirt out and flattens it, which doesn't relate at all to creating vegetation. It refers to an action of flattening.

But it is still not figurative language nor is there any picture being painted. You cannot tell the difference between the two, and that is the reality.

Ummm. this didn't make any sense and appears to be the classic attempt to merely whisk it away. One basic truth that I know for a fact is that the human mind hates to be wrong. And it will invent things that you wouldn't believe in order to prevent it from being wrong. Happens all of the time. Remember, I go with the basic interpretation, and therefore, I don't have to invent anything at all

ihsan

16th July 2007, 21:15

We were both there in the thread. We both know how you tried to make the ostrich instance irrelevant because it didn't meet you point. We both know how I pressed you on the issue of hospitality that you mentioned, since this is what you made it about, and finally I pressed you so much, that you gave the answer that I re-posted about how it also relates the the ostrich analogy because you were logically forced to answer where you clearly avoided it before.

No, you did not press me in any way whatsoever. The ostrich issue IS IRRELEVANT. I said it one hundred times before the post in question, and I said it 100 times after the post in question. The fact is that an ostrich spreads dirt over an egg to nurture and protect it. But even than, it is NOT an analogy. There is NO imagery being employed in the statement. It is not used as a rhetorical statement. So no matter how many times you continue to try and divert away from the core of the argument, your still wrong. If you believe that you WON the argument, than quite frankly your more deluded in your argument than you think.

That is just the fact of the matter.

We are going to cut through all the BS and get right down to it.

The Quran calls the earth:

1. Couch

Is a couch flat or not?

2. The Quran says for man to walk on the shoulders of the earth

Are shoulders round or flat?

3. If a couch is NOT flat, and shoulders are ROUND, than what does it say for your argument that the Quran is asserting that the earth is flat? What does the imagery of couch and shoulders point to?

4. The Quran says that the sky is spread like the roof of a beduoin tent.

Are you denying this point or not?

5. The Quran says the mountains are like pegs of a tent.

Are you denying this point or not?

6. The Quran says the earth was spread like a carpet.

Are you denying this point or not?

7. In the context of the sky being like the roof of a beduoin tent, and the mountain beings pegs, if the Quran was to assert that the floor was a round object floating in space, would it ruin the imagery or not?

8. The employment of the word 'spread' can be used rhetorically or literally.

Are you denying this point?

9. If a couch is NOT flat, shoulders are ROUND, and yet the earth is also spread like a CARPET, doesn't it LOGICALLY follow that the Quran is not using the word 'spread' literally in the verses, but rhetorically, i.e. to complete the image of the tent?

Is this the most likely possibility or are you going to keep shooting denial from your mouth, and than talk about shooting meteors, and the earth opening up. Are you then going to tell me how tents don't have pillars or that beduoin tents employ domes as tents? Are you then going to tell me how carpets are not used in tents despite me pointing to you pictures of actual beduoin tents?

Ummm. this didn't make any sense and appears to be the classic attempt to merely whisk it away. One basic truth that I know for a fact is that the human mind hates to be wrong. And it will invent things that you wouldn't believe in order to prevent it from being wrong. Happens all of the time. Remember, I go with the basic interpretation, and therefore, I don't have to invent anything at all

Basic interpretation...

Point 1:

The 'simplest' explanation does not necessitate it being the CORRECT interpretation.

Point 2:

Coming from a man who tries to relate the issue of an ostrich with a statement of the earth, and your talking about not indulging in linguistic gymnastics. This, coming from a man, who continually speaks out of his ear, when he doesn't even know the relevant verses he claims to be explaining.

Your living in a state of denial. But I understand. Even if I'm right, the point is insignficant and it doesn't change you argument. Keep believing what you want to believe. But coming from a man who thinks a couch is flat and shoulders are not round, than really... what else is there?

Arnold

16th July 2007, 21:53

No, you did not press me in any way whatsoever. The fact is that an ostrich spreads dirt over an egg to nurture and protect it.

Okay, but I had to remind you of that, and it doesn't sound like what you were saying earlier.

But even than, it is NOT an analogy.

It is too an analogy. It was used as an analogy for the creation of the earth. Obviously, it's not to be taken literally, but it certainly does point to what it believes to be reality, and uses imagery to discuss this

So no matter how many times you continue to try and divert away from the core of the argument, your still wrong. If you believe that you WON the argument, than quite frankly your more deluded in your argument than you think.

Who cares about won or lost? YOU think that way, not me. I merely explain what I believe to be the truth and I explain exactly why. What else can anyone do?

The act of spreading dirt by an ostrich is for this purpose, nothing more.

It doesn't relate to the creation of the earth?

But the act of spreading IS NOT being compared to ANY ACT, and no imagery is being employed.

Who says?

The Quran being spread IS being compared to the spreading of a carpet.

And to me, this relates to places where it is said it was spread out or made a wide expanse. Why not?

We are going to cut through all the BS and get right down to it.

Allright. Finally. Woo hoo !!!

The Quran calls the earth:

1. Couch

Is a couch flat or not?

The surface that you rest on is indeed flat. That's why you rest on it. Since when do you rest on sphere shaped couches?

2. The Quran says for man to walk on the shoulders of the earth

Are shoulders round or flat?

Shoulders are essentially flat, and they certainly aren't spherical. Why do you think anything or anybody can rest on someone's shoulders? They couldn't if they were spherical. If shoulders were balls, then you couldn't have the circus acts you have, so what are you possibly thinking of? The performers are able to rest on each other's shoulders to the extent that they are flat rather than ball shaped.

3. The employment of the word 'spread' can be used rhetorically or literally.

Are you denying this point?

It can be used a number of ways, but when describing the creation of the earth, I don't think we should use the interpretation of a betting point spread as you earlier tried to introduce as a possibility in order to purposefully convolute and therefore dilute the point. That was a pretty far reach and pretty poor. But wait, maybe that was Ron. I can't tell anymore as both of you blow so much smoke at me.

4. The Quran says that the sky is spread like the roof of a beduoin tent.

Why is roof mentioned at all? If the Quran couldn't use an accurate, non misleading analogy, then it shouldn't have used one at all and remained silent. Frankly, I believe that it used an inaccurate analogy, simply because Muhammad didn't know any better.

Are you denying this point or not?

answered.

5. The Quran says the mountains are like pegs of a tent.

Are you denying this point or not?

The Quran says the mountains are used to hold the ground down, not the top of a tent nor the heavens. You do not speak of pegs in the carpet, you speak of pegs in the tent covering that is supposed to be the sky. How many times do I need to explain the inconsistency in your analogy? What does it take? Find a consistency between the analogy, and what it points to. Why can't you understand that?

6. The Quran says the earth was spread like a carpet.

Are you denying this point or not?

Translators have indeed added the comment to the verses where they say in parenthesis (like a carpet). And, of course I think the Quran says that the earth was once rolled up or balled up, or whatever, but then, to make it inhabitable, it needed to be spread out and hence flattened out. For the purpose of illustrating this, perhaps the carpet was not a bad analogy as a carpet does indeed start in a round shape before it's unrolled and hence flattened out..

7. In the context of the sky being like the roof of a beduoin tent, and the muntain beings pegs, if the Quran was to assert that the floor was a round object floating in space, would it ruin the imagery or not?

Sure it would, and if the author knew the earth was round, he would have never have used this horribly errant analogy of a bedouin tent at all. I wouldn't, given the knowledge that I have. But, if you believe that the earth is flat, and the sky is a covering of some sort, then the author actually did a great job with the analogies

Your living in a state of denial.

Again, a claim with no specific backing. Denied. It doesn't work, but it's always nice to see you try, I suppose. Go find a real dummy for your shell game. Doesn't work on this corner.

But I understand. Even if I'm right, the point is insignficant and it doesn't change you argument. Keep believing what you want to believe. But coming from a man who thinks a couch is flat and shoulders are not round, than really... what else is there?

Boy, did you ever embarrass yourself now that I easily answered those points. It was almost effortless. What was the big deal? No big deal.

ihsan

16th July 2007, 22:22

It is too an analogy. It was used as an analogy for the creation of the earth. Obviously, it's not to be taken literally, but it certainly does point to what it believes to be reality, and uses imagery to discuss this

Please elaborate on how is it used for an analogy... This is getting quite comical...

The word 'da aaha' is employed in a sentence when talking about an ostrich spreading dirt over it's eggs. The same word is employed in the Quran when referring to the earth being spread like a carpet. The only similarity between the two sentences are the word 'da aaha'. The employment of the same word does not constitute that an analogy is being made. The word 'da aaha' only has relevant to an ostrich and eggs, when ostriches and eggs are being talked about in that very sentence. As I stated before, it is like trying to teach an elementary school child.

Who cares about won or lost? YOU think that way, not me. I merely explain what I believe to be the truth and I explain exactly why. What else can anyone do?

Sure you do...

It doesn't relate to the creation of the earth?

No, it doesn't relate to the creation of the earth. As I stated one hundred times, the only similarity between the two is the EMPLOYMENT OF THE SAME VERB.

Who says?

Tell me in what language does the employment of the same verb in two different sentences constitutes the employment of an analogy?

The surface that you rest on is indeed flat. That's why you rest on it. Since when do you rest on sphere shaped couches?

I asked you if couches were flat, not the portion of the surface that may be flat. There are countless places on the face of the earth that are essentially flat, but this does not mean the earth is flat. Cushions can be oval shaped, or rectangular. Pillows have round edges. Pillows have volume, which is opposite to a flat earth. Couches also have support boards, which you rest against.

Are you sure your vision isn't bad?

Shoulders are essentially flat, and they certainly aren't spherical. Why do you think anything or anybody can rest on someone's shoulders? They couldn't if they were spherical. If shoulders were balls, then you couldn't have the circus acts you have, so what are you possibly thinking of? The performers are able to rest on each other's shoulders to the extent that they are flat rather than ball shaped.

It is either you are incredibly stupid or just living in denial. In all of my life, I have never seen a shoulder that is flat. Considering the deltoid is essentially a round, muscular ball, only a fool could assert that shoulders are flat. According to you, the imagery of a shoulder is pointing to something. Why not a round ball?

It can be used a number of ways, but when describing the creation of the earth, I don't think we should use the interpretation of a betting point spread as you earlier tried to introduce as a possibility in order to purposefully convolute and therefore dilute the point. That was a pretty far reach and pretty poor. But wait, maybe that was Ron. I can't tell anymore as both of you blow so much smoke at me.

It is describing the creation of the earth by employing the imagery of the tent. So what aspects make up the creation of a tent?

Why is roof mentioned at all? If the Quran couldn't use an accurate, non misleading analogy, then it shouldn't have used one at all and remained silent. Frankly, I believe that it used an inaccurate analogy, simply because Muhammad didn't know any better.

Whether it used it or not, the fact is the Quran USED IT. I am not asking what your taste is regarding the imagery.

answered.

You didn't answer it. You gave a convoluted explanation. I asked you if you the heavens are likened to a tent.

The Quran says the mountains are used to hold the ground down, not the top of a tent nor the heavens. You do not speak of pegs in the carpet, you speak of pegs in the tent covering that is supposed to be the sky. How many times do I need to explain the inconsistency in your analogy? What does it take? Find a consistency between the analogy, and what it points to. Why can't you understand that?

I did not ask you for an explanation of the analogy, or your opinions on the employment of the analogy. I aksed you if the mountains are called pegs in the Quran. You are not giving me a clear answer.

But I can assume that you acknowledge that the sky is likened to a beduoin tent, and the mountains to pegs of a tent. You may not like it, but, like I stated before, I care little for your tastes regarding literature.

Translators have indeed added the comment to the verses where they say in parenthesis (like a carpet). And, of course I think the Quran says that the earth was once rolled up or balled up, or whatever, but then, to make it inhabitable, it needed to be spread out and hence flattened out. For the purpose of illustrating this, perhaps the carpet was not a bad analogy as a carpet does indeed start in a round shape before it's unrolled and hence flattened out..

Besides the fact that Arabic is full of suppression, and does not even include prepositions many times let alone certain words, because they are automatically understood by the reader, I did not ask you what translators did or did not do. You have already admitted that the analogy of the carpet is employed. Now your back-tracking, because you know what the necessary logical conclusion to this all is.

I asked you do you believe the Quran likens the spreading of the earth with the spreading of the carpet. Does it or does it not?

Sure it would, and if the author knew the earth was round, he would have never have used this horribly errant analogy. I wouldn't, given the knowledge that I have

I did not ask you your opinion regarding the employment of the imagery. What I stated was what other imagery we be employed in this situation? If you affirm that imagery is being employed, LIKE YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE, than what other imagery of the earth would make sense in this context?

Now you've changed the total discourse, i.e. back-peddled, into an issue with the imagery. Your latest answer now creates even more problems for you. So what was Muhammad trying to do? Did he start with the assertion that the earth was flat, or that the heavens were a roof like a beduoin tent? Or did he start with the assertion of the mountains being pegs?

Let us see how you continue to move and try and giggle out of the situation.

Boy, did you ever embarrass yourself now that I easily answered those points. It was almost effortless. What was the big deal? No big deal.

Answering questions with ridiculous responses doesn't equate to answering the points. All I continue to see is denial, back-peddling, changing your own opinions from scientific problems to now, bad imagery. What is next?

Camden202

17th July 2007, 02:18

Your age is very relevant, because I need to understand whether you can assimilate information or not. And it seems that your situation is tilting towards the not.

What has this got to do with anything... or are you just making yet another distraction/diversion... because you have been busted trying to overlay a Secular issue with a Non Secular issue....

Whats worse is that you made this big proclaimation (using your own assimilated information process no doubt) overlaying a Secular issue with a clearly NON Secular issue.

And still you haven't bothered to check the dictionary, you don't even understand what the word means. I am not your wet nurse, don't be a lazy Muslim... look it up yourself.

The_Other_Admin

17th July 2007, 12:55

I did, left and right, and you didn't answer them very well.

All you did was nitpick on words, and that was not correct either.

Shoulders are essentially flat...
This is hilarious :giggling:

Why do you think anything or anybody can rest on someone's shoulders? They couldn't if they were spherical.
Well, fitness ball is spherical, and I rest on it.

A pic of fitness ball:
http://www.stottpilates.com/videos/images/photos/250x253_ball.jpg

hasan

17th July 2007, 13:08

Are you sure it wasn't talking about their orbits rather than their spin?

Positively and without doubt the exegetes are absolutley talking about both orbit and spin.

How?

I am not sure about this question, is it a suprise "How", of How did they find that in the Holy Quran or is it more of a How the heck did they find that out well before modern knowledge?

Actually, it was Ptolemy who first calculated the circumference of the earth

Incorrect, Eratosthenes had calculated earlier the circumference of the Earth based on solar measurements using ancient Egyptian geodetic surveys. He had proposed a geometric estimate in today’s equivalent of 46,250 kilometers. Ptolemy recalculated Eratosthenes work by using stellar measurements made earlier by Marinus of Tyre (by way of Posidonius). He proposed a geometric estimate in today’s equivalent 28,800 kilometers. Musa bin Shakir's sons, Ahmad and Muhammad calculated the circumference of the Earth by way of geodetic surveys and proposed a geometric estimate in today’s equivalent of 39,690 km. The modern measurement is 40,070 kilometers. Not only did they ascertain the size of the earth, but also works determining the obliquity of the ecliptic, the variations of the lunar latitudes and the precession of the equinoxes.

The meaning THEY gave.

Refers to their exegetes of the Holy Quran

If I knew the earth was round, I would try and give the same meanings they did in order to make the Quran work.

You have to realise they only specialised in the exegetes of the Holy Quran and were not themselves familiar with the secular and empirical sciences of Astronomy

But here's a question. If the verses say the moon orbits the earth, then why does it NOT say the sun orbits the earth as well?

At a time when it was held that the Earth was the centre of the world and that the Sun moved in relation to it, how has the Holy Quran then failed to refer to the Sun's movement when talking of the sequence of night and day? That is what you should find curious.

There's no good distinction made between their orbits. And clearly, it does reference rounded courses, and that does not sound like spinning to me in the least. Courses do not involve spinning, they involve traveling.

We are both not qualified in the exegete of the Holy Quran to add weight to the validity of your claim. We can only criticise the exegetes themselves, ample references were given.

So, the Quran says that both the sun and moon orbit, and we are supposed to believe it meant the moon orbiting the earth, but not the sun orbiting the earth as well? Why? There's no reason given except for modern science. The earth is clearly referenced all over the Quran, but there's never any mention of the concept of galaxies. And yet it's telling us the sun orbits the galaxy and not the earth? And, it tells us that Allah prevents the two's orbits from catching up to each other or outstripping each other? Seems to me that one would only make a statement like this if they thought the two were orbiting in the same general space. Otherwise, the statement has no relevance or real meaning. But if the two are orbiting the same area, then the statement suddenly becomes very meaningful and important. 39:5 references day and night, which obviously deal with the earth, and then, in the same exact verse, it deals with the orbits of the sun and moon, and yet, we're supposed to arbitrarily throw the galaxy in there out of nowhere rather than thinking it's talking about the earth? Not very likely, to say the least.

I’ll let Dr Maurice Bucaille (http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm)explain verse 39:5 for you:

--sura 39, verse 5:
". . . He coils the night upon the day and He coils the day upon the night."

'To coil' or 'to wind' seems, as in the French translation by R. Blachère, to be the best way of translating the Arabic verb kawwara. The original meaning of the verb is to 'coil' a turban around the head; the notion of coiling is preserved in all the other senses of the word.
What actually happens however in space? American astronauts have seen and photographed what happens from their spaceships, especially at a great distance from Earth, e.g. from the Moon. They saw how the Sun permanently lights up (except in the case of an eclipse) the half of the Earth's surface that is facing it, while the other half of the globe is in darkness. The Earth turns on its own axis and the lighting remains the same, so that an area in the form of a half-sphere makes one revolution around the Earth in twenty-four hours while the other half-sphere, that has remained in darkness, makes the same revolution in the same time. This perpetual rotation of night and day is quite clearly described in the Qur'an. It is easy for the human understanding to grasp this notion nowadays because we have the idea of the Sun's (relative) immobility and the Earth's rotation. This process of perpetual coiling, including the interpenetration of one sector by another is expressed in the Qur'an just as if the concept of the Earth's roundness had already been conceived at the time-which was obviously not the case.
You would probably have to read it a few times.

Do you know where the sun goes at sunset[/B]?' I replied, ‘Allah and His Apostle know better.' He said, ‘It travels until it falls down and prostrates Itself underneath the Throne. The angels who are in charge of the sun prostrate themselves, also. The sun asks permission to rise again. It is permitted. Then it will prostrate itself again but this prostration will not be accepted. The sun then says, "My Lord, where do You command me to rise, from where I set or from where I rose?" Allah will order the sun to return whence it has come and so the sun will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the statement of Allah in the Qur'an.'"

This is in reference to:

36:38 And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.

This may refer either to the end of the world as we know it-thus indicating the finality of all creation - or, according to `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas (as quoted by Baghawi and Razi), to the "mansions" or stages through which the sun and the moon, like all other celestial bodies, move in time as well as in space.

Very ominous, possibly in reference to some kind of entropy

Again the finality is stated in the following Ayat

13:2 Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly established on the throne (of authority); He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. He doth regulate all affairs, explaining the signs in detail that ye may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord.

It is also referenced in 39:5

Arnold

17th July 2007, 13:56

All you did was nitpick on words, and that was not correct either.

This is hilarious :giggling:

It is not hilarious. People stand on the flat part of one's shoulders. Do they stand on the round part? So who is hilarious?

Well, fitness ball is spherical, and I rest on it.

Yeah, that looks like a great couch or a bed. I don't even think you even believe what you're trying to feed me. You're just pulling anything out of you pocket that you can and throwing it at the problem, and you could care less whether it's true or not, just as long as it creates doubt about my point. Did you ever hear the expression about the person who throws as much **** at the wall as he can in hopes that some of it sticks? That's all you're doing.

Arnold

17th July 2007, 15:00

Please elaborate on how is it used for an analogy... This is getting quite comical...

Spreading out and flattening out the dirt refers to Allah spreading out and flattening out the earth

The word 'da aaha' is employed in a sentence when talking about an ostrich spreading dirt over it's eggs. The same word is employed in the Quran when referring to the earth being spread like a carpet. The only similarity between the two sentences are the word 'da aaha'. The employment of the same word does not constitute that an analogy is being made.

Why not?

The word 'da aaha' only has relevant to an ostrich and eggs, when ostriches and eggs are being talked about in that very sentence.

And it can be used as an analogy. This action performed by the ostrich is pointing to a similar type of action that Allah performed when creating the earth. The ostrich spreads and flattens the dirt. Allah spread and flattened the earth. If this stuff is not referring to anything of reality and merely speaking of Allah's hospitality, then why does it tell us that the mountain were added as pegs? It points to a physical reality (the mountains), and tells us what they are used for (as pegs). Is that part merely telling us of hospitality? NO. It is trying to explain what Allah did when he created then earth. So are we supposed to think that the preceding verses are not trying to correspond to physical reality or be analogous to it at all, but then, suddenly, it DOES start telling us about physical realities when it gets to the mountains? Come on. The whole thing is analogous to what Allah did during creation. If you want to add that it is also speaking about how hospitable and gracious God was being as well, then fine, but it doesn't negate it's main meaning. You are so full of it, and I ain't buyin'. Take the shell game to the next corner.

No, it doesn't relate to the creation of the earth. As I stated one hundred times, the only similarity between the two is the EMPLOYMENT OF THE SAME VERB.

If the mountains are pegs that keep the earth from shaking, then it is describing the creation of the earth and what Allah did and how he did it. That verse is not merely about hospitality and is clearly attempting to point to an actual reality. So why should we think the other verses right next to it aren't doing the same thing? There is no reason. Well, wait, there is one reason, and only one reason, and we both know what that reason is.

Tell me in what language does the employment of the same verb in two different sentences constitutes the employment of an analogy?

Let's be clear for a moment. An analogy can use imagery to point to an actual reality. There's no doubt about that. And the two different sentences do not both have dahaha in them, so I don't know what you are talking about there. They both simply reference an action of spreading and/or flattening, even though the analogies are two different situations. The fact that they are two different situations (spread a carpet) (prepare a ditch), they both employ the actions of spreading which means the Quran is definitely being consistent by referencing spreading whenever it talks about the creation of the earth. Even when it uses two entirely different analogies. That's pretty convincing.

I asked you if couches were flat, not the portion of the surface that may be flat.

And I responded that the top of a couch is indeed flat. So why are we revisiting this?

There are countless places on the face of the earth that are essentially flat, but this does not mean the earth is flat.

Then you are talking about Allah spreading out the land, not spreading out the earth. So Allah spread or leveled or flattened out the hills and mountains of the land and then added the mountains? But here's the funniest part. First you say that it only involves hospitality and in no way whatsoever does in mean anything involving shape, but now you are saying it does involve shape, but it involves the flattening of the land. See how sneaky you are? This is why I don't trust explanations from Muslims, and here, you are illustrating why perfectly.

Cushions can be oval shaped, or rectangular.

With a flat top.

Pillows have round edges. Pillows have volume, which is opposite to a flat earth. Couches also have support boards, which you rest against.

It still has essentially a flat top. Certainly not even close to sphere shape. but again, it's so funny hearing you argue the shape angle, when before, you said it had absolutely nothing to do with shape. See what you do? I do.

It is either you are incredibly stupid or just living in denial. In all of my life, I have never seen a shoulder that is flat.

The shoulder clearly has a flat area between the neck and the top of the arm. what part do you think people stand on when they stand on someone's shoulder? Do they stand on the round part?

Considering the deltoid is essentially a round, muscular ball, only a fool could assert that shoulders are flat. According to you, the imagery of a shoulder is pointing to something. Why not a round ball?

The deltoid is at the top of the arm. That is not the flat part of the shoulders. Here's a stinkin picture for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltoid_muscle

So, when people stand on each others shoulders, are they standing on each other's deltoids? No. Nice try. Invention denied.

It is describing the creation of the earth by employing the imagery of the tent.

And it is using this imagery because it perfectly describes a flat earth and the sky as a covering. Otherwise, it would have used a different analogy. It's a rather poor analogy if it's trying to tell us what you say, but it's a perfect analogy if it's trying to tell us what I say.

Whether it used it or not, the fact is the Quran USED IT. I am not asking what your taste is regarding the imagery.

See above.

You didn't answer it. You gave a convoluted explanation. I asked you if you the heavens are likened to a tent.

Yes, they are likened to the top of a tent, because the author thought the sky was a covering of sorts, just like others did back then. It's a perfect analogy if we say it's pointing to what I'm talking about. It's flawless, extremely appropriate and very well done. But instead, we pick the less likely meaning, make the analogy not as clear or well done, and whisk the whole thing away as merely talking about hospitality. Why? Only one reason.

I did not ask you for an explanation of the analogy, or your opinions on the employment of the analogy. I aksed you if the mountains are called pegs in the Quran. You are not giving me a clear answer.

078:007

078:007 Khan And the mountains as pegs?

078:007 Maulana And the mountains as pegs?

078:007 Pickthal And the high hills bulwarks?

078:007 Rashad And the mountains stabilizers?

078:007 Sarwar and the mountains as pegs (to anchor the earth)?.

078:007 Shakir And the mountains as projections (thereon)?

078:007 Sherali And the mountains as pegs?

078:007 Yusufali And the mountains as pegs?

Seems like I know the Quran better than you or else you wouldn't have asked this.

But I can assume that you acknowledge that the sky is likened to a beduoin tent, and the mountains to pegs of a tent. You may not like it, but, like I stated before, I care little for your tastes regarding literature.

For being a literature guy, you sure make some dumb mistakes. The imagery or analogy has to have a one to one correspondence to the reality that it points to. So sky is likened to the top of tent. Good so far. The carpet is likened to the earth. Okay so far. The mountains are related to the pegs that keep the tent from flying away. Wait a second, aren't the pegs supposed to be related to the carpet or the earth if they are related to the mountains? Yes. See the flaw? How many times need I explain this simple flaw? In your analogy, the pegs are related to the sky, but in reality, the mountains are related to the earth. And do you know what the funniest part is? you challenge me to show you where pegs are mentioned in the Quran, and then, you turn around and use pegs in your explanation. This is amazing. You're all over the map. No consistency.

Besides the fact that Arabic is full of suppression, and does not even include prepositions many times let alone certain words, because they are automatically understood by the reader, I did not ask you what translators did or did not do. You have already admitted that the analogy of the carpet is employed.

As a translators note.

Now your back-tracking, because you know what the necessary logical conclusion to this all is.

You used carpet all over the place, so what are you talking about. What sort of elusive game is this?

I asked you do you believe the Quran likens the spreading of the earth with the spreading of the carpet. Does it or does it not?

Yes, I believe it does, and clearly, you do as well. Are you changing this now?

I did not ask you your opinion regarding the employment of the imagery.

Tough luck, I'm giving it anyway, scammer.

What I stated was what other imagery we be employed in this situation? If you affirm that imagery is being employed, LIKE YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE, than what other imagery of the earth would make sense in this context?

And I said, a round rock that slowly turns in front of a lamp. But the Quran actually used perfect imagery to describe what the author thought to be physical reality. Otherwise, it would be a very poor, faulty analogy.

Now you've changed the total discourse, i.e. back-peddled, into an issue with the imagery. Your latest answer now creates even more problems for you. So what was Muhammad trying to do? Did he start with the assertion that the earth was flat, or that the heavens were a roof like a beduoin tent? Or did he start with the assertion of the mountains being pegs?

Muhammad was explaining what Allah did during creation, and the analogies he picked clearly display an understanding of the earth as flat and the sky as a covering of sorts.

Let us see how you continue to move and try and giggle out of the situation.

What are you talking about? I'm starting to believe that you may be a little cuckoo.

Answering questions with ridiculous responses doesn't equate to answering the points.

I answer and I substantiate. You seem to think that anything that disagrees with you is immediately ridiculous, but nothing can be further from the truth.

All I continue to see is denial, back-peddling, changing your own opinions from scientific problems to now, bad imagery. What is next?

There's no back-peddling at all. My position has been consistent throughout. The Quran is referring to a flat earth that is held down by the mountains and is under a sky covering. There's my position again, and it's always been the same and it is clear and simple. The reason why you are trying to make me out as back-peddling is because this is what YOU do. Your position at first, was that all the verses are talking solely about hospitality and have nothing to do with shape whatsoever. Then, you start discussing shape in terms of the camel and human shoulders. So you change what you are discussing and it's right in front of all of us to plainly see. You shouldn't be discussing shape in the least if you remained consistent to your original point. So look at what you are doing. And THEN, you turn around and try to say I'm switching. How dishonest. Disgusting.

Arnold

17th July 2007, 15:13

What has this got to do with anything... or are you just making yet another distraction/diversion... because you have been busted trying to overlay a Secular issue with a Non Secular issue....

Whats worse is that you made this big proclaimation (using your own assimilated information process no doubt) overlaying a Secular issue with a clearly NON Secular issue.

And still you haven't bothered to check the dictionary, you don't even understand what the word means. I am not your wet nurse, don't be a lazy Muslim... look it up yourself.

He knows. This guy appears to be a big time scammer always playing the shell game. Not the first time I've seen it.

Arnold

17th July 2007, 15:35

Positively and without doubt the exegetes are absolutley talking about both orbit and spin.

And they wouldn't twist the interpretation to fit what they want. No, of course not. I don't trust them, as they certainly have a motive.

I am not sure about this question, is it a suprise "How", of How did they find that in the Holy Quran or is it more of a How the heck did they find that out well before modern knowledge?

No, the how meant, how are we sure it's talking about spin rather than just orbiting? Go back and read it again and it will make sense.

Incorrect, Eratosthenes had calculated earlier the circumference of the Earth based on solar measurements using ancient Egyptian geodetic surveys. He had proposed a geometric estimate in today’s equivalent of 46,250 kilometers. Ptolemy recalculated Eratosthenes work by using stellar measurements made earlier by Marinus of Tyre (by way of Posidonius). He proposed a geometric estimate in today’s equivalent 28,800 kilometers. Musa bin Shakir's sons, Ahmad and Muhammad calculated the circumference of the Earth by way of geodetic surveys and proposed a geometric estimate in today’s equivalent of 39,690 km. The modern measurement is 40,070 kilometers. Not only did they ascertain the size of the earth, but also works determining the obliquity of the ecliptic, the variations of the lunar latitudes and the precession of the equinoxes.

That's great. So the point is, that many people calculated the circumference of a round earth.

Refers to their exegetes of the Holy Quran

I don't trust them. They have motives for twisting the meaning of the verses to make it fit their knowledge. It happens all of the time, even today. The best they can come up with is a spindle, but the spindle could clearly be pointing to planets orbiting, rather than them spinning. It really needs to use two separate analogies to describe two very different actions, but it doesn't as far as I can tell.

You have to realise they only specialised in the exegetes of the Holy Quran and were not themselves familiar with the secular and empirical sciences of Astronomy

How do you know that? You're just pulling an assumption out of thin air.

At a time when it was held that the Earth was the centre of the world and that the Sun moved in relation to it, how has the Holy Quran then failed to refer to the Sun's movement when talking of the sequence of night and day? That is what you should find curious.

What are you talking about? It's right in front of you.

039:005 Khan
He has created the heavens and the earth with truth. He makes the night to go in the day and makes the day to go in the night. And He has subjected the sun and the moon. Each running (on a fixed course) for an appointed term. Verily, He is the All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving.

039:005 Maulana
He has created the heavens and the earth with truth; He makes the night cover the day and makes the day overtake the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient; each one moves on to an assigned term. Now surely He is the Mighty, the Forgiver.

039:005 Pickthal
He hath created the heavens and the earth with truth. He maketh night to succeed day, and He maketh day to succeed night, and He constraineth the sun and the moon to give service, each running on for an appointed term. Is not He the Mighty, the Forgiver?

039:005 Rashad
He created the heavens and the earth truthfully. He rolls the night over the day, and rolls the day over the night. He committed the sun and the moon, each running for a finite period. Absolutely, He is the Almighty, the Forgiving.

039:005 Sarwar
He has created the heavens and the earth for a genuine purpose. He covers the night with the day and the day with the night and has subdued the sun and the moon, each of which floats for an appointed time. God is certainly Majestic and All-Forgiving.

039:005 Shakir
He has created the heavens and the earth with the truth; He makes the night cover the day and makes the day overtake the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient; each one runs on to an assigned term; now surely He is the Mighty, the great Forgiver.

039:005 Sherali
HE created the heavens and the earth in accordance with the requirements of wisdom. HE makes the night to cover the day, and HE makes the day to cover the night; and he has pressed the sun and the moon into service; each pursues its course until an appointed time. Remember, it is HE alone Who is the Mighty, the Great Forgiver.

039:005 Yusufali
He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His law): Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power - He Who forgives again and again?

Night, day, movement of the sun. It's all there in the same verse.

We are both not qualified in the exegete of the Holy Quran to add weight to the validity of your claim. We can only criticise the exegetes themselves, ample references were given.

And that's what I am doing. Criticizing the exegetes. And, I don't believe this bull that nobody can interpret the Quran. This is a scam to allow people to make the Quran mean anything that they need it to mean.

I’ll let Dr Maurice Bucaille (http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm)explain verse 39:5 for you:

You mean the Saudi King's personal doctor? That's a nice job. I wouldn't want to lose that job. Save it. This guy's a scammer. Have you ever asked yourself how Bucaille can claim divine origin of the Quran and yet never convert? We have to either believe that he didn't fully believe everything he told us, or that he doesn't care if he burns in hell. Your choice. You've been had.

ihsan

17th July 2007, 21:58

Spreading out and flattening out the dirt refers to Allah spreading out and flattening out the earth

I already know that you claim such a thing. That is not what I asked you. I asked you how does the employment of the same verb in two different sentences constitute an analogy?

Answer the question...

Simply asserting that they do, because two sentences employs the same verb is not cutting it.

Why not?

Actually, you need to tell me why they do, because your the one asserting that they do. Everybody besides you seems to understand that the only similarity between the two sentences is the employment of the same verb.

And it can be used as an analogy. This action performed by the ostrich is pointing to a similar type of action that Allah performed when creating the earth. The ostrich spreads and flattens the dirt. Allah spread and flattened the earth.

Do I now have to give you lessons in analogies. It would be an analogy if one stated:

Allah spread and flattened the earth like an ostrich spread and flattens the dirt over his eggs. The statement becomes an analogy when the language itself makes a comparison.

All your doing is arguing that two sentences employ the same verbs, and because of this an analogy is possible. This, out of all things, exemplifies your ignorance of principles of language, let alone shows your 'creative genius' at making things up.

If this stuff is not referring to anything of reality and merely speaking of Allah's hospitality, then why does it tell us that the mountain were added as pegs? It points to a physical reality (the mountains), and tells us what they are used for (as pegs). Is that part merely telling us of hospitality? NO.

Because the language itself indicates that the analogy the Quran is making with the mountains is that of pegs. The Quran further tells us that the mountains are used to stabilize the earth. What your doing is taking a sentence about ostriches and trying to argue that the Quran is drawing an analogy with ostriches, because a sentence about ostriches employs the same verb. This is the extent of how ignorant you are of what your talking about.

It is trying to explain what Allah did when he created then earth. So are we supposed to think that the preceding verses are not trying to correspond to physical reality or be analogous to it at all, but then, suddenly, it DOES start telling us about physical realities when it gets to the mountains?

A mountain does not literally look like a tent peg. Have you seen a tent peg? The Quran is stressing what a peg does, i.e. stabilizes a tent. In the same manner, the Quran is stressing, in regards to spreading out the earth, what it does, i.e. shows how God has made the earth spacious and hospitable for him.

Do you now understand?

Come on. The whole thing is analogous to what Allah did during creation. If you want to add that it is also speaking about how hospitable and gracious God was being as well, then fine, but it doesn't negate it's main meaning. You are so full of it, and I ain't buyin'. Take the shell game to the next corner.

Keep telling yourself that I am so full of it, yada, yada, yada, to help you continue in your delusion that your answering the points. If it grants you some self-confidence, who am I to argue it.

If the mountains are pegs that keep the earth from shaking, then it is describing the creation of the earth and what Allah did and how he did it. That verse is not merely about hospitality and is clearly attempting to point to an actual reality. So why should we think the other verses right next to it aren't doing the same thing? There is no reason. Well, wait, there is one reason, and only one reason, and we both know what that reason is.

Of course it isn't talking about hospitality, because it is emphasizing that God stabilized the earth with mountains, just as a peg stabilizes a tent. The emphasis of hospitality and provdence is emphasized by God spreading the earth for man, like a host does for his guest by spreading out the carpet for him, and further, serving him with all sorts of fruits.

Let's be clear for a moment. An analogy can use imagery to point to an actual reality. There's no doubt about that. And the two different sentences do not both have dahaha in them, so I don't know what you are talking about there. They both simply reference an action of spreading and/or flattening, even though the analogies are two different situations. The fact that they are two different situations (spread a carpet) (prepare a ditch), they both employ the actions of spreading which means the Quran is definitely being consistent by referencing spreading whenever it talks about the creation of the earth. Even when it uses two entirely different analogies. That's pretty convincing.

I swear, this is absolutely comical. Now the sentences are employing analogies in two different situations. Before than, the two sentences were analogies. Now your confusing yourself even more by trying to change the argument, by claiming that the two sentences don't employ the same verb. Yet, in all your previous posts, you had a penchant for typing:

"daha, daha, daha, daha"

So if they don't employ the same verbs now genius, what is the similarity than? They both employ the same english word, i.e. 'spreading, flattening'.

So you even know what your talking about?

And I responded that the top of a couch is indeed flat. So why are we revisiting this?

No, you said part of the surface is flat. And part of the earth's surface is flat. And if you assert that a couch is flat, than I suggest you see an eye specialist.

Then you are talking about Allah spreading out the land, not spreading out the earth. So Allah spread or leveled or flattened out the hills and mountains of the land and then added the mountains? But here's the funniest part. First you say that it only involves hospitality and in no way whatsoever does in mean anything involving shape, but now you are saying it does involve shape, but it involves the flattening of the land. See how sneaky you are? This is why I don't trust explanations from Muslims, and here, you are illustrating why perfectly.

You have got to be kidding me that your engaging in this much gymnastics to win a point that you cannot win. You do realize that I was responding to your assertion that part of the surface of the a couch is flat. The point is, and points are what you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that parts of the earth are flat to. Does this mean that the earth is flat?

With a flat top.

LOL... This has gotten to the point of absurdity. Shoulders are round. There surfaces are NOT flat. Further, I will point you to a picture of a camel for your sake.

http://camelfarm.com/images/camels1.gif

Only in the world of bizarro, do people call shoulders flat.

It still has essentially a flat top. Certainly not even close to sphere shape. but again, it's so funny hearing you argue the shape angle, when before, you said it had absolutely nothing to do with shape. See what you do? I do.

It doesn't have anything to do with the shape, and your attempts to try and divert away from the argument by trying to make it seem I was implying that the Quran is referring to a shape in these verses proves you have no understanding at all. I stated that if your assertion was correct, than why would the Quran liken the earth to a camel thorugh imagery, and further tell men to walk on it's shoulders. Why would God liken the earth to a shape.

Let me make it simpler for you:

1. The Quran refers to the earth as a camel
2. The Quran refers to the earth as a couch
3. The Quran says the earth was spread like a camel

Now, if 1 and 2 are being used for imagery, what makes you assert that 3 isn't being used for imagery. You keep telling me that point 3 applies to the shape of the earth, but 1 and 2 don't. Yet, you haven't given any reasons for your assertion, other than your blind dogmatism.

The shoulder clearly has a flat area between the neck and the top of the arm. what part do you think people stand on when they stand on someone's shoulder? Do they stand on the round part?

Maybe you don't have any trapezius muscles, so I advice you to go to the gym. But even then, no, the top of the shoulder is not flat. It is round. Further, a portion does not constitue that that object itself is flat, as your contending.

The deltoid is at the top of the arm. That is not the flat part of the shoulders. Here's a stinkin picture for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltoid_muscle

Thank you, but I don't need wikipedia to tell me what the deltoid muscle is. I know what the deltoid muscle is. It is at the to of the arm , and extends off to the side of the arm. Notice how the deltoid muscle ROUNDS off onto the bicep muscle. Surely, the deltoid muscle isn't flat. I thought that is what we were arguing? You have a tendency to lose yourself in the point.

So, when people stand on each others shoulders, are they standing on each other's deltoids? No. Nice try. Invention denied.

OMG... You have sunk this low...

And it is using this imagery because it perfectly describes a flat earth and the sky as a covering. Otherwise, it would have used a different analogy. It's a rather poor analogy if it's trying to tell us what you say, but it's a perfect analogy if it's trying to tell us what I say.

You say it's a poor analogy, and than you say it's a perfect analogy if your interpretation is accepted. You keep modifying your position, because you realize that your responses don't even answer the questions. Than what does that make of the other imagery of the earth as a couch, and the earth as a camel? poor imageries, because the Quran asserts the earth is flat? yawn....

Yes, they are likened to the top of a tent, because the author thought the sky was a covering of sorts, just like others did back then. It's a perfect analogy if we say it's pointing to what I'm talking about. It's flawless, extremely appropriate and very well done. But instead, we pick the less likely meaning, make the analogy not as clear or well done, and whisk the whole thing away as merely talking about hospitality. Why? Only one reason.

This is so laughable. Now your talking about how the imagery is extremely approparite and very well done, and flawless if your explanation is accepted. Before this, you were asserting how stupid the analogy was overall, because mountains should be stabilizing the heavens if they are the pegs, not the earth. Can you make up your mind? Your last attempts to save face are getting more and more comical.

So now the imagery is not that of a tent? Can you make up your mind? So I guess the analogy was of a covering of some 'sorts', yet you can't define what 'sort' it was, yet your saying the imagery is captured in your explanation to perfection. What is the analogy than, if it is simply a covering of some 'sorts'. What is the analogy of the earth in respect to?

Seems like I know the Quran better than you or else you wouldn't have asked this.

Have you heard of a rhetorical question, like the thirty or forty other similar questions I asked previously in the same post, in the same message.

For being a literature guy, you sure make some dumb mistakes. The imagery or analogy has to have a one to one correspondence to the reality that it points to. So sky is likened to the top of tent. Good so far. The carpet is likened to the earth. Okay so far. The mountains are related to the pegs that keep the tent from flying away. Wait a second, aren't the pegs supposed to be related to the carpet or the earth if they are related to the mountains? Yes. See the flaw? How many times need I explain this simple flaw? In your analogy, the pegs are related to the sky, but in reality, the mountains are related to the earth. And do you know what the funniest part is? you challenge me to show you where pegs are mentioned in the Quran, and then, you turn around and use pegs in your explanation. This is amazing. You're all over the map. No consistency.

When did I ever say the pegs were used to hold up the sky? Didn't I say over 100 times that the mountains are likened to pegs, except the Quran is talking about how the mountains provide stability to the earth, while the pegs of of a tend provide stability to the tent overall. Do you even have any idea what your talking about and if it relates to your point.

So you change what you are discussing and it's right in front of all of us to plainly see. You shouldn't be discussing shape in the least if you remained consistent to your original point. So look at what you are doing. And THEN, you turn around and try to say I'm switching. How dishonest. Disgusting.

LOL, as if words for dishonest and disgusting are meant to make it seem your post somehow was an adequate response. SO now your complaining about how I should not discuss shapes, because it is not my contention that the Quran is referring to the shape of the earth, even if by discussing shapes the thing I am doing is pointing out the logical flaws in your assertions. Wow...

This argument gets more and more comical, not disgusting and dishonest. Just straight comical...

Arnold

17th July 2007, 23:39

hasan

18th July 2007, 10:10

And they wouldn't twist the interpretation to fit what they want. No, of course not. I don't trust them, as they certainly have a motive.

What is it they are wanting? or what is the motivation?

No, the how meant, how are we sure it's talking about spin rather than just orbiting? Go back and read it again and it will make sense.

Yes but you asked that as a seperate question to which i answered. I would have assumed you would have requested which part of the Quran had that meaning. Instead of this attempt at patronising.

That's great. So the point is, that many people calculated the circumference of a round earth.

The point is that you were incorrect.

I don't trust them. They have motives for twisting the meaning of the verses to make it fit their knowledge. It happens all of the time, even today. The best they can come up with is a spindle, but the spindle could clearly be pointing to planets orbiting, rather than them spinning. It really needs to use two separate analogies to describe two very different actions, but it doesn't as far as I can tell.

As far as I know you are not qaulified and have no knowledge in the exegetes of the Holy Quran to make such assertions and it may the be the reason for your paranoia and fear as a result of this not knowing.

How do you know that? You're just pulling an assumption out of thin air.

Well history attests to this, the names of the exegetist are there for you to look up.The only assumption being pulled out of thin air is by you, your post are rampant with it.

What are you talking about? It's right in front of you.

039:005 Khan
He has created the heavens and the earth with truth. He makes the night to go in the day and makes the day to go in the night. And He has subjected the sun and the moon. Each running (on a fixed course) for an appointed term. Verily, He is the All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving.

039:005 Maulana
He has created the heavens and the earth with truth; He makes the night cover the day and makes the day overtake the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient; each one moves on to an assigned term. Now surely He is the Mighty, the Forgiver.

039:005 Pickthal
He hath created the heavens and the earth with truth. He maketh night to succeed day, and He maketh day to succeed night, and He constraineth the sun and the moon to give service, each running on for an appointed term. Is not He the Mighty, the Forgiver?

039:005 Rashad
He created the heavens and the earth truthfully. He rolls the night over the day, and rolls the day over the night. He committed the sun and the moon, each running for a finite period. Absolutely, He is the Almighty, the Forgiving.

039:005 Sarwar
He has created the heavens and the earth for a genuine purpose. He covers the night with the day and the day with the night and has subdued the sun and the moon, each of which floats for an appointed time. God is certainly Majestic and All-Forgiving.

039:005 Shakir
He has created the heavens and the earth with the truth; He makes the night cover the day and makes the day overtake the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient; each one runs on to an assigned term; now surely He is the Mighty, the great Forgiver.

039:005 Sherali
HE created the heavens and the earth in accordance with the requirements of wisdom. HE makes the night to cover the day, and HE makes the day to cover the night; and he has pressed the sun and the moon into service; each pursues its course until an appointed time. Remember, it is HE alone Who is the Mighty, the Great Forgiver.

039:005 Yusufali
He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His law): Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power - He Who forgives again and again?

Night, day, movement of the sun. It's all there in the same verse.

None of those verses refers to the suns movement in relation to the sequence of the day and night and the Qualified exegetes throughout the centuries do not reference the sequence of the day and night in relation to the Suns movement. But if you wish to remain adamant in your speculations, then it is your pregorative for whatever motive.

And that's what I am doing. Criticizing the exegetes. And, I don't believe this bull that nobody can interpret the Quran. This is a scam to allow people to make the Quran mean anything that they need it to mean.

You havent been criticising the exegetes you have been criticising the Holy Quran based on your interpretations of the Holy Quran.

You mean the Saudi King's personal doctor? That's a nice job. I wouldn't want to lose that job. Save it. This guy's a scammer. Have you ever asked yourself how Bucaille can claim divine origin of the Quran and yet never convert? We have to either believe that he didn't fully believe everything he told us, or that he doesn't care if he burns in hell. Your choice. You've been had.

I cant help but have a movie called idiocracy come to mind.

Dont bother responding, this is where we part. No fruitful conversation with you, only polemic. Peace.

Arnold

18th July 2007, 12:56

What is it they are wanting? or what is the motivation?

If an error is discovered, the Quran gets reinterpreted to protect it's image of being error free. Need that question be asked? For years, the sun orbiting was a big problem for the Quran. So every excuse and reinterpretation was tried to preserve it's perfection in light of science telling us the sun doesn't orbit. Things like "oh, well the Quran didn't really mean orbit" and yadda yadda. So when we found out the earth orbits the sun, the interpretation of the Quran that says the sun orbits needed to be changed. Then, later on, we find out that the sun orbits the galaxy, and then, suddenly the Quran DOES say the sun orbits. This is dishonesty at it's finest. People just keep rewriting it to make it fit science, and they do this all of the time and they have no shame about it. It's a real, unsolvable problem.

Yes but you asked that as a seperate question to which i answered. I would have assumed you would have requested which part of the Quran had that meaning. Instead of this attempt at patronising.

I simply explained to you what I meant when I asked why. Uuuuggghhh

The point is that you were incorrect.

Yes. So what? It doesn't mean anything to the larger point being discussed. It's a minor detail. Why are you trying to find any little thing wrong that you can when it doesn't relate to the larger point?

As far as I know you are not qaulified and have no knowledge in the exegetes of the Holy Quran to make such assertions and it may the be the reason for your paranoia and fear as a result of this not knowing.

I don't believe this. It's too easy for people to make the Quran mean anything they want and for them to easily change it's meaning if science discovers things that contradict the Quran. If I want to have a discussion with a Christian about the Bible, I can have one, and he'll tell me what he thinks and give me sources, and I'll tell him what I think. There is no rule that says you can't discuss the Bible. It's completely open for discussion. But the Quran apparently isn't. I don't believe them.

Well history attests to this, the names of the exegetist are there for you to look up.The only assumption being pulled out of thin air is by you, your post are rampant with it.

History gives the names but history doesn't say these people are right.

None of those verses refers to the suns movement in relation to the sequence of the day and night and the Qualified exegetes throughout the centuries do not reference the sequence of the day and night in relation to the Suns movement. But if you wish to remain adamant in your speculations, then it is your pregorative for whatever motive.

Well, you asked me where it says both the movement of the sun and day and night in the same verse. That's what you asked me and I showed you. Now, you're saying you asked me something different. We're not going to get anywhere are we? Seems like you'll make sure of that. It's the shell game. We discuss whether it's a red or blue ball under shell number one, and I guess blue, but the ball has been moved to shell number three.

You havent been criticising the exegetes you have been criticising the Holy Quran based on your interpretations of the Holy Quran.

you want exegetes? Here. Here's Ibn Kathir

Allah tells us that He is the Creator of what is in the heavens and on earth, and what is between them. He is the Sovereign and Controller alternating the night and day.

What is between the earth and the universe (heavens)? The earth is not separate from the universe, it is a subset of it. But here, it clearly mentions that the earth and the heavens (universe) are separate and have things between them. And yet, at the same time, it says the lowest heaven is adorned with stars, thereby telling us that the universe is the lowest heaven. The only way this works is if it saw the sky as a covering that was lifted above the earth. It never perceived what the sky really was.

[يُكَوِّرُ الَّيْـلَ عَلَى النَّهَـارِ وَيُكَوِّرُ النَّـهَارَ عَلَى الَّيْلِ]

(He makes the night to go in the day and makes the day to go in the night.) means, He has subjugated them and He causes them to alternate without ceasing, each seeking the other rapidly, as He says:

[يُغْشِى الَّيْلَ النَّهَارَ يَطْلُبُهُ حَثِيثًا]

Each seeking the other rapidly?

(He brings the night as a cover over the day, seeking it rapidly) (7:54).

A cover over the day?

This is the meaning of that which was narrated from Ibn `Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, Mujahid, Qatadah, As-Suddi and others.

[وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِى لأَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّـى]

(And He has subjected the sun and the moon. Each running for an appointed term.) means, for a period of time that is known to Allah, then it will come to an end on the Day of Resurrection.

Here, he talks about the movement of the sun in the very same verse where the alternation of night and day are mentioned. Why?

The larger problem with all of this need for exegetes is the classic saying "don't believe your eyes, believe what I tell you".

I cant help but have a movie called idiocracy come to mind.

Dont bother responding, this is where we part. No fruitful conversation with you, only polemic. Peace.

Yes, when running into a problem, act above it all. Not the first time I've seen that technique.

Arnold

18th July 2007, 13:02

ihsan

18th July 2007, 14:15

Hi ihsan. Before I answer the rest of your post, I need to clarify something. When you say the same verb used in two different sentences, are you talking about dahaha? And if so, what is the second verse that it is used in in the Quran? I can't understand why you keep referring to the same verb being used in two different sentences, so, there's no need in me answering the rest until I'm clear on that. But I will after that. I'm not copping out in the least.

If you can't even comprehend the point, than what really is the point talking to you? Now, your not even sure that the two sentences employ the very same verb. Why not you first tell me why you kept repeating like a parrot, 'daha', everytime I have asked you how the situation of the Quran relates to a sentence about an ostrich.

The next question I have to ask, especially after the paragraph:

What really do you think of yourself and your argument, considering you can't understand a point so essential and BASIC to the claim?

Ron

18th July 2007, 14:43

All I've asked Arnold to provide us with ONE source that states the meaning of dahaha; just one lexicon, dictionary, hadith, encyclopedia something of the sorts. Instead his cop out is now that he will not provide anything...his only source is a website he found but cannot verify one way or the other. All that is asked of him is one source.

Arnold

18th July 2007, 15:02

Ron, why don't you just post what you are asking for? What are the theatrics for?

Arnold

18th July 2007, 15:08

If you can't even comprehend the point, than what really is the point talking to you? Now, your not even sure that the two sentences employ the very same verb. Why not you first tell me why you kept repeating like a parrot, 'daha', everytime I have asked you how the situation of the Quran relates to a sentence about an ostrich.

The next question I have to ask, especially after the paragraph:

What really do you think of yourself and your argument, considering you can't understand a point so essential and BASIC to the claim?

Why don't you simply tell me the verses where the word dahaha is used? I didn't know it was used in any other verse except for 79:30. I said that 79:30 was a completely different analogy than the other verses, and yet it still points to spreading out like all the other verses. But I never meant that other verses besides 79:30 used dahaha as well. Do they? Simple question. And if so, which verses?

Arnold

18th July 2007, 15:13

http://www.answering-christianity.com/egg-shaped_earth.htm

2- So why didn't the Arabs and the Prophet understand dahaha as "egg-shaped" 1,500 years ago?

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said the following Hadith (saying):

Narrated Abu Huraira: "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim (i.e., the shortest expression carrying the widest meanings), and I was made victorious with awe (caste into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand." Muhammad said, Jawami'-al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Interpretation of Dreams, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 141)"

As we clearly see, the Prophet said that he was sent to reveal pithy words that encompass many meanings and topics, which are short in quantity and rich in meanings and interpretations. The Arabic word dahaha in Noble Verse 79:30 above did have multiple meanings and uses. One of them was when one refers to an egg (see the proofs in Arabic here). Another was when referring to making something extended, spread out, stretched and/or expanded. This is an example of how Allah Almighty uses scientific notions in the Noble Quran when He talked about how He created certain things. He gave words that had multiple meanings and interpretations to them to make the Noble Quran truly be for all times and all places, and to enable it to truly be the Everlasting and Never Ending Divine Miracle that will always prove the Prophethood of Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Another Muslim article (http://groups.msn.com/MiddleEastAbrahamicForum/debates.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=65788&LastModified=4675525999746268259)

The sections of this article are:

1. Allah Almighty said that the earth is "egg-shaped".
2. The earth had gone through different stages and shapes since it was first created.
3. The roundness of the earth in the Noble Quran. The Arabic word "dahaha".
4. The proof that "dahaha" means "egg-shaped". My detailed rebuttal to the Christian "Answering Islam" article.
5. An excellent scientific explanation from brother Rached.
6. The changes to earth on the Day of Judgement.
7. Conclusion

Arnold

18th July 2007, 15:28

An anti Islam article, gotta report from both sides

The Arabic word ‘dahaha’ in verse 30, deserves a special discussion because it is currently an area of special interest to the so-called miracle scientists. The word is translated correctly to ‘extended or spread out’. Had Yusuf Ali been alive today, he would probably translate it to ‘make round or egg- shaped’ to conform to the wishful thinking of these miracle scientists. For fourteen hundred years, all Arabic dictionaries agreed that the word means spread out, flattened or extended, and is frequently used to refer to the practice of the Ostrich in preparing and flattening the ground to lay its eggs. The so-called miracle scientists picked this association with eggs and claimed the word could also mean an egg shaped thing! Those miracle scientists rely on the fact that most Arabs are not familiar with this old word and none of them will go and open a dictionary to find out. They deliberately seek the confusion of ordinary Arabs between the flattened bed of the bird’s nest and its contents of eggs. They also deliberately ignore the fact that the Quran did not only use the word dahaha, but also all the Arabic words that can possibly mean flat to describe the shape of the earth

Hmmmm....are we being had?

Arnold

18th July 2007, 15:41

Lisan Al Arab - Duhiya

الأُدْحِيُّ و الإدْحِيُّ و الأُدْحِيَّة و الإدْحِيَّة و الأُدْحُوّة مَبِيض النعام في الرمل , وزنه أُفْعُول من ذلك , لأَن النعامة تَدْحُوه برِجْلها ثم تَبِيض فيه وليس للنعام عُشٌّ . و مَدْحَى النعام : موضع بيضها , و أُدْحِيُّها موضعها الذي تُفَرِّخ فيه .ِ

Translation: "Al-udhy, Al-idhy, Al-udhiyya, Al-idhiyya, Al-udhuwwa:

The place in sand where an ostrich lays its egg. That's because the ostrich spreads out the earth with its feet then lays its eggs there, an ostrich doesn't have a nest."

Al Qamoos Al Muheet:

(دَحَا): الله الأرضَ
(يَدْحُوهَا وَيَدْحَاهَا دَحْواً) بَسَطَها

Translation: "Allah daha the Earth: He spread it out."

Al Waseet

دَحَا الشيءَ: بسطه ووسعه. يقال: دحا اللهُ الأَر

translation: "To daha something: means to spread it out. For example: Allah daha the Earth."

Lisan Al Arab

الدَّحْوُ البَسْطُ . دَحَا الأَرضَ يَدْحُوها دَحْواً بَسَطَها . وقال الفراء في قوله والأَرض بعد ذلك دَحاها قال : بَسَطَها ; قال شمر : وأَنشدتني أَعرابية : الحمدُ لله الذي أَطاقَا

بَنَى السماءَ فَوْقَنا طِباقَا

ثم دَحا الأَرضَ فما أَضاقا

قال شمر : وفسرته فقالت دَحَا الأَرضَ أَوْسَعَها ; وأَنشد ابن بري لزيد بن عمرو بن نُفَيْل : دَحَاها , فلما رآها اسْتَوَتْ

على الماء , أَرْسَى عليها الجِبالا

و دَحَيْتُ الشيءَ أَدْحاهُ دَحْياً بَسَطْته , لغة في دَحَوْتُه ; حكاها اللحياني . وفي حديث عليّ وصلاتهِ , اللهم دَاحِيَ المَدْحُوَّاتِ يعني باسِطَ الأَرَضِينَ ومُوَسِّعَها , ويروى ; دَاحِيَ المَدْحِيَّاتِ . و الدَّحْوُ البَسْطُ . يقال : دَحَا يَدْحُو و يَدْحَى أَي بَسَطَ ووسع

translation: "To daha the earth: means to spread it out." (followed by some poetry to give definitive proof as to the meaning of dahaha)

ihsan

18th July 2007, 16:16

Why don't you simply tell me the verses where the word dahaha is used? I didn't know it was used in any other verse except for 79:30. I said that 79:30 was a completely different analogy than the other verses, and yet it still points to spreading out like all the other verses. But I never meant that other verses besides 79:30 used dahaha as well. Do they? Simple question. And if so, which verses?

Why do I need to tell you? When I tell you mountains are used as pegs, you allegedly have no trouble getting the particular verses. You claim that you know the Quran better then I do. If you can't even read Arabic, let alone understand it, than why are you asking more for references? I gave a reference to the the same application of the verb in this very thread in another instance of the Quran.

You just keep changing your opinion, and as you quote more and more Arabic references you can't even read, it is becoming obvious that you have no idea what your talking about.

What you have been stating is that the earth being spread is being used as an analogy with ostriches. You have been repeating this like a parrot. Now your changing your opinion, because you are being made to look more and more ignorant. This latest post is a last desparate attempt to make yourself seem credible.

I am quite sure I have the ability to query articles that you do, and then I can post them on the web. That doesn't require much.

ihsan

18th July 2007, 16:27

Lisan Al Arab - Duhiya

الأُدْحِيُّ و الإدْحِيُّ و الأُدْحِيَّة و الإدْحِيَّة و الأُدْحُوّة مَبِيض النعام في الرمل , وزنه أُفْعُول من ذلك , لأَن النعامة تَدْحُوه برِجْلها ثم تَبِيض فيه وليس للنعام عُشٌّ . و مَدْحَى النعام : موضع بيضها , و أُدْحِيُّها موضعها الذي تُفَرِّخ فيه .ِ

[QUOTE]Translation: "Al-udhy, Al-idhy, Al-udhiyya, Al-idhiyya, Al-udhuwwa:

The place in sand where an ostrich lays its egg. That's because the ostrich spreads out the earth with its feet then lays its eggs there, an ostrich doesn't have a nest."

Al Qamoos Al Muheet:

(دَحَا): الله الأرضَ
(يَدْحُوهَا وَيَدْحَاهَا دَحْواً) بَسَطَها

Translation: "Allah daha the Earth: He spread it out."

Al Waseet

دَحَا الشيءَ: بسطه ووسعه. يقال: دحا اللهُ الأَر

translation: "To daha something: means to spread it out. For example: Allah daha the Earth."

Lisan Al Arab

الدَّحْوُ البَسْطُ . دَحَا الأَرضَ يَدْحُوها دَحْواً بَسَطَها . وقال الفراء في قوله والأَرض بعد ذلك دَحاها قال : بَسَطَها ; قال شمر : وأَنشدتني أَعرابية : الحمدُ لله الذي أَطاقَا

بَنَى السماءَ فَوْقَنا طِباقَا

ثم دَحا الأَرضَ فما أَضاقا

قال شمر : وفسرته فقالت دَحَا الأَرضَ أَوْسَعَها ; وأَنشد ابن بري لزيد بن عمرو بن نُفَيْل : دَحَاها , فلما رآها اسْتَوَتْ

على الماء , أَرْسَى عليها الجِبالا

و دَحَيْتُ الشيءَ أَدْحاهُ دَحْياً بَسَطْته , لغة في دَحَوْتُه ; حكاها اللحياني . وفي حديث عليّ وصلاتهِ , اللهم دَاحِيَ المَدْحُوَّاتِ يعني باسِطَ الأَرَضِينَ ومُوَسِّعَها , ويروى ; دَاحِيَ المَدْحِيَّاتِ . و الدَّحْوُ البَسْطُ . يقال : دَحَا يَدْحُو و يَدْحَى أَي بَسَطَ ووسع

translation: "To daha the earth: means to spread it out." (followed by some poetry to give definitive proof as to the meaning of dahaha)

So in all of this, where is the proof that what the Arabs meant that the earth was flat? We already know that the translation of 'daha' is to spread out. The issue is whether it can be used rhetorically or not, which it obviously can. Further, if you notice that Al Qamoos and al Muheet are establishing the meaning of DAHA from the Quran, not the other way around.

Are we going in circles?

And if you can comprehend, one of the noun forms of the three letter tri-lateral root, d-h-h, is udhiy, which is a name for the place an ostrich lays its eggs. Because a word comes from the same root, in no way necessitates that another form of the tri-lateral root means the exact same thing or that an analogy is being made between an ostrich and the earth being spread out, which is what I have been telling you almost one hundred times a day.

Your just quoting things that you don't even comprehend.

Hmmmm....are we being had?

Even the article that you quotes, says the analogy cannot be made, and yet, you keep repeating it can.

Arnold

18th July 2007, 17:00

So in all of this, where is the proof that what the Arabs meant that the earth was flat? We already know that the translation of 'daha' is to spread out.

Then why did Ron insist that I post this? That's who it was for.

The issue is whether it can be used rhetorically or not, which it obviously can. Further, if you notice that Al Qamoos and al Muheet are establishing the meaning of DAHA from the Quran, not the other way around.

Are we going in circles?

No, you mentioned repeating of the same verb, so I asked you where dahaha was repeated and you still haven't answered that yet. As far as I know, it's only in 79:30. Enlighten me otherwise. This is the third time I've asked you about this

And if you can comprehend, one of the noun forms of the three letter tri-lateral root, d-h-h, is udhiy, which is a name for the place an ostrich lays its eggs. Because a word comes from the same root, in no way necessitates that another form of the tri-lateral root means the exact same thing or that an analogy is being made between an ostrich and the earth being spread out, which is what I have been telling you almost one hundred times a day.

Let's make this clear and simple. Dahaha is in 79:30. Is the same word in all of the other verses? Is that what you are telling me when you say the verb repeats? It's a simple question that I asked to gain clarification before I answered the rest of your post, and I still haven't got a simple, direct answer. I fdo not know what you mean when you talk about a verse repeatijng, and you won't specifically explain.

Your just quoting things that you don't even comprehend.

Ron insisted that I do this, so what's wrong? And even when I do what is requested of me, there's always a problem of sorts. It's never good enough. People ask for tafsir, I give it. People ask me for Arabic definitions, I give it. But it's never good enough, and I think that I understand at this point, that nothing will ever be good enough if it doesn't suit your argument.

Even the article that you quotes, says the analogy cannot be made, and yet, you keep repeating it can.

You mean the analogy between dahaha and spreading or flattening the earth? They seemed to say that although it is indeed referring to spreading, leveling and flattening, which they clearly did say, it doesn't refer to the shape of the earth. So the only other thing it can be referring to is the flattening of the land, if it's not referring to the shape of the earth itself. So if that's the case, then it means that Allah flattened out all the hills and mountains, only to add mountains. That doesn't sit too well. Very odd.

Arnold

18th July 2007, 17:14

Why do I need to tell you? When I tell you mountains are used as pegs, you allegedly have no trouble getting the particular verses.

Because pegs are an english word, so it's easy for me to look it up. I can't find dahaha in my translations, only the translation for it.

You claim that you know the Quran better then I do.

Kind of a half joke as I was amazed that you believed the Quran never mentioned pegs. You thought I wouldn't find it anywhere.

If you can't even read Arabic, let alone understand it, than why are you asking more for references? I gave a reference to the the same application of the verb in this very thread in another instance of the Quran.

I'm not asking you for references, I'm asking you where else the word dahaha is used in the Quran because you keep speaking about a verb repeating, so i assume you mean dahaha repeating..

You just keep changing your opinion, and as you quote more and more Arabic references you can't even read, it is becoming obvious that you have no idea what your talking about.

There is no substance to this paragraph. Talk to the issue. Simple question. Is dahaha repeated more than once in the Quran? if not, then what is this repeating verb you speak of. It uses other verbs in the other verses that mean the same thing, doesn't it?

What you have been stating is that the earth being spread is being used as an analogy with ostriches. You have been repeating this like a parrot. Now your changing your opinion, because you are being made to look more and more ignorant. This latest post is a last desparate attempt to make yourself seem credible.

I have always said that this analogy refers to the ostrich spreading and flattening the dirt and God spreading out and flattening the earth. Where have I changed my point of view in the least? Show me specifically. I'm getting a little sick and tired of you saying these things, and then when I call you on it and ask you to show me, you blow smoke at me. Now show me exactly where you got the idea that I am changing my POV in the least.

I am quite sure I have the ability to query articles that you do, and then I can post them on the web. That doesn't require much.

I am doing what you guys are asking me to do. First I quote from the Quran. Not good enough. Then I give 8 different translations. Still not good enough. Then I give tafsir when asked. Still not good enough. Then I give the Arabic definition when asked. Still not good enough. Why don't we be frank with each other for a moment and say that the only thing good enough, would be for me to shut up about this issue. Seems to be the only thing left as everything else on the list was provided.

Ron

18th July 2007, 17:17

Arnold,

Ron, why don't you just post what you are asking for? What are the theatrics for?
All it takes is on dictionary, lexicon, encyclopedia with the word "flat" for the meaning of dahaha. All you need is one. We'll deal with the other words later.

Arnold

18th July 2007, 17:29

Arnold,

All it takes is on dictionary, lexicon, encyclopedia with the word "flat" for the meaning of dahaha. All you need is one. We'll deal with the other words later.

Oh bunk. It doesn't need to use that exact word. Since when is spreading interchangable with rolling up? It's your turn to answer some questions now as I have been gracious and let you be the prosecutor this whole time.

If the article I posted, which you agree with, says that dahaha does indeed involve spreading, leveling and flattening, but it doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the earth, then don't we conclude that it is talking about the shape of the land? It's spreading and flattening something, that part seems to be for sure. So what is being spread and leveled?

Arnold

18th July 2007, 17:35

Now Ron, while we're at it, i want to do a quick review so that everyone sees how you operate

You said:
All I've asked Arnold to provide us with ONE source that states the meaning of dahaha; just one lexicon, dictionary, hadith, encyclopedia something of the sorts. Instead his cop out is now that he will not provide anything...his only source is a website he found but cannot verify one way or the other. All that is asked of him is one source.

So I said:
Ron, why don't you just post what you are asking for? What are the theatrics for?

So far, the only thing that was requested was a definition for dahaha. Now, lets look at how you change it around after many were provided

"All it takes is on dictionary, lexicon, encyclopedia with the word "flat" for the meaning of dahaha. All you need is one. We'll deal with the other words later."

See how the target keeps moving? See what I mean about the shell game? There it is. The perfect example in writing. It's like I said to ihsan, apparently nothing will ever be good enough and you'll make sure of that any way you can.

Ron

18th July 2007, 18:18

Arnold,

Oh bunk. It doesn't need to use that exact word. Since when is spreading interchangable with rolling up? It's your turn to answer some questions now as I have been gracious and let you be the prosecutor this whole time.
There you go again with completely discrediting yourself; you don't know what the words mean.

If the article I posted, which you agree with, says that dahaha does indeed involve spreading, leveling and flattening, but it doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the earth, then don't we conclude that it is talking about the shape of the land? It's spreading and flattening something, that part seems to be for sure. So what is being spread and leveled?
Who are you trying to hookwink? Where did I ever say that I agreed with the article? As a matter of fact I've consistently posted that dahaha does not mean flat. I also pointed out that they an ostrich does have a nest in which they said it didn't. You're the one stuck on that link not me. What I do agree with them on is that dahaha in the verse is not related to shape. You don't have to make up stuff just because you want to win a debate. I could care less about the winning-losing thing you're in. If you had an ounce of truth in what you are saying then it would have been so much easier for you. You would have posted tons of stuff in favor of your argument. Instead you rely on dishonest methods.

Now Ron, while we're at it, i want to do a quick review so that everyone sees how you operate
Please do.

So far, the only thing that was requested was a definition for dahaha. Now, lets look at how you change it around after many were provided
Please don't be so naive. I mean seriously, when I say "one source" do you think I mean anything? Wouldn't that mean you could have presented and Islam-hate site as a source? Everyone knows that when a source is asked for it means a reliable and worthy source. Instead of wasting your time in trying to find ways not to present any source just say you don't have one. In other words, there is nothing you can present as a valid source that supports your argument except some link on the internet.

See how the target keeps moving? See what I mean about the shell game? There it is. The perfect example in writing. It's like I said to ihsan, apparently nothing will ever be good enough and you'll make sure of that any way you can.
The target has never changed, it's been what is has been from the beginning. Remember your first source?...your friends who know Arabic...then it was all those tafasir and translations...then it was your link...you are trying to pull one over on us and it's really silly. It's like a thief stealing in broad day-light in a police station, with the cops watching. What would be a good enough source is what I have stated: lexicon, dictionary, encyclopedia, tafsir, hadith etc... All I want is for one of them to say that dahaha means flat. Just ONE. Stop with the excuses.

ihsan

18th July 2007, 19:36

Then why did Ron insist that I post this? That's who it was for.

So it took you three days to query the net for a web-page to finally find something. You still haven't provided a source which states that 'daha' means flat.

No, you mentioned repeating of the same verb, so I asked you where dahaha was repeated and you still haven't answered that yet. As far as I know, it's only in 79:30. Enlighten me otherwise. This is the third time I've asked you about this

No, I told you already in the past that the Quran employs this verb in the same content in other surahs. I then gave you an example of where it occurs by transliterating the Arabic for you, so that you would have some sort of clue as to what I was talking about. But instead, you didn't want to listen but continued defending your ego, trying to grasp at straws.

You still need to give me the answer of how the usage of the same verb in two different sentences connote that an anlogy is being made. You aren't answering the question.

Let's make this clear and simple. Dahaha is in 79:30. Is the same word in all of the other verses? Is that what you are telling me when you say the verb repeats? It's a simple question that I asked to gain clarification before I answered the rest of your post, and I still haven't got a simple, direct answer. I fdo not know what you mean when you talk about a verse repeatijng, and you won't specifically explain.

No, I am not telling you this. How many times do I have to write two different sentences out for you. One sentence I employ the verb spread, as it relates to ostriches, and the second sentence I employ the verb spread in the context with the earth. I ask you how does the employment of the word 'spread' in two different sentences connote an analogy between the two.

All you do is chime:

"Daha, daha, daha"

Ron insisted that I do this, so what's wrong? And even when I do what is requested of me, there's always a problem of sorts. It's never good enough. People ask for tafsir, I give it. People ask me for Arabic definitions, I give it. But it's never good enough, and I think that I understand at this point, that nothing will ever be good enough if it doesn't suit your argument.

You don't even understand what is partially translated from the Arabic you gave.

You mean the analogy between dahaha and spreading or flattening the earth? They seemed to say that although it is indeed referring to spreading, leveling and flattening, which they clearly did say, it doesn't refer to the shape of the earth. So the only other thing it can be referring to is the flattening of the land, if it's not referring to the shape of the earth itself. So if that's the case, then it means that Allah flattened out all the hills and mountains, only to add mountains. That doesn't sit too well. Very odd.

O foucrse it can be used rhetorically for purposes of imagery, right? I mean isn't that the real point of discussion? Where in the reference does it say flattening? In fact, the very dictionary you quoted establishes the meaning of the word in question from the QURAN ITSELF.

This is obviously the extent at which we can take this conversation, because the most you can piece-meal from regarding the issue is what your giving in the links, which isn't much.

ihsan

18th July 2007, 19:44

Because pegs are an english word, so it's easy for me to look it up. I can't find dahaha in my translations, only the translation for it.

So than look up the word 'spreading' and do some analysis with transliterations.

Kind of a half joke as I was amazed that you believed the Quran never mentioned pegs. You thought I wouldn't find it anywhere.

I was the one who told you FIRST that the Quran mentions pegs. I told you this in the very first post I made in this thread. Are you this clueless? This latest sentence is another example of how lost you really are. I asked you if the Quran calls mountains pegs in the Quran, just as I asked you if the Quran likens the sky to a beduoin tent or the earth to a carpet. Does that mean I didn't know the answers to these latter questions, despite the fact I was telling you these answers in all my previous posts?

I'm not asking you for references, I'm asking you where else the word dahaha is used in the Quran because you keep speaking about a verb repeating, so i assume you mean dahaha repeating..

Where does it talk about ostriches in the Quran? First tell me that, and than I'll explain what I mean.

There is no substance to this paragraph. Talk to the issue. Simple question. Is dahaha repeated more than once in the Quran? if not, then what is this repeating verb you speak of. It uses other verbs in the other verses that mean the same thing, doesn't it?

I've answered this question many times. The comical thing is how you haven't even recognized it.

I have always said that this analogy refers to the ostrich spreading and flattening the dirt and God spreading out and flattening the earth. Where have I changed my point of view in the least? Show me specifically. I'm getting a little sick and tired of you saying these things, and then when I call you on it and ask you to show me, you blow smoke at me. Now show me exactly where you got the idea that I am changing my POV in the least.

When I ask you to show me in what language does the employment of the same verb in two different sentences constitutes an analogy, you never gave me the reason. In this very paragraph, your doing this very thing. Your operating under the assumption that because the two sentences employ the same verb, and analogy is being made. Where is your evidence that an analogy is being made?

As far as changing your POV, it is all throughout the thread.

Arnold

18th July 2007, 19:57

Arnold,

There you go again with completely discrediting yourself; you don't know what the words mean.

Who are you trying to hookwink? Where did I ever say that I agreed with the article? As a matter of fact I've consistently posted that dahaha does not mean flat. I also pointed out that they an ostrich does have a nest in which they said it didn't. You're the one stuck on that link not me. What I do agree with them on is that dahaha in the verse is not related to shape.

They did not say that it doesn't refer to shape, as they acknowledged that it involves spreading, leveling and flattening, all which involve shape. They said it doesn't refer to the shape of the earth. You saw me write that the first time, and you tried to ignore it.

You don't have to make up stuff just because you want to win a debate.

What did I make up?

I could care less about the winning-losing thing you're in.

Why aren't you just sticking with the issue? I never said anything about winning or losing, and you're not going to change this issue into that. That's a diversion. Talk to the issue.

If you had an ounce of truth in what you are saying then it would have been so much easier for you. You would have posted tons of stuff in favor of your argument. Instead you rely on dishonest methods.

I have posted tons of stuff that I believe to be in favor of my point, but, from my experience, it's never easy with Muslims as they are the masters of excuses, diversions, change the subject, make it personal etc...etc...etc... My point has always been simple, straight forward and non changing. I don't remember you ever concisely explaining your position. So far, your position only seems to be disagreement, but you don't actually say what is the right answer in a clear unmistakable fashion. Can you do that? You didn't seem to think these verses meant hospitality like ihsan did, as evidenced that you denied that ishan said it involved hospitality, when he DID say that all over the place. So far, if I recall correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, your stand is simply that Allah spread the earth out for life without any explanation by what you mean by spread out, and how spreading out relates to life. Am I mistaken about this? Please illustrate. Thank you.

Please don't be so naive. I mean seriously, when I say "one source" do you think I mean anything?

That's what your post said. You asked for just one, and I gave you 4 legitimate ones, and then you changed it into me showing you where flat is. But you didn't originally ask for that, and it's all in writing.

Wouldn't that mean you could have presented and Islam-hate site as a source?

No because you asked for a lexicon or dictionary meaning, which has been provided. I've accomodated your demands every time, only to watch you move the bar after I do. That's the shell game that I speak of. You're not stupid, so you're not oblivious to the fact that you're pulling this.

Everyone knows that when a source is asked for it means a reliable and worthy source.

Answered above.

Instead of wasting your time in trying to find ways not to present any source just say you don't have one.

What were all those Arab dictionary definitions that I posted? Did I simply dream that I posted those? Maybe I did as this is getting most bizarre.

In other words, there is nothing you can present as a valid source that supports your argument except some link on the internet.

8 translations of the Quran, tafsir, a respectable internet link, and Arabic dictionary definitions. They all talk about spreading out, and this never refers to ball shaped objects. If you want to make the case that it doesn't talk about shape whatsoever, but only talks about hospitality of God, then by all means, pick that angle, even though you didn't seem to agree with that earlier. However, if it is talking about shape, as the article stated, and it doesn't deal with th shape of the earth, as the article stated, then what is it dealing with? The only thing I can figure at this point (other than my idea of a spread out and flat earth), is that it's discussing the shape of the land. If it acknowledges shape, but says it doesn't talk about the shape of the earth, then what else is left except for the land of the earth?

The target has never changed, it's been what is has been from the beginning.

It's in writing. First the target was for me to post any dictionary or lexicon meaning for dahaha. You commented about how you couldn't even get one out of me. So then, I give you four, and you change the demand to say that it needs to include the actual word flat. And it's all in writing. What could you possibly say about that? At best, you could say that you simply weren't clear enough, but you don't even say that. So what can anybody possibly think?

Remember your first source?...your friends who know Arabic...t

I don't recall that being my first source, it was merely mentioned so that you know I can check Arabic words if I need to. If I'm wrong, then repost it and I will apologize for being unclear.

hen it was all those tafasir and translations...then it was your link...you are trying to pull one over on us and it's really silly.

People ask me for things, and then I give them. What is deceptive about that?

It's like a thief stealing in broad day-light in a police station, with the cops watching. What would be a good enough source is what I have stated: lexicon, dictionary, encyclopedia, tafsir, hadith etc... All I want is for one of them to say that dahaha means flat. Just ONE. Stop with the excuses.

But you didn't say that. You changed your demand. Do you deny that? For crying out loud, it's in writing, so why would you even attempt to deny it?. Now, as for your new, revised demand, I don't think I need to find the actual word flat. If we are talking about the shape of something, spreading out never has anything to do with creating a ball, but it has plenty of associations with flattening out the object that is being spread as this is a natural consequence of spreading when we speak of a physical object. Spreading out certainly never leads to a sphere, and almost always leads to a flatter object than it was. We're looking for the words rolled together or anything remotely like that, but we never see anything even remotely like that in the Quran when it refers to the creation of the earth. Not even remotely. If it's not merely a sign of hospitality, and it's not talking about spreading out the land, then there's no other choice except to say it's talking about a more spread out and hence flattened earth.

Sameer Abdul Hadi

19th July 2007, 08:14

Arnold,

This is all based off of a translation of the word most likely.
Not that big of a deal dude.

hasan

19th July 2007, 11:02

The Celestial Bodies both spinning and orbiting:

C. CELESTIAL ORGANIZATION

The information the Qur'an provides on this subject mainly deals with the solar system. References are however made to phenomena that go beyond the solar system itself: they have been discovered in recent times.

There are two very important verses on the orbits of the Sun and Moon:

--sura 21, verse 33:
"(God is) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."

--sura 36, verse 40:
"The sun must not catch up the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."

Here an essential fact is clearly stated: the existence of the Sun's and Moon's orbits, plus a reference is made to the travelling of these bodies in space with their own motion.

A negative fact also emerges from a reading of these verses: it is shown that the Sun moves in an orbit, but no indication is given as to what this orbit might be in relation to the Earth. At the time of the Qur'anic Revelation, it was thought that the Sun moved while the Earth stood still. This was the system of geocentrism that had held sway since the time of ptolemy, Second century B.C., and was to continue to do so until Copernicus in the Sixteenth century A.D. Although people supported this concept at the time of Muhammad, it does not appear anywhere in the Qur'an, either here or elsewhere.

The Existence of the Moon's and the Sun's Orbits

The Arabic word falak has here been translated by the word 'orbit'. many French translators of the Qur'an attach to it the meaning of a 'sphere'. This is indeed its initial sense. Hamidullah translates it by the word 'orbit'.

The word caused concern to older translators of the Qur'an who were unable to imagine the circular course of the Moon and the Sun and therefore retained images of their course through space that were either more or less correct, or hopelessly wrong. Sir Hamza Boubekeur in his translation of the Qur'an cites the diversity of interpretations given to it: "A sort of axle, like an iron rod, that a mill turns around; a celestial sphere, orbit, sign of the zodiac, speed, wave . . .", but he adds the following observation made by Tabari, the famous Tenth century commentator: "It is our duty to keep silent when we do not know." (XVII, 15). This shows just how incapable men were of understanding this concept of the Sun's and Moon's orbit. It is obvious that if the word had expressed an astronomical concept common in Muhammad's day, it would not have been so difficult to interpret these verses. A Dew concept therefore existed in the Qur'an that was not to be explained until centuries later.

1. The Moon's Orbit

Today, the concept is widely spread that the Moon is a satellite of the Earth around which it revolves in periods of twenty-nine days. A correction must however be made to the absolutely circular form of its orbit, since modern astronomy ascribes a certain eccentricity to this, so that the distance between the Earth and the Moon (240,000 miles) is only the average distance.

We have seen above how the Qur'an underlined the usefulness of observing the Moon's movements in calculating time (sura 10, verse 5, quoted at the beginning of this chapter.) This system has often been criticized for being archaic, impractical and unscientific in comparison to our system based on the Earth's rotation around the Sun, expressed today in the Julian calendar.

This criticism calls for the following two remarks:
a) Nearly fourteen centuries ago, the Qur'an was directed at the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula who were used to the lunar calculation of time. It was advisable to address them in the only language they could understand and not to upset the habits they had of locating spatial and temporal reference-marks which were nevertheless quite efficient. It is known how well-versed men living in the desert are in the observation of the sky. they navigated according to the stars and told the time according to the phases of the Moon. Those were the simplest and most reliable means available to them.

b) Apart from the specialists in this field, most people are unaware of the perfect correlation between the Julian and the lunar calendar: 235 lunar months correspond exactly to 19 Julian years of 365 1/4 days. Then length of our year of 365 days is not perfect because it has to be rectified every four years (with a leap year) .

With the lunar calendar, the same phenomena occur every 19 years (Julian). This is the Metonic cycle, named after the Greek astronomer Meton, who discovered this exact correlation between solar and lunar time in the Fifth century B.C.

2. The Sun

It is more difficult to conceive of the Sun's orbit because we are so used to seeing our solar system organized around it. To understand the verse from the Qur'an, the position of the Sun in our galaxy must be considered, and we must therefore call on modern scientific ideas.

Our galaxy includes a very large number of stars spaced so as to form a disc that is denser at the centre than at the rim. The Sun occupies a position in it which is far removed from the centre of the disc. The galaxy revolves on its own axis which is its centre with the result that the Sun revolves around the same centre in a circular orbit. Modern astronomy has worked out the details of this. In 1917, Shapley estimated the distance between the Sun and the centre of our galaxy at 10 kiloparsecs i.e., in miles, circa the figure 2 followed by 17 zeros. To complete one revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and Sun take roughly 250 million years. The Sun travels at roughly 150 miles per second in the completion of this.

The above is the orbital movement of the Sun that was already referred to by the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago. The demonstration of the existence and details of this is one of the achievements of modern astronomy.

Reference to the Movement of the Moon and the Sun in Space With Their Own Motion

This concept does not appear in those translations of the Qur'an that have been made by men of letters. Since the latter know nothing about astronomy, they have translated the Arabic word that expresses this movement by one of the meanings the word has: 'to swim'. They have done this in both the French translations and the, otherwise remarkable, English translation by Yusuf Ali. [ Pub. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore (Pakistan)]

The Arabic word referring to a movement with a self-propelled motion is the verb sabaha (yasbahuna in the text of the two verses). All the senses of the verb imply a movement that is associated with a motion that comes from the body in question. If the movement takes place in water, it is 'to swim'; it is 'to move by the action of one's own legs' if it takes place on land. For a movement that occurs in space, it is difficult to see how else this meaning implied in the word could be rendered other than by employing its original sense. Thus there seems to have been no mistranslation, for the following reasons.
-The Moon completes its rotating motion on its own axis at the same time as it revolves around the Earth, i.e. 291/2 days (approx.), so that it always has the same side facing us.
-The Sun takes roughly 25 days to revolve on its own axis. There are certain differences in its rotation at its equator and poles, (we shall not go into them here) but as a whole, the Sun is animated by a rotating motion.

It appears therefore that a verbal nuance in the Qur'an refers to the Sun and Moon's own motion. These motions of the two celestial bodies are confirmed by the data of modern science, and it is inconceivable that a man living in the Seventh century A.D.-however knowledgeable he might have been in his day (and this was certainly not true in Muhammad's case) -could have imagined them.

This view is sometimes contested by examples from great thinkers of antiquity who indisputably predicted certain data that modern science has verified. They could hardly have relied on scientific deduction however; their method of procedure was more one of philosophical reasoning. Thus the case of the pythagoreans is often advanced. In the Sixth century B.C., they defended the theory of the rotation of the Earth on its own axis and the movement of the planets around the Sun. This theory was to be confirmed by modern science. By comparing it with the case of the Pythagoreans, it is easy to put forward the hypothesis of Muhammad as being a brilliant thinker, who was supposed to have imagined all on his own what modern science was to discover centuries later. In so doing however, people quite simply forget to mention the other aspect of what these geniuses of philosophical reasoning produced, i.e. the colossal blunders that litter their work. It must be remembered for example, that the Pythagoreans also defended the theory whereby the Sun was fixed in space; they made it the centre of the world and only conceived of a celestial order that was centered on it. It is quite common in the works of the great philosophers of antiquity to find a mixture of valid and invalid ideas about the Universe. The brilliance of these human works comes from the advanced ideas they contain, but they should not make us overlook the mistaken concepts which have also been left to us. From a strictly scientific point of view, this is what distinguished them from the Qur'an. In the latter, many subjects are referred to that have a bearing on modern knowledge without one of them containing a statement that contradicts what has been established by present-day science.

The Sequence of Day and Night

At a time when it was held that the Earth was the centre of the world and that the Sun moved in relation to it, how could any one have failed to refer to the Sun's movement when talking of the sequence of night and day? This is not however referred to in the Qur'an and the subject is dealt with as follows:

--sura 7, verse 54:
"(God) covers the day with the night which is in haste to follow it . . ."

--sura 36, verse 37:
"And a sign for them (human beings) is the night. We strip it of the day and they are in darkness."

--sura 31, verse 29:
"Hast thou not seen how God merges the night into the day and merges the day into the night."

--sura 39, verse 5:
". . . He coils the night upon the day and He coils the day upon the night."

The first verse cited requires no comment. The second simply provides an image.

It is mainly the third and fourth verses quoted above that provide interesting material on the process of interpenetration and especially of winding the night upon the day and the day upon the night. (sura 39, verse 5)

'To coil' or 'to wind' seems, as in the French translation by R. Blachère, to be the best way of translating the Arabic verb kawwara. The original meaning of the verb is to 'coil' a turban around the head; the notion of coiling is preserved in all the other senses of the word.

What actually happens however in space? American astronauts have seen and photographed what happens from their spaceships, especially at a great distance from Earth, e.g. from the Moon. They saw how the Sun permanently lights up (except in the case of an eclipse) the half of the Earth's surface that is facing it, while the other half of the globe is in darkness. The Earth turns on its own axis and the lighting remains the same, so that an area in the form of a half-sphere makes one revolution around the Earth in twenty-four hours while the other half-sphere, that has remained in darkness, makes the same revolution in the same time. This perpetual rotation of night and day is quite clearly described in the Qur'an. It is easy for the human understanding to grasp this notion nowadays because we have the idea of the Sun's (relative) immobility and the Earth's rotation. This process of perpetual coiling, including the interpenetration of one sector by another is expressed in the Qur'an just as if the concept of the Earth's roundness had already been conceived at the time-which was obviously not the case.

Further to the above reflections on the sequence of day and night, one must also mention, with a quotation of some verses from the Qur'an, the idea that there is more than one Orient and one Occident. This is of purely descriptive interest because these phenomena rely on the most commonplace observations. The idea is mentioned here with the aim of reproducing as faithfully as possible all that the Qur'an has to say on this subject.

The following are examples:

--In sura 70 verse 40, the expression 'Lord of Orients and Occidents'.
--In sura 55, verse 17, the expression 'Lord of the two Orients and the two Occidents'.
--In sura 43, verse 38, a reference to the 'distance between the two Orients', an image intended to express the immense size of the distance separating the two points.

Anyone who carefully watches the sunrise and sunset knows that the Sun rises at different point of the Orient and sets at different points of the Occident, according to season. Bearings taken on each of the horizons define the extreme limits that mark the two Orients and Occidents, and between these there are points marked off throughout the year. The phenomenon described here is rather commonplace, but what mainly deserves attention in this chapter are the other. topics dealt with, where the description of astronomical phenomena referred to in the Qur'an is in keeping with modern data.

Arnold

19th July 2007, 12:54

Arnold,

This is all based off of a translation of the word most likely.
Not that big of a deal dude.

So what do you think it means and why?

Ron

19th July 2007, 14:35

Arnold,

What were all those Arab dictionary definitions that I posted? Did I simply dream that I posted those? Maybe I did as this is getting most bizarre.
Let's make life easy, why not just post the one entry that says "dahaha" means "flat" and name the dictionary. You said you've given us 4 sources and a dictionary definition. All I want is the quote from that dictionary. That will be your one source. If you've already posted it then it should be easy to just give it to us again. No long drawn out explanations, just the dictionary entry. I look forward to it.

Arnold

19th July 2007, 14:50

C. CELESTIAL ORGANIZATION

The information the Qur'an provides on this subject mainly deals with the solar system. References are however made to phenomena that go beyond the solar system itself: they have been discovered in recent times.

There are two very important verses on the orbits of the Sun and Moon:

--sura 21, verse 33:
"(God is) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."

Who iks this and when was it written (what year)? Here's what I can find.

021:033 Khan And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating.

021:033 Maulana
And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon. All float in orbits.

021:033 Pickthal
And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

021:033 Rashad
And He is the One who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; each floating in its own orbit.

021:033 Sarwar
It is God who has created the night, the day, the Sun, and Moon and has made them swim in a certain orbit.

021:033 Shakir
And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.

021:033 Sherali
And HE it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each gliding along smoothly in its orbit.

021:033 Yusufali
It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

--sura 36, verse 40:
"The sun must not catch up the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."

Same question here.

036:040 Khan
It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.

036:040 Maulana
Neither is it for the sun to overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day. And all float on in an orbit.

036:040 Pickthal
It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.

036:040 Rashad
The sun is never to catch up with the moon - the night and the day never deviate - each of them is floating in its own orbit.

036:040 Sarwar
how the sun is not supposed to catch-up with the moon, nor is the night to precede the day. All of them are to float in a certain orbit;

036:040 Shakir
Neither is it allowable to the sun that it should overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day; and all float on in a sphere.

036:040 Sherali
It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day. All of them float smoothly in an orbit.

036:040 Yusufali
It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).

So why can't I find that extra addition that your translator obviously added?

Here an essential fact is clearly stated: the existence of the Sun's and Moon's orbits, plus a reference is made to the travelling of these bodies in space with their own motion.

A think the translator pulled a fast one.

A negative fact also emerges from a reading of these verses: it is shown that the Sun moves in an orbit, but no indication is given as to what this orbit might be in relation to the Earth. At the time of the Qur'anic Revelation, it was thought that the Sun moved while the Earth stood still. This was the system of geocentrism that had held sway since the time of ptolemy, Second century B.C., and was to continue to do so until Copernicus in the Sixteenth century A.D. Although people supported this concept at the time of Muhammad, it does not appear anywhere in the Qur'an, either here or elsewhere.

In the Quran, the sun is certainly orbiting something. The question is, why would we assume the Quran is speaking of the sun orbiting the galaxy rather than the earth? It mentions this orbit while it's also speaking about day and night (which relates to the earth, not the galaxy). It never even mentions the concept of a galaxy at all in the Quran, but it mentions the earth all over the place. It also mentions that the sun and moon do not catch each other as if they were orbiting in the same general area but Allah prevents them from catching each other. I'm hard pressed to see why this would ever be mentioned if it was talking about the sun doing a billion mile orbit or something, while the moon does a totally unrelated orbit around the earth. I just don't see that in the verses and there is only one decent reason to see it as the sun orbiting the galaxy, and that is to prevent it from being in error. That's the only reason I can think of. Can anybody else think of any other good reasons?

The Existence of the Moon's and the Sun's Orbits

The Arabic word falak has here been translated by the word 'orbit'. many French translators of the Qur'an attach to it the meaning of a 'sphere'. This is indeed its initial sense. Hamidullah translates it by the word 'orbit'.

orbit, spherical path, same thing.

The word caused concern to older translators of the Qur'an who were unable to imagine the circular course of the Moon and the Sun and therefore retained images of their course through space that were either more or less correct, or hopelessly wrong. Sir Hamza Boubekeur in his translation of the Qur'an cites the diversity of interpretations given to it: "A sort of axle, like an iron rod, that a mill turns around; a celestial sphere, orbit, sign of the zodiac, speed, wave . . .", but he adds the following observation made by Tabari, the famous Tenth century commentator: "It is our duty to keep silent when we do not know." (XVII, 15). This shows just how incapable men were of understanding this concept of the Sun's and Moon's orbit. It is obvious that if the word had expressed an astronomical concept common in Muhammad's day, it would not have been so difficult to interpret these verses. A Dew concept therefore existed in the Qur'an that was not to be explained until centuries later.

There is still a problem. I don't see where those verses refer to two distinct and different motions. I think the translator added that as explained above. So I still think that it was talking about things orbiting around the earth. Somehow the spindles seem to related to individual points on the wheel. Otherwise, we might have seen an analogy for a spinning solid object rather than one with different points on it. Didn't these people know about spinning tops back then? I think they did.

Also, another problem is that the Quran has never come out and told us of a round earth. Nowhere. So before we assume it's telling us of a spinning earth, shouldn't we be able to establish a round earth? It seems to me, that every time it refers to something round, it's referring to things moving around the earth and never the earth itself. I think that's notable.

1. The Moon's Orbit

Today, the concept is widely spread that the Moon is a satellite of the Earth around which it revolves in periods of twenty-nine days. A correction must however be made to the absolutely circular form of its orbit, since modern astronomy ascribes a certain eccentricity to this, so that the distance between the Earth and the Moon (240,000 miles) is only the average distance.

We have seen above how the Qur'an underlined the usefulness of observing the Moon's movements in calculating time (sura 10, verse 5, quoted at the beginning of this chapter.) This system has often been criticized for being archaic, impractical and unscientific in comparison to our system based on the Earth's rotation around the Sun, expressed today in the Julian calendar.

This criticism calls for the following two remarks:
a) Nearly fourteen centuries ago, the Qur'an was directed at the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula who were used to the lunar calculation of time. It was advisable to address them in the only language they could understand and not to upset the habits they had of locating spatial and temporal reference-marks which were nevertheless quite efficient. It is known how well-versed men living in the desert are in the observation of the sky. they navigated according to the stars and told the time according to the phases of the Moon. Those were the simplest and most reliable means available to them.

b) Apart from the specialists in this field, most people are unaware of the perfect correlation between the Julian and the lunar calendar: 235 lunar months correspond exactly to 19 Julian years of 365 1/4 days. Then length of our year of 365 days is not perfect because it has to be rectified every four years (with a leap year) .

With the lunar calendar, the same phenomena occur every 19 years (Julian). This is the Metonic cycle, named after the Greek astronomer Meton, who discovered this exact correlation between solar and lunar time in the Fifth century B.C.

This is one of my pet peeves that really bug me because I sense dishonesty and diversion behind it. When ever a Muslim author speaks about a scientifically problematic verse, they rarely ever speak to the verse itself and instead go into a modern science lesson. We don't need a modern science lesson, we are discussing what the Quran meant, and that is irrelevant to modern science. So why do they always dilute the issue like this? This is why I think it's a diversion, and after a long scientific explanation, they slip the Quranic verse in there at the end without having to strongly relate it to the long science lesson they just gave. Seems like an attempt at confusion more than anything else.

2. The Sun

It is more difficult to conceive of the Sun's orbit because we are so used to seeing our solar system organized around it. To understand the verse from the Qur'an, the position of the Sun in our galaxy must be considered, and we must therefore call on modern scientific ideas.

Our galaxy includes a very large number of stars spaced so as to form a disc that is denser at the centre than at the rim. The Sun occupies a position in it which is far removed from the centre of the disc. The galaxy revolves on its own axis which is its centre with the result that the Sun revolves around the same centre in a circular orbit. Modern astronomy has worked out the details of this. In 1917, Shapley estimated the distance between the Sun and the centre of our galaxy at 10 kiloparsecs i.e., in miles, circa the figure 2 followed by 17 zeros. To complete one revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and Sun take roughly 250 million years. The Sun travels at roughly 150 miles per second in the completion of this.

Same thing I said above. Does anybody else notice that so far all of these scientific facts have nothing to do with the Quran? Did anybody catch that? This appears to be a typical technique as I've seen it often.

The above is the orbital movement of the Sun that was already referred to by the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago.

And here's where the Quran gets slipped in at the end, just like I knew it would. Yup, same exact technique as I see all over the place. So if you notice, it wears you out explaining all of these scientific facts that are completely unnecessary and only there to complicate things, so that when it slips the Quran in there, you don't think to ask them why those verses should be related to those scientific facts that they waived in front of you. Nobody asks that, they just assume that if this is what science says, then this is what the Quran says. See the little magic act that gets played? And they do it on purpose because they try to confuse you enough to where nobody thinks of asking the million dollar question that they have no answer for. That question is, why are we supposed to assume the Quran is talking about an orbit around the galaxy rather than the earth? They don't have a good answer for that, which is why they distract you with complexities that don't even relate to then question.

The demonstration of the existence and details of this is one of the achievements of modern astronomy.

And allahkazam, presto, our issue has disappeared into thin air. What master illusionists. Nobody's better at it. That's why the religion grows.

Reference to the Movement of the Moon and the Sun in Space With Their Own Motion

This concept does not appear in those translations of the Qur'an that have been made by men of letters. Since the latter know nothing about astronomy, they have translated the Arabic word that expresses this movement by one of the meanings the word has: 'to swim'. They have done this in both the French translations and the, otherwise remarkable, English translation by Yusuf Ali. [ Pub. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore (Pakistan)]

The Arabic word referring to a movement with a self-propelled motion is the verb sabaha (yasbahuna in the text of the two verses). All the senses of the verb imply a movement that is associated with a motion that comes from the body in question. If the movement takes place in water, it is 'to swim'; it is 'to move by the action of one's own legs' if it takes place on land. For a movement that occurs in space, it is difficult to see how else this meaning implied in the word could be rendered other than by employing its original sense. Thus there seems to have been no mistranslation, for the following reasons.

When you swim or run, you are traveling somewhere. you are traveling a distance. When something spins on it's own axis, that does not cause the object to travel anywhere. Walking, swimming refers to spinning? Sorry, it doesn't work.

-The Moon completes its rotating motion on its own axis at the same time as it revolves around the Earth, i.e. 291/2 days (approx.), so that it always has the same side facing us.
-The Sun takes roughly 25 days to revolve on its own axis. There are certain differences in its rotation at its equator and poles, (we shall not go into them here) but as a whole, the Sun is animated by a rotating motion.

And again, none of the 8 translators I quoted mentioned two distinct and separate motion for the sun and moon. It mentioned one motion for each, and so far, most likely an orbiting motion just as the 8 translators all seems to agree upon. But let's get some tasfir

Ibn Kathir
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=36&tid=43541
(They all float, each in an orbit.) means, night and day, the sun and the moon, all of them are floating, i.e., revolving, in their orbits in the heaven. This was the view of Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrimah, Ad-Dahhak, Al-Hasan, Qatadah and `Ata' Al-Khurasani. Ibn `Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, and others among the Salaf said, "In an orbit like the arc of a spinning wheel.''

[وَءَايَةٌ لَّهُمْ أَنَّا حَمَلْنَا ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ فِى الْفُلْكِ الْمَشْحُونِ - وَخَلَقْنَا لَهُمْ مِّن مِّثْلِهِ مَا يَرْكَبُونَ - وَإِن نَّشَأْ نُغْرِقْهُمْ فَلاَ صَرِيخَ لَهُمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يُنقَذُونَ - إِلاَّ رَحْمَةً مِّنَّا وَمَتَاعاً إِلَى حِينٍ

so here we have the arc of a spinning wheel. Others have reference the spindles of the wheel. If the arc of a wheel refers it it's outer portion, then he's talking about these bodies orbiting the earth. If the arc refers to the center of the wheel, then he would appear to be speaking of spinning rather than orbiting. But still, it is notable that nowhere is the earth mentioned while it's mentioning all of these other celestial bodies, whether it's speaking of them as spinning, or orbiting. And again, I do not think we can say it's speaking of both types of motions simultaneously. Now, it is certain that everybody perceived things to be orbiting around the earth at that time, and nobody seemed to care about spinning. For me, this makes it more likely that they were talking about round orbits rather than spinning.

It appears therefore that a verbal nuance in the Qur'an refers to the Sun and Moon's own motion.

Which can mean it's own path or orbit.

These motions of the two celestial bodies are confirmed by the data of modern science, and it is inconceivable that a man living in the Seventh century A.D.-however knowledgeable he might have been in his day (and this was certainly not true in Muhammad's case) -could have imagined them.

Who cares about modern science? The Quran is not telling us what science suggests.

This view is sometimes contested by examples from great thinkers of antiquity who indisputably predicted certain data that modern science has verified. They could hardly have relied on scientific deduction however; their method of procedure was more one of philosophical reasoning. Thus the case of the pythagoreans is often advanced. In the Sixth century B.C., they defended the theory of the rotation of the Earth on its own axis and the movement of the planets around the Sun. This theory was to be confirmed by modern science. By comparing it with the case of the Pythagoreans, it is easy to put forward the hypothesis of Muhammad as being a brilliant thinker, who was supposed to have imagined all on his own what modern science was to discover centuries later.

Actually, I think he was erroneous in his perception and the author has done whatever he could to take a scientific blunder and turn it into a scientific miracle. This is often called "putting lipstick on the pig".

In so doing however, people quite simply forget to mention the other aspect of what these geniuses of philosophical reasoning produced, i.e. the colossal blunders that litter their work. It must be remembered for example, that the Pythagoreans also defended the theory whereby the Sun was fixed in space; they made it the centre of the world and only conceived of a celestial order that was centered on it. It is quite common in the works of the great philosophers of antiquity to find a mixture of valid and invalid ideas about the Universe. The brilliance of these human works comes from the advanced ideas they contain, but they should not make us overlook the mistaken concepts which have also been left to us. From a strictly scientific point of view, this is what distinguished them from the Qur'an.

Unbelievable. No it doesn't

In the latter, many subjects are referred to that have a bearing on modern knowledge without one of them containing a statement that contradicts what has been established by present-day science.

The Sequence of Day and Night

At a time when it was held that the Earth was the centre of the world and that the Sun moved in relation to it, how could any one have failed to refer to the Sun's movement when talking of the sequence of night and day? This is not however referred to in the Qur'an and the subject is dealt with as follows:

--sura 7, verse 54:
"(God) covers the day with the night which is in haste to follow it . . ."

Covers? How odd. But it makes sense to me when we put it together with canopy.

--sura 36, verse 37:
"And a sign for them (human beings) is the night. We strip it of the day and they are in darkness."

--sura 31, verse 29:
"Hast thou not seen how God merges the night into the day and merges the day into the night."

--sura 39, verse 5:
". . . He coils the night upon the day and He coils the day upon the night."

The first verse cited requires no comment. The second simply provides an image.

It is mainly the third and fourth verses quoted above that provide interesting material on the process of interpenetration and especially of winding the night upon the day and the day upon the night. (sura 39, verse 5)

'To coil' or 'to wind' seems, as in the French translation by R. Blachère, to be the best way of translating the Arabic verb kawwara. The original meaning of the verb is to 'coil' a turban around the head; the notion of coiling is preserved in all the other senses of the word.

That's right. We don't spin the head to apply the turban, we wrap the turban around the head. Very misleading analogy that points to the opposite of the truth. Still earth, moving or wrapping sky canopy. This matches all the verses of the Quran that refer to the sky as a covering or canopy of sorts.

What actually happens however in space? American astronauts have seen and photographed what happens from their spaceships, especially at a great distance from Earth, e.g. from the Moon. They saw how the Sun permanently lights up (except in the case of an eclipse) the half of the Earth's surface that is facing it, while the other half of the globe is in darkness. The Earth turns on its own axis and the lighting remains the same, so that an area in the form of a half-sphere makes one revolution around the Earth in twenty-four hours while the other half-sphere, that has remained in darkness, makes the same revolution in the same time. This perpetual rotation of night and day is quite clearly described in the Qur'an. It is easy for the human understanding to grasp this notion nowadays because we have the idea of the Sun's (relative) immobility and the Earth's rotation. This process of perpetual coiling, including the interpenetration of one sector by another is expressed in the Qur'an just as if the concept of the Earth's roundness had already been conceived at the time-which was obviously not the case.

:giggling: This guy is so full of it. You guys are being had. Who is this charlatan? I'll explain, it's easy and I don't know why nobody thinks of this and is so willing to be hoodwinked. If we have the sun shining on the left hand side of the earth from our outer space perspective, then clearly we would see the left side lit up and the right side as dark. So far so good. So, lets say that in the illustration, the earth spins from the left side to the right side. So here, we can clearly see what the author is talking about in that it gives the appearance of the darkness almost swallowing up the light parts or covering it. So far so good. However, it also says that the day covers the night. So, we return to our outer space perspective and ask ourselves how we can now represent the day covering the night. The only think I can think of is that we would have to reverse the direction of the spin, which is obviously not an option. And even if that was an option, it would still look more like the night spitting out the day rather than the day covering the night. So oddly enough, there is only one location that these analogies in these verses can be writing from. and that is the perspective of the earth. From the earth, then we see day covering the night and night covering the day. That's actually the only perspective where it's possibly to see both if you really think about it.

Who is this author and why is he making up stupid stories like this? You'd think he would have thought it out a little more.

Further to the above reflections on the sequence of day and night, one must also mention, with a quotation of some verses from the Qur'an, the idea that there is more than one Orient and one Occident. This is of purely descriptive interest because these phenomena rely on the most commonplace observations. The idea is mentioned here with the aim of reproducing as faithfully as possible all that the Qur'an has to say on this subject.

The following are examples:

--In sura 70 verse 40, the expression 'Lord of Orients and Occidents'.
--In sura 55, verse 17, the expression 'Lord of the two Orients and the two Occidents'.
--In sura 43, verse 38, a reference to the 'distance between the two Orients', an image intended to express the immense size of the distance separating the two points.

Anyone who carefully watches the sunrise and sunset knows that the Sun rises at different point of the Orient and sets at different points of the Occident,

That's right, so what is the big deal?

Arnold

19th July 2007, 15:16

Arnold,

Let's make life easy, why not just post the one entry that says "dahaha" means "flat" and name the dictionary.

I don't need to. When speaking of a physical object that is not fragmented or broken in any way, spreading out inherently involves flattening to the degree that it is spread. And of course, you'll say that it's not discussing shape at all, but I've provided verses and tafsir that refer to Allah making the earth a wide expanse. This involves shape. So if it involves shape, then it involves flattening to the extent that it is spread out. If it does not refer to the shape of the earth, then it is referring to the shape of the land as that article coyly and indirectly suggested when it was careful to say that it doesn't involve the shape of the earth, rather than saying it doesn't involves shape at all.

You said you've given us 4 sources and a dictionary definition. All I want is the quote from that dictionary. That will be your one source.

Why? Who says? See how you are being sneaky and making up artificial rules to try and control the situation? How about if I don't agree with that as there isn't any good reason to?

If you've already posted it then it should be easy to just give it to us again. No long drawn out explanations, just the dictionary entry. I look forward to it.

Dictionary definition and 4 other lexicon sources as Ron asked for. Sorry if I don't cooperate, but you've given no reason for me to do so, it merely seems like an attempt to limit the discussion to things you think you can answer. Besides, what's the big deal anyway? The definition and the lexicons all say spreading out.

hasan

19th July 2007, 16:16

A correction: I had stated earlier that Ahmad and Muhammad in the 9th century calculated the circumference of the Earth by way of geodetic surveys to today’s equivalent of 39,690 km. This is incorrect it was measured to todays equivalent of 40,253.4 Km. The modern measurement is 40,070 kilometers.

Arnold

19th July 2007, 16:22

No biggie.

Ron

19th July 2007, 20:13

Arnold,

Dictionary definition and 4 other lexicon sources as Ron asked for. Sorry if I don't cooperate, but you've given no reason for me to do so, it merely seems like an attempt to limit the discussion to things you think you can answer. Besides, what's the big deal anyway? The definition and the lexicons all say spreading out.
Well then I will take this as you bowing out of the conversation. Don't say what "all the lexicons say" because you don't know. It is obvious from this entire thread, from the beginning to the end, that you had no interest in honest dialog. What did you gain from putting all that time and effort to waste? No minds were changed. You brought no information. More insult was added to the injury that humanity is suffering from. It is too bad that you invested so much into something so useless. You should cherish your time more. It could really have been a decent bit of knowledge for all if you had the intentions for it.

Anyone can say anything they want but not everyone can back up what they say...

Arnold

19th July 2007, 21:26

Arnold,

Well then I will take this as you bowing out of the conversation.

Do you mean to tell me, that me not allowing you to limit the scope of information allowed in this discussion, means me bowing out of it? You must be joking.

Don't say what "all the lexicons say" because you don't know.

Then explain for once, Ron, You have alot of comments but very few answers. As far as I can tell, the words in the lexicons say spreading out

It is obvious from this entire thread, from the beginning to the end, that you had no interest in honest dialog. What did you gain from putting all that time and effort to waste? No minds were changed. You brought no information.

Yes, we all know, that anybody who doesn't agree with your explanations, and tells you exactly why is bringing no information. Could you please stop this?

More insult was added to the injury that humanity is suffering from. It is too bad that you invested so much into something so useless. You should cherish your time more. It could really have been a decent bit of knowledge for all if you had the intentions for it.

Information is information. Intentions are intentions. Intentions are a subset of information, not the other way around, Get it? Get it? I do. That's why I know better than to buy into these techniques.

Anyone can say anything they want but not everyone can back up what they say...

What do you mean? You keep asking me for things, and I've given them. What have you given me that I've asked for? Nothing. How can you continue this skewed charade and pretend it doesn't exist?

Ron

19th July 2007, 22:50

Just one source...all the extra is unnecessary.

Arnold

20th July 2007, 14:03

Let's make life easy, why not just post the one entry that says "dahaha" means "flat" and name the dictionary. You said you've given us 4 sources and a dictionary definition.

Apparently, the fact is, that I haven't even given a dictionary definition for dahaha. I've given one for the word spread, that's all. I can't find the word dahaha or da-ha-ha in an arabic dictionary, I can only find it in lexicons. And from I've read, according to one article I posted, it is a very old word never used in modern times, which might explain why I can't find it in normal Arab dictionaries. I tried daha, da-ha, dahaha and da-ha-ha. So right now, I can't find a dictionary definition for it, and as I said, why don't you just post one yourself and link it if you know what the word means? What's the big deal? Why don't you just offer your postion in a clear manner as I have done. What's the mystery for? Let's see if we can review, shed some simplicity on this and figure out what your postion on the matter is.

An open area of land; an expanse.

So the earth was not an open area of land at one point, but Allah made it so. Is this correct? What was the earth when it wasn't an open area of land?

The point of what they were saying was that the action of the ostrich of "spreading/scattering/scratching" the ground is dihya and udhiya is the depression in the ground; that is, the nest. If you would like go ahead and use the imagery of a comfortable nest being built as an analogy for the nest we call Mother Earth.

You accepted spreading, scratching, scattering. Can you relate these words to what Allah did to the earth? Spreading could be related to it, but I don't know about scratching and scattering. But what we're still missing so far, is a clear explanation on precisely what is spread. Is it the earth or the land? So far, you refuse to be clear about that.

Your sources say dahaha means spreading, expansion, vastness...no where do they say anything about the word meaning flat in shape

That would intimate that you're okay with spreading, expansion, vastness. We still can't tell whether you mean that in terms of the shape and size of the earth or the land. If we are talking about the earth and not the land, how did God expand the earth? That doesn't seem to be accurate. The earth doesn't appear to have been expanded as far as we know. And even if it was, why does this expansion make the earth a more inhabitable place? Was the earth the size of a pea at one point and then had to be made a wider expanse to support life?

You're just being silly now. Dahaha relates to the expanse of the earth in that verse, the earth was spread for life

I think it is clear that God established the earth's vastness as a place for life. Much like the nest of an ostrich, the earth is made to foster the life upon it. Don't twist my words

Ok then, that's becoming more clear. This spreading or expanse deals with changing the shape of the earth itself, not the shape of the land

Of course, and the Arabs understood that the earth wasn't a giant carpet. They also knew taht the roof wasn't the roof of a beduoin tent. They also knew that the ountains weren't pegs that held up the sky. They understood this all as imagery.

They weren't told the mountains were pegs to hold up the sky, they were told that the mountains were pegs that held down the earth and kept it from shaking

I don't think you get it. The description is related to the sustence of God. The vastness of the earth is there spread for humanity and all the life that is on it

Okay, so the question becomes, what does the action of spreading or creating a wide expanse have to do with the earth being more inhabitable than it was? In what way? I can't figure that out. Was it originally only the size of a 3 mile ball and had to be spread in order for life to be able to exist on it? This still isn't clear.

How do you know that dahaha doesn't mean egg-shape...is it because that article says so?

Well, apparently, according to what you've said, you don't think it means that either and you're just creating doubt and confusion.

Even when I asked you how an ostrich flattens a hole/ditch you didn't know.

Yes I do, it digs and spreads the dirt, and then it pats it down and flattens it with it's feet.

Anyway, in summary, I can't find a dictionary definition for the word and therefore have to rely on articles and lexicons that all consistently give me the same definition for the word, which is spreading out. If these are wrong, then give me the correct dictionary definition and link it. Thanks. Other than that, the direct question is, how does spreading out or making the earth a vast expanse an action that makes the planet inhabitable? What exactly does it have to do with sustenance? This part still isn't clear. "Spread for life" is far too vague. It doesn't really say anything, which is probably the way you intended it. I know you're not talking about the land, as evidenced by what you've said, and that you are clearly talking about the earth itself. That much I have been able to see.

ihsan

20th July 2007, 15:12

Arnold

20th July 2007, 17:16

What is ironic about this whole discussion on what a lexicon allegedly says is that ARnold can't seem to comprehend the fact that one of the meanings of 'daha' is established by the lexicons from the Quran itself. What this is essentially means is that dictionaries and lexicons give examples from Quran, because it is the authority on classical Arabic language, to establish usage and meaning.

And he further cannot seem to comprehend the question. Where in the lexicons does it say FLAT? Not spread, but FLATTEN, because that is really the issue.

It does not say flatten. however, if we are speaking about a singular, non fragmented object, then the obvious consequence of spreading that object is increased flatness to the extent that it is spread. So the explicit word "flat" does not need to be there as it is an assumed consequence if we are talking about a singular, non fragmented object. This is what happens to a carpet when it is spread out. It goes from it's rolled up state to a more flattened state. But, I also know, that you'll say it's not talking about an object, it is merely figurative to represent God making the earth inhabitable for us and honoring us. Yet, I can't relate this to wide expanse, as wide expanse talks about size and shape. I can't relate making the earth a wide expanse as a sign or honoring us or hospitality. How does making the earth a wide expanse make it more inhabitable for us? This is never specifically explained. Does it need to be turned into a wide expanse to make it hospitable for us? Why?

So the word spread is different from pat and flatten now, according to his terminology?

I have always maintained the flattening is a consequence of spreading when dealing with a non fragmented physical object. None of these verse are even remotely like rolling up, or make into a ball. You do not create a ball by spreading, or making something into a wide expanse, you make a ball by bringing things together or rolling them together. So again, how does spreading or making it a wide expanse make the earth hospitable? Why is wide expanse supposed to mean hospitality? Be specific.

He has to clarify the act of spreading with different words, because he knows in the zeal for being 'scientific', one can easily refute this point by saying one can spread things all over various types of surfaces that aren't flat.

1) Is the word dealing with a physical object? If not, then how does making something into a wide expanse merely mean hospitality?

2) If it is dealing with a physical object, Is it dealing with the earth or the land?

Please clarify

But, the issue is not really a shape but the word spread, and whether it can be used rhetorically or not, which it can. And anybody capable of understanding higher literature understands that rhetoric is defined by context.

Spread out or made a wide expanse for hospitality? I don't see where that's a sign of hospitality. What does making something as a wide expanse have to do with hospitality. Was it that the earth didn't have enough room for life, so it was spread out and made a wider expanse? What else could you possibly mean?

But then again, Arnold still hasn't answered the question of how does the employment of a verb in two different sentences constitute an analogy is being made.

I've asked you repeatedly to clarify and I still haven't seen where you did. I'll try one more time. Which verb do you mean? Do you mean dahaha? If you do, then please tell me where this is repeated. Tell me what verse. Otherwise, tell me which verb you are speaking of. This will be the third time I've asked you to do so, but you seem to refuse to do that. Why won't you simply clarify? How hard is that?

Now, he proves himself even more foolish after he has spent some time trying to "gather his thoughts" and straighten them out.

A claim with no substantiation. One doesn't just make the claim, that's meaningless. One shows why. Comment rejected.

The confusion now is that two words that employ the same root of the word in question constitutes an analogy can be made.

Which two words? Explain in detail.

Not only has he blundered on the issue of two sentences employing the same verb, but now he thinks that two words from the same tri-lateral root as the verb in question can constitute an analogy. His comparison of the act of an ostrich and spreading the earth is just getting more and more comical. He can't seem to understand that Ron has denied the analogy of an ostrich because there is none as he stated in his previous posts,

There is no analogy about the ostrich spreading the dirt? It's not changing the shape of the dirt but merely talking about hospitality?

and stated his only agreement with the article is that they both agree the verse is nowhere stating the shape of the earth.

That's what the article said, but I don't agree with that part of the article and I think that was an attempt to whisk the problem away. They had to tell us honestly what a word means, but they didn't have to go as far as telling us it means a flat earth, and nor would anybody expect them to. They were very coy and careful. They said that although it does involves, spreading, flattening and leveling, it does not refer to the shape of the earth. But nowhere does it say that it doesn't involve shape at all. And, of course, they are smart enough to say the minimum amount needed to answer the question rather than going into what shape it DOES refer to (the land, not the earth), because they probably know that doesn't work too well, so they cut the issue off with "Allah knows best". A smart idea.

It is good you finally admitted this about the mountains

I said they were told that mountains were pegs that hold the earth down, not the sky down. What is different than what I always said?

but you still cannot seem to comprehend basic points. You still cannot comprehend that when God say he spread the earth for his creatures, it is always accompanied by him providing sustenance, i.e. the imagery of spreading is always affiliated with the provision of sustensnce in the Quran,

These two verses do not necessarily need to be related as much as you say. You're almost treating them like one and the same verse, but they are not. So why couldn't it mean that he spread the earth, and THEN provided sustenance? And, why is it merely talking about sustenance and nothing physical whatsoever, but when it talks about the mountains, it is indeed speaking about something physical and it even explains it's purpose, which was to keep the earth from shaking. So why should we think that all the other verses are not related to anything physical at all, and yet, right in the middle of this series of verses, there is a verse that clearly refers directly to a physical reality and explains it's purpose? What is the writing style of switching on the fly like that?

just as the imagery of the mountains beings pegs is affiliated with the stabilization of the earth.

Which is something of a physical nature. That is certainly an analogy that is clearly trying to point to a physical truth. So that one verse points to a physical truth and even goes far enough to explain it's purpose (keeping the earth from shaking), but the ones around it have nothing to do with physical truths? How can one flip flop like this out of nowhere?

Just as the imagery of the sky being raised as a tent and it holding up lamps to see is affiliated with the heavens providing light, and various other imagery.

So the mountains actually point to a physical reality, but the rest of the verses surrounding it on either side do not. Is that correct?

Is Arnold now saying that the earth wasn't in constant flux, and was inhabitable from the very beginning it was created?

I'm saying that I don't remember even learning that the earth expanded, and probably, if anything, it contracted during it's cooling process. But even if it did expand, I can't relate this to making it more inhabitable and hence hospitable. Nobody really explains that.

Is Arnold now saying that man could sustain himself in the tremendous upheaval that was taking place in the beginning of the earth's creation?

No, Arnold is saying that expansion of the earth (if it even did expand), has absolutely nothing to do with making it more inhabitable. If you disagree, then explain clearly and concisely why it does. I'll say one thing. That making it flatter than it was could appear to be something that was done to make the earth more inhabitable if one didn't know about gravity

But then again, that really isn't the point.

What really IS the point? I can never really get a clear answer out of either you nor Ron, and, you both think two different things.

The ignorance once again being displayed is that of not knowing the difference between imagery and scientific terminology.

The imagery of the mountains being used as pegs refers to true, physical objects and it explains the object's purpose. So I understand when imagery is pointing to physical realities. You seem to think that imagery is never intended to point to physical realities, but that just simply isn't true, and there's your example right there in the middle of this series of verses. So your claim holds no water.

Did God create the sky first like a beduoin tent and than raise it literally?

I believe that this is what Muhammad believed. I believe that he most certainly saw the sky as a covering or sorts, and I have also shown that pagan contemporaries believed similar things like the heavens being 7 domes on top of each other. It is completely plausible to believe that he saw the sky as a cover of sorts, and, strangely enough, his words indicate just that.

Or is God employing imagery to convey a point? While one is meant to describe a process as is, the other paints pictures to effect emotion and artistic beauty.

I believe he was using imagery to describe what he (Muhammad) believed to be a physical reality, just as he meant what he said when talking about the mountains. These analogies are actually very good analogies for what was believed to be a physical reality. They work perfectly for a vision of a flat earth and a sky that is a covering of sorts. They fit like a glove. They don't really fit like a glove for your ideas and making something a wide expanse does not fit like a glove with hospitality nor sustenance. The most solid reason to choose your interpretation is simply to keep the Quran from being in error. There really isn't much other solid reasons. All you show is a chronology of events and then try to make the two one and the same action. Spreading out and THEN providing sustenance are not the same action as far as I see it and I don't see any good reason to look at it that way. Even if the same exact sequence is repeated in other areas of the Quran, that still doesn't mean that spreading or making a wide expanse is the same exact action as providing sustenance, it more likely seems to merely be a sequence of separate events or actions.

ihsan

20th July 2007, 21:11

[It does not say flatten. however, if we are speaking about a singular, non fragmented object, then the obvious consequence of spreading that object is increased flatness to the extent that it is spread. So the explicit word "flat" does not need to be there as it is an assumed consequence if we are talking about a singular, non fragmented object.

So what your saying is that the lexicon nowhere states that the word 'daha' means flatten. So now you have added the dimension that when usage is talking about a 'singular non-fragmented object', it means flatten. Where is the source for the derivation of this alleged rule?

This is what happens to a carpet when it is spread out. It goes from it's rolled up state to a more flattened state. But, I also know, that you'll say it's not talking about an object, it is merely figurative to represent God making the earth inhabitable for us and honoring us. Yet, I can't relate this to wide expanse, as wide expanse talks about size and shape. I can't relate making the earth a wide expanse as a sign or honoring us or hospitality. How does making the earth a wide expanse make it more inhabitable for us? This is never specifically explained. Does it need to be turned into a wide expanse to make it hospitable for us? Why?

1.

Your ability to make a point is rather poor. When did I ever say the verb is not talking about an object? The object of the sentence has alway been 'ardh', or as you translate, 'earth'. What is stated was that the verb is being used in a figurative sense in relation to the object. The feature being employed is that of rhetoric and imagery. It is not employing scientific terminology to describe the shape of the earth.

2.

So now the discourse has turned to 'wide expanse' and not 'spread'? When did that happen? Is it becoming more and more apparent to you that the argument that you predicated on 'daha' has becomie useless.

If an Arab rolled out his carpet for his guests, telling them to take a seat and feel comfortable while he then proceeded to provide them with all sorts of fruits, the act itself did not signify to the host or the guest that the surface they were sitting on was a flat object. To the guest, they were comfortable and provided for, and their host was kind. And if it ever did come across the guests' minds that what was being implied by the host was that the earth was flat, than the guests could rightly be deemed mad.

I have always maintained the flattening is a consequence of spreading when dealing with a non fragmented physical object. None of these verse are even remotely like rolling up, or make into a ball. You do not create a ball by spreading, or making something into a wide expanse, you make a ball by bringing things together or rolling them together. So again, how does spreading or making it a wide expanse make the earth hospitable? Why is wide expanse supposed to mean hospitality? Be specific.

1.

Why have you changed the discourse to 'wide expanse', when the subject is 'daha'. Is it a surprise that you have abandoned the word 'daha;, though you use to repeat it like a parrot. There is NO wide expanse mentioned in the verse, and the only two words are 'earth' and 'spread'. Besides the fact, the word 'wide expansie' is a poor translation of what is actually suppressed in the Arabic. The actual suppression is referring to a carpet.

2.

Who ever said anything about making a ball? Why are you trying to refute points that have no relevance to the argument. If I state that the Quran is not referring to whether the earth is a flat object floating in space or a round one, than it logically means that the verse is NOT talking about shape. The issue of bringing round balls together, or rolling them up is absolutely of no relevance to the argument at hand. Further, if you cannot understand how space and room isn't affiliated with hospitality, than you really need some help. Nobody likes to be cramped, and nobody likes to be squished. This is precisely why in english 'space' is equated with comfort. "Give me my space, your making me feel squeezed."

The statement is used rhetorically and the imagery is meant to paint a picture of a hospitable host, in fact, the best host imaginable, in the context of the psychology of the addressee, i.e. the Arab beduoin.

1) Is the word dealing with a physical object? If not, then how does making something into a wide expanse merely mean hospitality?

Are you telling me words can't be employed rhetorically in relation to physical objects? What is an idiom than? Considering I've been raised in Amaerica all my life, I know for a fact that space is often equated with how one feels. Otherwise phrases such as 'back off', 'your cramping my style', 'get out of my space', 'she gave me my space' would have no meaning.

2) If it is dealing with a physical object, Is it dealing with the earth or the land?

Are you telling me words can't be employed rhetorically in relation to physical objects?

I've asked you repeatedly to clarify and I still haven't seen where you did. I'll try one more time. Which verb do you mean? Do you mean dahaha? If you do, then please tell me where this is repeated. Tell me what verse. Otherwise, tell me which verb you are speaking of. This will be the third time I've asked you to do so, but you seem to refuse to do that. Why won't you simply clarify? How hard is that?

I have already told you many times, but your too busy to defend your little ego. I already provided you with a transliteration of a different surah, as well as the translation for you to show you where the same verb applies. If we have been discussing 'daha' for all this time, than what other verb do I mean? What other veerb has been the subject of disucssion? The fact is it is already simple, and clarity is right before you.

A claim with no substantiation. One doesn't just make the claim, that's meaningless. One shows why. Comment rejected.

That is exactly what happened. Whether you 'reject' the comment or not doesn't change this reality.

Which two words? Explain in detail.

Are you this clueless in real life? They are right in the paragraph before your eyes. It seems that you don't even understand tri-lateral roots, and yet your trying to use tri-lateral roots if which the word 'daha' is derived to make an analogy with ostriches. As I stated before, comical.

There is no analogy about the ostrich spreading the dirt? It's not changing the shape of the dirt but merely talking about hospitality?

There we go again. The fact that words stem from the same tri-lateral root does not mean that the usage of a different form of the same tri-lateral root means the same thing, let alone the employment of the same verb in two different sentences. The issue of an ostrich is totally irrelevant to the issue the earth and the imagery being conveyed. I've told you this many times.

You really are clueless.

That's what the article said, but I don't agree with that part of the article and I think that was an attempt to whisk the problem away.

That is the problem. You 'think', meaning your making a whole lot of assumptions.

They had to tell us honestly what a word means, but they didn't have to go as far as telling us it means a flat earth, and nor would anybody expect them to. They were very coy and careful. They said that although it does involves, spreading, flattening and leveling, it does not refer to the shape of the earth. But nowhere does it say that it doesn't involve shape at all. And, of course, they are smart enough to say the minimum amount needed to answer the question rather than going into what shape it DOES refer to (the land, not the earth), because they probably know that doesn't work too well, so they cut the issue off with "Allah knows best". A smart idea.

Yo mean they gave a word-for-word definition, when asked? Eureka! And words can have different meanings in different contexts. It all comes back to your fundamental error, which they do not make:

The employment of a verb means the same thing in two different sentences.

What they also did was provided various discussions on the etymological root of the word in discussion. They then provided how the same tri-lateral root is employed in a situation where an ostrich covers its eggs. They then elaborated on how certain people try and argue that the shape of the earth can be derived from this verse.

Unlike you, they possess etiquette. While they gave the source of the opinion that claims the earth is round, they stated that the verses is silent on the issue, and the purpose of the verse is literary.

I said they were told that mountains were pegs that hold the earth down, not the sky down. What is different than what I always said?

Actually, you had to correct yourself multiple times after I had to clarify it for you. You use to *giggle* saying, 'how does the mountain hold up the heavens'.

These two verses do not necessarily need to be related as much as you say. You're almost treating them like one and the same verse, but they are not. So why couldn't it mean that he spread the earth, and THEN provided sustenance?

First of all, the separation of the Quran into isolated verses was a later phenomenon. Second, I'm treating the verses which refer to the heavens, the mountains, and the earth like they are all one verse. You know why? Because each verse forms a partial picture of the picture that is being painted. The provision of sustenance is tied directly with the spreading of the earth, just as the sky being made dark and light being brought out is tied directly to the heavens being built and granted order. The dark and light are manifestations of the order God has granted to the heavens, which are emphasis of God's immaculate power. Bringing forth water and pasturage, and providing men with all sorts of fruits are manifestations of the providence God has granted in the earth.

And, why is it merely talking about sustenance and nothing physical whatsoever, but when it talks about the mountains, it is indeed speaking about something physical and it even explains it's purpose, which was to keep the earth from shaking. So why should we think that all the other verses are not related to anything physical at all, and yet, right in the middle of this series of verses, there is a verse that clearly refers directly to a physical reality and explains it's purpose? What is the writing style of switching on the fly like that?

Now, your changing to the 'writing style'. Your grapsing at every single straw to try and save your argument, as the discussion continues. When you couldn't show where the verb means flatted, you proceeded into a discussion of a phyiscal entity as a singular object. Then you moved into 'wide expanse' from the verb daha, and no you have gone into writing style. It's amazing.

How many times does this need explaining to you. The 'physical' description relation to the mountains is that of a 'peg'. Yet a mountain, especially those in the Arabian peninsula, look more like giant boulders an actual tent peg. IS the Quran drawing a scientifc picture of mountains, or is it emphasizing the stability of the environment? Now bear with me, it isn't that complex:

Just as the mountains being described as pegs emphasizes stability;

The earth spread like a carpet emphasizes providence and grace...

As is quite evident, there is no change in writing style.

I'm saying that I don't remember even learning that the earth expanded, and probably, if anything, it contracted during it's cooling process. But even if it did expand, I can't relate this to making it more inhabitable and hence hospitable. Nobody really explains that.

What does that have to do with the argument? Are you once again changing the argument. Now your bringing up contraction during the cooling process. It gets more and more comical, how your trying to defend your ego. You asked:

"what does the action of spreading or creating a wide expanse have to do with the earth being more inhabitable than it was?"

How does the spreading of the earth NOT create a more habitable place to live in?

I believe he was using imagery to describe what he (Muhammad) believed to be a physical reality, just as he meant what he said when talking about the mountains.

The only thing you believe in is your own ego. You have already thrown too much time into defending a baseless point, it's too hard for you to just admit your wrong. But the more and more you continue, the more and more evident it becomes how foolish you really are. Your just trying to save face, and that is the reality.

These analogies are actually very good analogies for what was believed to be a physical reality. They work perfectly for a vision of a flat earth and a sky that is a covering of sorts. They fit like a glove. They don't really fit like a glove for your ideas and making something a wide expanse does not fit like a glove with hospitality nor sustenance. The most solid reason to choose your interpretation is simply to keep the Quran from being in error. There really isn't much other solid reasons. All you show is a chronology of events and then try to make the two one and the same action. Spreading out and THEN providing sustenance are not the same action as far as I see it and I don't see any good reason to look at it that way.

Before, the images were laughable. Now, when you need the issue of analogy to save face, you begin to shift in how 'your' analogy is perfect for the situation. Yet, you accompany this perfect description with such words as 'sorts'.

Chronology of events? So when God says that he creates the stars as lamps in the context of the sky being raised, they are part of the same action, but in this case they aren't a description of the spreading of the earth, and the imagery of a generous host? My, how you try and defend yourself. Are verses isolated phenomenon? Do you remember when we were talking about how context is an essential element in speech?

The_Other_Admin

21st July 2007, 11:19

It is not hilarious. People stand on the flat part of one's shoulders. Do they stand on the round part? So who is hilarious?
You changed the word from 'rest' to 'stand'. There is a big difference between rest and stand. Anyway, people normally don't stand upon shoulders. In circus acrobats do stand upon shoulders, but they walk on ropes too.

Yeah, that looks like a great couch or a bed. I don't even think you even believe what you're trying to feed me. You're just pulling anything out of you pocket that you can and throwing it at the problem, and you could care less whether it's true or not, just as long as it creates doubt about my point. Did you ever hear the expression about the person who throws as much **** at the wall as he can in hopes that some of it sticks? That's all you're doing.
There is no point of making personal attacks. Anyway, regarding the fitness ball, it is very comfortable for sitting and resting after hours of sitting on chair... joints feel wonderful. And you don't have to take my word for it, you can check out this article: http://lifehacker.com/software/ergonomics/four-best-ways-to-sit-at-your-computer-238474.php ... and easier than standing on shoulders :giggling:

But I wouldn't recommend it to sit on it for more than 30mins to 1hr.

Ron

21st July 2007, 11:50

POST #187 from Arnold said regarding the word DAHAHA:

It does not say flatten.
I rest my case that dahaha does not mean flatten. I would be happy to move on now and agree that the verse in question does not say that the Earth was flat or flattened. If we agree we can move on to the next word and verse.

Arnold

21st July 2007, 12:41

POST #187 from Arnold said regarding the word DAHAHA:

I rest my case that dahaha does not mean flatten. I would be happy to move on now and agree that the verse in question does not say that the Earth was flat or flattened. If we agree we can move on to the next word and verse.

No, because it doesn't need to say flatten. Flattening is a consequence of spreading if we are speaking about a singular, non fragmented object, so it need not be said as the consequence is understood. And of course, you will again counter that it doesn't mean shape at all, it means sustenance.

He created the earth
He spread the earth

In the first sentence, the action of creating the earth itself could be constued as what you are attempting to say. And clearly, no reference to shape is even remoptely made. The earth was created so that we could live on it. But in the second sentence, it's telling us that the earth was spread out so that we can live on it. How does spreading the earth out relate to sustenance or livability? If I'm not mistaken, your angle is focused more on sustenance whereas ihasn's angle is more on grace and hospitality. The two ideas aren't exactly the same.

Ron

21st July 2007, 12:55

Arnold,

Flattening is a consequence of spreading if we are speaking about a singular, non fragmented object, so it need not be said as the consequence is understood. And of course, you will again counter that it doesn't mean shape at all, it means sustenance.
I must say that you are persistent...but that's not always so good, what's the word for it...ok, listen even that bolded sentence doesn't hold up...I can spread a piece of close over a ball, over a bird, over my fist, over whatever...flattening is not the consequence of spreading; flattening is the consequence of making something flat, regardless of the method. Don't go into creating new definitions with assertions that have no basis. You said it and it is clear that dahaha does not mean flat, don't try to qualify it. Let's just move on.

In the first sentence, the action of creating the earth itself could be constued as what you are attempting to say. And clearly, no reference to shape is even remoptely made. The earth was created so that we could live on it. But in the second sentence, it's telling us that the earth was spread out so that we can live on it. How does spreading the earth out relate to sustenance or livability? If I'm not mistaken, your angle is focused more on sustenance whereas ihasn's angle is more on grace and hospitality. The two ideas aren't exactly the same.
Do you even know if the word dahaha can be used in the sense of "establishing wide expanse?" So that the earth is made a wide expanse...can that work in Arabic?

Look at the word expanse in the dictionary, in the second entry it says:

2. something that is spread out, esp. over a relatively large area: that great expanse, the sky.

Can you tell me if the sky is flat? Here in this sentence the sky is being referred to in the sense of being spread...is the sky flat?

We have belabored the point...let's just move on. Dahaha does not mean flat and the Qur'an does not say that the earth is flat in that verse. Why don't we look at the other verses to see if they say it?

Arnold

21st July 2007, 13:34

So what your saying is that the lexicon nowhere states that the word 'daha' means flatten. So now you have added the dimension that when usage is talking about a 'singular non-fragmented object', it means flatten. Where is the source for the derivation of this alleged rule?

What source is needed for that. It's elementary school science.

So now the discourse has turned to 'wide expanse' and not 'spread'? When did that happen? Is it becoming more and more apparent to you that the argument that you predicated on 'daha' has becomie useless.

Well, other verses that mention the same thing help establish context every bit as much as surrounding verses do. But both of you guys want to make sure that each one is completely dealt with in an isolated fashion as to make it more difficult to connect the dots.

If an Arab rolled out his carpet for his guests, telling them to take a seat and feel comfortable while he then proceeded to provide them with all sorts of fruits, the act itself did not signify to the host or the guest that the surface they were sitting on was a flat object.

So you accuse me of getting away from daha, and then you turn around and mention a carpet, which is the analogy that a different verses uses. Amazing.
.

Why have you changed the discourse to 'wide expanse', when the subject is 'daha'. Is it a surprise that you have abandoned the word 'daha;, though you use to repeat it like a parrot. There is NO wide expanse mentioned in the verse, and the only two words are 'earth' and 'spread'.

There's no carpet either, but you don't mind bringing that up as that relates to a different analogy in a differernt verse. Too funny.

Are you telling me words can't be employed rhetorically in relation to physical objects?

Sure they can, or they can be trying to describe a physical reality.

I have already told you many times, but your too busy to defend your little ego. I already provided you with a transliteration of a different surah, as well as the translation for you to show you where the same verb applies. If we have been discussing 'daha' for all this time, than what other verb do I mean? What other veerb has been the subject of disucssion? The fact is it is already simple, and clarity is right before you.

I'm still lost about this one. I must have missed where you showed me which verses besides 79:30 have daha in them.

The provision of sustenance is tied directly with the spreading of the earth

The creation of the earth itself may indirectly have to do with sustenance to the degree that it means we have a place to live and therefore, a place for God to provide sustenance. But how does the spreading of the earth create sustenance? The two really don't seem to relate. I think that spreading the earth was a separate event from the provision of sustenance. We do not need to strip those two events together and make them one and the same. There really isn't any compelling reason to do so. Even in other instances where it basically tells us the same chronology of events or actions. If it just said "we created the earth", then there wouldn't be a problem. But it went further. It seems to say that the earth was already created and then spread out, and I think there is a reason why it went more specific. You'll say that because it wanted to show it as a sign of hospitality, as one spreads out a carpet. While other verses might fit this idea, 79:30, according to the origin of this very old and little known word daha, does not really fit that idea very well, and instead, does indeed refer to an action that changes the physical shape of something (the dirt). This is why I bring it up in conjunction with other verses, because it both cases, we can easily say that we have the change of shape, but it is questionable as to how much we have hospitality in both cases.

How many times does this need explaining to you. The 'physical' description relation to the mountains is that of a 'peg'. Yet a mountain, especially those in the Arabian peninsula, look more like giant boulders an actual tent peg. IS the Quran drawing a scientifc picture of mountains, or is it emphasizing the stability of the environment?

Both. It speaks of a physical reality or even object and it's function

Now bear with me, it isn't that complex:

Just as the mountains being described as pegs emphasizes stability;

The earth spread like a carpet emphasizes providence and grace

Who says it emphasizes stability? It seems to me, that it simply describes a known physical object and tells us the function that it has. While stability is certainly part of the meaning, it's telling us about a true physical reality and how God provided this stability in a physical sense. You seem to want to whisk away that part. Who says imagery never points to what the author views as physical realities? That just simply isn't true.

"what does the action of spreading or creating a wide expanse have to do with the earth being more inhabitable than it was?"
How does the spreading of the earth NOT create a more habitable place to live in?

Well, if you tell us that this is what it means, then you should be able to expound. Your answer didn't tell us why we should think that spreading has anything to do with inhabitability. It can't see where it does. I only see you relating it to a verse that comes after. But these verse don't need to be spliced together in any way and work perfectly as separate actions. If you think these verses are both talking about the same action, then we ask why spreading relates to inhabitability and sustenance. And all you had to say was "why not?". Not very good.

Chronology of events? So when God says that he creates the stars as lamps in the context of the sky being raised, they are part of the same action

No they aren't. I think the sky was raised first, and then decorated.

but in this case they aren't a description of the spreading of the earth, and the imagery of a generous host? My, how you try and defend yourself. Are verses isolated phenomenon? Do you remember when we were talking about how context is an essential element in speech?

Sure, and everytime I bring in the other verses I'm told that we should just stick with daha and 79:30 for right now. Regardless of hoispitality, these verse all, definitely have one thing in common. They all speak of spreading out, whether that be a carpet or an ostrich spreading out the dirt. When pressed, you say that even in the analogy of the ostrich spreading out the dirt, it is merely showing us the hospitality of the mother ostrich and hence pointing to the hospitality of God as it does in all the other verses. But in performing this action, the ostrich is changing the shape of the environment to make it suitable for the egg. So while it might be said, in some very indirect way, that this points to hospitality, but it is changing the shape of the dirt in order to provide this hospitality. Why is that part to be totally ignored? I don't think it shouild.

Arnold

21st July 2007, 14:24

Arnold,

I must say that you are persistent...but that's not always so good, what's the word for it...ok, listen even that bolded sentence doesn't hold up...I can spread a piece of close over a ball, over a bird, over my fist, over whatever

Yeah, that would have saved a lot of confusion if the Quran said spreading over rather than saying spreading, or spreading out. But anyway, if we stick with what's told to us by the Quran, are you now suggesting that spreading the earth meant that the grass was spread on top of the earth or spread on to the earth or around the earth?

...flattening is not the consequence of spreading;

When you spread something out, it inherently means that it was bunched up in a certain fashion, but was then spread out to cover a wider area along one dimension, and a less wide area along the other dimension (height). It's common sense. What happens when someone takes a ball of pizza dough and stretches it and spreads it out? And you try to treat this notion as crazy? Come on. It's the most intuitive meaning. If you ask somebody if spreading an object has to due with flattening it, most people would say yes, most of the time, if not always, spreading out an object involves flattening it as a consequence. Even if you take a sheet and spread it over a ball, if the sheet was already spread out (hence not rolled up in any sense, then you really aren't spreading the sheet out. In order to spread it out, it has to first be bunched up in some fashion, or else we can't say we are spreading it out and would have to find a more appropriate term.

flattening is the consequence of making something flat

One of the definitions for spread is to flatten, which makes perfect common sense. Other definitions including stretching, which also would flatten something to the degree that it is stretched

regardless of the method. Don't go into creating new definitions with assertions that have no basis. You said it and it is clear that dahaha does not mean flat, don't try to qualify it.

I never uttered those words and you know it. All I said was that I can't find the word flat in the lexicons, but I don't think the word has to explicitly be there, and I've explained precisely why.

Let's just move on.

Whatever you want boss.

Do you even know if the word dahaha can be used in the sense of "establishing wide expanse?" So that the earth is made a wide expanse...can that work in Arabic?

I was referring to other verse where it dicusses the same exact subject and describe the earth as being made into a wide expanse. We can say vast area if you would like as both deal with size, which is a physical aspect.

Look at the word expanse in the dictionary, in the second entry it says:
2. something that is spread out, esp. over a relatively large area: that great expanse, the sky.

[QUOTE=Ron;101781]
Can you tell me if the sky is flat? Here in this sentence the sky is being referred to in the sense of being spread...is the sky flat?

I don't remember the sky being spoken about as spread out. It is a wide expanse, which does not inherently mean flat as spread out does. However, I don't see verses about the heavens being spread out as well, but I do see them about the earth. So while vast expanse merely refers to size and not shape, it can mean flat if we have additional qualifying verses that point to that. In the case of the earth, we do. However, I did not bring up wide expanse to argue shape. The purpose of bringing THAT verse up was to establish that it was speaking about physicality insofar as it was describing size, and that it wasn't just merely talking about sustenance as you probably claim that all of these veres are. Wide expanse is a description of a physical characteristic, so therefore, we have breached the notion of it purely being about sustenance. That was my point

We have belabored the point...let's just move on. Dahaha does not mean flat and the Qur'an does not say that the earth is flat in that verse. Why don't we look at the other verses to see if they say it?

You're the boss.

Arnold

21st July 2007, 15:41

I don't know if anybody has noticed, but what's most interesting about what Ron is doing is the fact that he is arguing on two separate fronts. In one case, he argues that spreading, in the context of the verse, has nothing to do with shape whatsoever, but in the other case. he bothers to go ahead and argue that spreading out does not mean flattening out and means some other shape, as to suggest that the verse isn't talking about a flat shape when it mentions spreading out and can be talking about any shape.. So he says it's not about shape, and then argues about shape. Has anybody else noticed this? This is indicative of simply being willing to pull any explanation at all out of your pocket to throw at the problem in hopes that one of them works. I don't think he even really has a position on this matter if he is willing to simultaneously throw two different positions at this, except for me to be wrong. As they say, you throw a lump of cow dung at the wall in hopes that some of it sticks. That's pretty much what I feel like right now. I feel like I'm having dung thrown at me.

Arnold

21st July 2007, 16:34

OMG, look what I found. Seems like this guy knows arabic and he knows where to find Arabic sources. The cryptic part is that in was written in 2005 and apparently the dictionary he referenced has moved. It seems unklikely that he would make all of this up out of nowhere. Anyway, this is chock full of the info you've been desiring. Lots of dictionary definitions and arabic. This was hard to find.

Everyone who has some debunked koran science is welcome to post it here, just make a big fat headlinie of the topic, then things will be easier to find.

The Flat Earth

Thanks to liberate_ur_mind, Righteous and Zorasta_Russ for their help with this post.

015.019
YUSUFALI: And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.

Waal-arda madadnahawaalqayna feeha rawasiya waanbatnafeeha min kulli shay-in mawzoonin

وَالارضَ مَدَدْنَهَا

مَدَدْ = madad = protract , reach , elongate , extend , draw out , lengthen, stretch out , spread out , sprawl , dilate , reach , range , unwind , outstretch , pervade , lengthen

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%e3%f3%cf%f3%cf%fa

020.053
YUSUFALI: "He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels); and has sent down water from the sky." With it have We produced diverse pairs of plants each separate from the others.

Allathee jaAAala lakumu al-ardamahdan wasalaka lakum feeha subulan waanzala mina alssama-imaan faakhrajna bihi azwajan min nabatinshatta

الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمْ الْأَرْضَ مَهْدًا

مَهْدًا = mahdan = (Noun) cradle.or bed, (verb) flatten , smoothen , smooth , level , cement , grade , ram , plane , roll , flat , level off

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%e3%f3%e5%fa%cf%f0%c7

043.010
YUSUFALI: (Yea, the same that) has made for you the earth (like a carpet) spread out, and has made for you roads (and channels) therein, in order that ye may find guidance (on the way);

Allathee jaAAala lakumu al-ardamahdan wajaAAala lakum feeha subulan laAAallakum tahtadoona

الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمْ الْأَرْضَ مَهْدًا

مَهْدًا = mahdan = (Noun) cradle.or bed, (verb) flatten , smoothen , smooth , level , cement , grade , ram , plane , roll , flat , level off

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%e3%f3%e5%fa%cf%f0%c7

050.007
YUSUFALI: And the earth- We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and produced therein every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs)-

Waal-arda madadnahawaalqayna feeha rawasiya waanbatnafeeha min kulli zawjin baheejin

وَالارضَ مَدَدْنَهَا

مَدَدْ = madad = protract , reach , elongate , extend , draw out , lengthen, stretch out , spread out , sprawl , dilate , reach , range , unwind , outstretch , pervade , lengthen

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%e3%f3%cf%f3%cf%fa

051.048
YUSUFALI: And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!

Waal-arda farashnahafaniAAma almahidoona

وَالْأَرْضَ فَرَشْنَهَا فَنِعْمَ الْمَهِدُونَ

فَرَشَْ = farasha = provide with furniture , flatten , outspread , pervade , circulate , cement , grade , unwind , stretch , expand , flat , range , reach , ram , spread out , lengthen , sprawl , unfold , level off , roll out , level

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%dd%d1%d4

الْمَهِدُونَ from مَهِدُ = flatten , smoothen , smooth , level , cement , grade , ram , plane , roll , flat , level off

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%e3%e5%cf

071.019
YUSUFALI: "'And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out),

WaAllahu jaAAala lakumu al-ardabisatan

وَاللَّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُمْ الْأَرْضَ بِسَاطًا

بِسَاطًا = bisaatan = drugget , carpet , rug
from the verb بسط = outspread , flatten , flat , even , ram , grade , level off , outstretch , pave , level , smoothen , roll , cement

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%c8%f6%d3%f3%c7%d8%f0%c7

078.006
YUSUFALI: Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,

Alam najAAali al-arda mihadan

أَلَمْ نَجْعَلِ الأرْضَ مِهَادًا

مهاد = flat land , flat , plain , ramming

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%e3%f6%e5%f3%c7%cf%f0%c7

079.030
YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);

In this verse some muslims suggests that the Koran says that the earth is eggshaped. They claim that dahaha = eggshaped, but this is not true at all.

Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha

وَالأرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ دَحَاهَا

دَحَا = daha=spread out , level off , level. The last ha = هَا in dahaha means this. So dahaha actually means spread out this, level off this, level this.

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%cf%cd%c7

088.020
YUSUFALI: And at the Earth, how it is spread out?

Wa-ila al-ardi kayfa sutihat

وَإِلَى الْأَرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ

Notice the word سَطَّحَ ? If you do a word search in an Arabic Qur'an text file you will find the word سطحت , feminine for سَطَّحَ

سَطَّحَ = outspread , unfold , unroll , roll , lengthen , level , range , pave , pervade , circulate , grade , reach , even , level off , spread out , prostrate , plane , outstretch, flat , flatten , even , smoothen.

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%d3%f3%d8%f8%f3%cd%f3

091.006
YUSUFALI: By the Earth and its (wide) expanse:
PICKTHAL: And the earth and Him Who spread it,
SHAKIR: And the earth and Him Who extended it,

Waal-ardi wama tahaha

وَالأرْضِ وَمَا طَحَاهَا

Further proof that the earth is flat

002.022
YUSUFALI: Who has made the earth your couch, and the heavens your canopy; and sent down rain from the heavens; and brought forth therewith Fruits for your sustenance; then set not up rivals unto Allah when ye know (the truth).

Here is the verse in Arabic.

الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ
الأَرْضَ فِرَاشاً وَالسَّمَاء بِنَاء وَأَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَخْرَجَ
بِهِ مِنَ الثَّمَرَاتِ رِزْقاً لَّكُمْ فَلاَ تَجْعَلُواْ لِلّهِ أَندَاداً وَأَنتُمْ
تَعْلَمُونَ

Allathee jaAAala lakumu al-arda firashan waalssamaa binaan waanzala mina alssama-i maan faakhraja bihi mina alththamarati rizqan lakum fala tajAAaloo lillahi andadan waantum taAAlamoona

I found an error in this translation. The word translated as canopy is binaa or binaan( بِنَاء ). This is what the word means in Arabic

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_2.asp?Site=0&Src_L=ara_eng1&DestLang=Ar&lpcWord=building

As you can see the word binaa or binaan( بِنَاء ) means "building". The heavens are as a multi-story building over the earth. There are seven layers or stories to this building called the heavens. The heavens are built on a "flat" foundation called "the earth".

The Tafsir Ibn Kathir says the same thing:

Quote:

These Ayat indicate that Allah started creation by creating earth, then He made heaven into seven heavens. This is how building usually starts, with the lower floors first and then the top floors,

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=1494

018.047
YUSUFALI: One Day We shall remove the mountains, and thou wilt see the earth as a level stretch, and We shall gather them, all together, nor shall We leave out any one of them.

Muslim claim: "Verse 79:30 decribes the earth as eggshaped, more precisely the egg of an ostrich, because of the word dahaha"

This claim is very popular among muslims, but its very wrong. Lets take a look at verse 79:30.

[079.030] Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha

وَالأرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ دَحَاهَا

دَحَا = daha=spread out , level off , level. The last ha = هَا in dahaha means this. So dahaha actually means spread out this, level off this, level this.

http://dictionary.ajeeb.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Site=1&Src_L=eng_ara1&DestLang=En&lpcWord=%cf%cd%c7

Does "Dahaha" really mean egg-shaped?

In Arabic, each word must be derived from its root. The root usually consists of three letters that can be manipulated, by adding vowels, prefixes and suffixes in order to produce different words with different meanings.
For example, "ka-ta-ba" (to write) is the root for many words such as kitab (book), maktaba (library), katib (author), maktoob (written), kitabat (writings) etc...

Let's now take the word you mentioned to mean egg of an ostrich, "Duhiya". This word is NOT a root. It is a noun and is derived from "da-ha-wa", the same root that the verb "dahaha" comes from.
Furthermore, Duhiya doesn't even mean the egg of an ostrich! This is what the most respected dictionaries have to say on this subject:

From Lisan Al Arab:

Quote:
الأُدْحِيُّ و الإدْحِيُّ و الأُدْحِيَّة و الإدْحِيَّة و الأُدْحُوّة مَبِيض النعام في الرمل , وزنه أُفْعُول من ذلك , لأَن النعامة تَدْحُوه برِجْلها ثم تَبِيض فيه وليس للنعام عُشٌّ . و مَدْحَى النعام : موضع بيضها , و أُدْحِيُّها موضعها الذي تُفَرِّخ فيه .ِ

Translation: "Al-udhy, Al-idhy, Al-udhiyya, Al-idhiyya, Al-udhuwwa:The place in sand where an ostrich lays its egg. That's because the ostrich spreads out the earth with its feet then lays its eggs there, an ostrich doesn't have a nest."

As for the meaning for the verb "dahaha", it's unanimously agreed on by all Arabic dictionaries:

Al Qamoos Al Muheet:
Quote:
(دَحَا): الله الأرضَ
(يَدْحُوهَا وَيَدْحَاهَا دَحْواً) بَسَطَها

"Allah daha the Earth: He spread it out."

Al Waseet:
Quote:
دَحَا الشيءَ: بسطه ووسعه. يقال: دحا اللهُ الأَرض

"To daha something: means to spread it out. For example: Allah daha the Earth."

Lisan Al Arab:
Quote:
الدَّحْوُ البَسْطُ . دَحَا الأَرضَ يَدْحُوها دَحْواً بَسَطَها . وقال الفراء في قوله والأَرض بعد ذلك دَحاها قال : بَسَطَها ; قال شمر : وأَنشدتني أَعرابية : الحمدُ لله الذي أَطاقَا

بَنَى السماءَ فَوْقَنا طِباقَا

ثم دَحا الأَرضَ فما أَضاقا

قال شمر : وفسرته فقالت دَحَا الأَرضَ أَوْسَعَها ; وأَنشد ابن بري لزيد بن عمرو بن نُفَيْل : دَحَاها , فلما رآها اسْتَوَتْ

على الماء , أَرْسَى عليها الجِبالا

و دَحَيْتُ الشيءَ أَدْحاهُ دَحْياً بَسَطْته , لغة في دَحَوْتُه ; حكاها اللحياني . وفي حديث عليّ وصلاتهِ , اللهم دَاحِيَ المَدْحُوَّاتِ يعني باسِطَ الأَرَضِينَ ومُوَسِّعَها , ويروى ; دَاحِيَ المَدْحِيَّاتِ . و الدَّحْوُ البَسْطُ . يقال : دَحَا يَدْحُو و يَدْحَى أَي بَسَطَ ووسع

"To daha the earth: means to spread it out."
Then it mentions a couple of Arabic poems that confirm this meaning. I won't translate the rest but anyone who can read Arabic will find this to be the definitive proof that Daha means to spread out.

Also, Ibn Kathir agrees with me in his commentary on the Quran:
Quote:
(30. And after that He spread the earth,)

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=79&tid=56944

Conclusion: While verse 015.019, 020.053, 043.010, 050.007, 051.048, 071.019, 078.006, 079.030, 088.020 and 091.006 ALL clearly states that the earth is flat. And not a single verse in the koran tells or even hints us that the shape of the earth is anything else than flat, the conclusion is clear; according to the Koran the earth is flat as a pancake.

hlatif

21st July 2007, 17:00

Salaam,

Well, you found someone who thinks like you. Knowing Arabic or not, he went to the dictionaries and chose the words that suit his desire. In your case, you chose the words that suit you in the translations. You are both in the same boat.

Dictionaries are not a catalogue for one to pick and choose what they like. They can help us through find conceptual meanings that are then moulded by the contexts of the statements. If one looks at all what he brought up conceptually, then one does not have to arrive at the pancake conclusion. However, you and he can have your pancake and eat it too.

Take care and have a great day.

Hussein

Arnold

21st July 2007, 17:08

Salaam,

Well, you found someone who thinks like you. Knowing Arabic or not, he went to the dictionaries and chose the words that suit his desire.
Hussein

Actually, I don't believe that to be the case because he linked it at that time, so anybody would have been able to confirm this. And, if you notice, some of the words didn't match his desire, but most of them did. So it seems to me that he was including every entry for the definition.

Arnold

21st July 2007, 17:18

then one does not have to arrive at the pancake conclusion.

You could be right. I think it would have been more appropriate if he said pizza because that would match the imagery of someone spreading out, stretching out, and flattening out the dough ball when they make a pizza. You'd be surprised how wide of an expanse of dough you could create with one little dough ball.

Hamza Ibrahim

21st July 2007, 17:20

That have flat areas between the the neck and the side of the arm. Since when do you support things with a round, ball shaped object? Since when do things stand on a round object?

And your point? Did you know that if you wanted to be mathematically technical, that the Earth is technically flat at a diminutive view.

It's simple phsyics really. If you put two secant lines on a circle and tranverse them to make a small central angle, you'll end up with a virtually flat arc (i.e. the land that you step on). This is why, for all intensive purposes, you can make the arguement that the Earth is flat if you selectively talk about a specific region of the Earth.

So yea, that being said and after reading 5-6 pages of this arguement, it's clear that this arguement isn't really about whether the Qur'an says the Earth is flat. No, it's about who's going to win the arguement with the most linguistically beautiful statement.

Arnold

21st July 2007, 17:30

And your point? Did you know that if you wanted to be mathematically technical, that the Earth is technically flat at a diminutive view.

It's simple phsyics really. If you put two secant lines on a circle and tranverse them to make a small central angle, you'll end up with a virtually flat arc (i.e. the land that you step on). This is why, for all intensive purposes, you can make the arguement that the Earth is flat if you selectively talk about a specific region of the Earth.

Okay, well this is a brand new angle that conflicts with Ron's and Ihsan's angles. So how does this relate to the action of God spreading the earth out, and hence, flattening it as my angle says?

So yea, that being said and after reading 5-6 pages of this arguement, it's clear that this arguement isn't really about whether the Qur'an says the Earth is flat. No, it's about who's going to win the arguement with the most linguistically beautiful statement.

Absolutely not. It's being drawn out because I can see when someone's blowing smoke at me. And now, I finally found some dictionary definitions as has been requested of me, and suddenly nobody wants to talk and were going to now just try to close it by turning it into a personal issue and make it appear pointless. Doesn't work.

Hamza Ibrahim

21st July 2007, 17:51

Okay, well this is a brand new angle that conflicts with Ron's and Ihsan's angles. So how does this relate to the action of God spreading the earth out, and hence, flattening it as my angle says?

Honestly, my intention was never to bring a brand new angle into this. I was just trying to show how your response to Ihsan (that a coach is "technically flat") could ultimately be used against you. As far as my view conflicting with Ron's and Ihsan's angles, I don't think it does. I'd say it supplements them in a way. Ihsan was saying that these lines could be interpreted figuratively. I was merely showing you that they could technically be interpreted literally as well. This being that perhaps God chose to imply flatness in his scritpures to bring a certain "relativeness" to his eventual followers. In other words, he may have felt that describing the Earth in terms we could immediately relate to would help us appreciate it's beauty more (since like I said, for all intensive purposes, the world we see in front of us IS flat). This may have especially been applicable to Beduoin followers of old who weren't exactly scientists.

Absolutely not. It's being drawn out because I can see when someone's blowing smoke at me. And now, I finally found some dictionary definitions as has been requested of me, and suddenly nobody wants to talk and were going to now just try to close it by turning it into a personal issue and make it appear pointless. Doesn't work.

Well, seeing how you posted that an hour ago, I hardly call that "suddenly nobody wanting to talk you". Give ihsan and the crew some time.

Arnold

21st July 2007, 22:07

Honestly, my intention was never to bring a brand new angle into this. I was just trying to show how your response to Ihsan (that a coach is "technically flat") could ultimately be used against you. As far as my view conflicting with Ron's and Ihsan's angles, I don't think it does. I'd say it supplements them in a way. Ihsan was saying that these lines could be interpreted figuratively. I was merely showing you that they could technically be interpreted literally as well.

That's the conflict I spoke of between your angle and their angle.

This being that perhaps God chose to imply flatness in his scritpures to bring a certain "relativeness" to his eventual followers. In other words, he may have felt that describing the Earth in terms we could immediately relate to would help us appreciate it's beauty more (since like I said, for all intensive purposes, the world we see in front of us IS flat). This may have especially been applicable to Beduoin followers of old who weren't exactly scientists.

So Allah's letter for letter words perpetrate an error? Reinforces it by using it? Wouldn't it be better to simply remain silent on the issue if people weren't ready to hear it rather than reinforcing mistaken notions by using them? It sured seemed like the Quran was trying to be quite accurate when it clearly explained the mountains and their purpose, so what's all the "relativism" about? It's a distraction or dilution to gain breathing space for new possible things you will invent, rather than just looking at the plain common sense.

Arnold

21st July 2007, 22:09

Well, seeing how you posted that an hour ago, I hardly call that "suddenly nobody wanting to talk you". Give ihsan and the crew some time.

Time for what? To go back to the lab and concoct things? Why?

Hamza Ibrahim

21st July 2007, 22:59

So Allah's letter for letter words perpetrate an error?

No, that's not what I said at all. I never proposed a interpretation that left God's "letter for letter" words in error. On the contrary, I proposed a LITERAL interpretation that reinforced the "letter for letter" interpretation, just in a different light. I bid you to read my paragraph again. I don't want to waste any time refuting things I never said.

Arnold

22nd July 2007, 00:13

No, that's not what I said at all. I never proposed a interpretation that left God's "letter for letter" words in error. On the contrary, I proposed a LITERAL interpretation that reinforced the "letter for letter" interpretation, just in a different light. I bid you to read my paragraph again. I don't want to waste any time refuting things I never said.

Okay, here's the part I think you are speaking of.

In other words, he may have felt that describing the Earth in terms we could immediately relate to would help us appreciate it's beauty more (since like I said, for all intensive purposes, the world we see in front of us IS flat).

Why didn't Allah simply say "can't you look around and see how beautiful everything is?"? Instead, he seems to need to give errant impressions of things, that people later reinterpret to mean beauty, once they realize the error that the more intuitive interpretation turned out to be. This is the game that always goes on, and the major players just don't care. It's pretty bad.

Hamza Ibrahim

22nd July 2007, 01:30

Why didn't Allah simply say "can't you look around and see how beautiful everything is?"? Instead, he seems to need to give errant impressions of things, that people later reinterpret to mean beauty, once they realize the error that the more intuitive interpretation turned out to be. This is the game that always goes on, and the major players just don't care. It's pretty bad.

Again, it's not errant to say. Let me explain, but just with pictures. Maybe you'll get it this time.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9197/stuff1ny5.jpg

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/552/stuff2sh8.jpg

This is what I mean when I say a creator can accurately describe the Earth with verbs like "flatten" and "spread out" and still be referring to a round Earth. It's because, to us, the world IS essentially flat. For example, when we look at mountains in the skyline, we see that they're laying on FLAT ground (relative to us). So God is merely describing the creation relative to us. There's no inaccuracy. The added advantage of using these words were probably more relevant to the Arab bedouins of old, who weren't necessarily interested in the overall topography of the earth. To them, the use of words that were easy to associate with (since they saw flatness everywhere), helped them better appreciate the words in a more immediate sense.

However, now that we know the Earth is round, we can put these specific references into context and gain a different appreciation for them. It's all apart of the living and breathing status of scripture.

Also, as a side note, whether these lines were used as interpretation for a flat or round earth is irrelevant and does NOT invalidate or validate Islam. Early followers of Islam had no spiritual need to actually know if the Earth was round or not. Their admittance into heaven or their lack therof wasn't based on this knowledge whatsoever (It still isn't!), so it wasn't important to explicitly mention the overall state of the Earth.

Arnold

22nd July 2007, 01:56

Again, it's not errant to say. Let me explain, but just with pictures. Maybe you'll get it this time.

This is what I mean when I say a creator can accurately describe the Earth with verbs like "flatten" and "spread out" and still be referring to a round Earth.

I understood it the first time. So why use the terms spread out and flatten when referring to what was done to the earth?

It's because, to us, the world IS essentially flat. For example, when we look at mountains in the skyline, we see that they're laying on FLAT ground (relative to us). So God is merely describing the creation relative to us.

Okay, so God is saying, "see how I made it flat for you?". I understand now.

There's no inaccuracy. The added advantage of using these words were probably more relevant to the Arab bedouins of old, who weren't necessarily interested in the overall topography of the earth.

So reinforce their beliefs by telling them that God flattened it out for you to make it livable?

To them, the use of words that were easy to associate with (since they saw flatness everywhere), helped them better appreciate the words in a more immediate sense.

It confirmed for them or at least reinforced for them, a view of the earth being flat.

However, now that we know the Earth is round, we can put these specific references into context and gain a different appreciation for them.

Great. So science tells us what to REALLY believe. Isn't that right? Isn't that what you just inadvertently said? Yes. Science tells us what the Quran means. Think about what you said.

It's all apart of the living and breathing status of scripture.

Yes, to the extent that one wants to continually reinterpret based on what science tells us

Also, as a side note, whether these lines were used as interpretation for a flat or round earth is irrelevant and does NOT invalidate or validate Islam. Early followers of Islam had no spiritual need to actually know if the Earth was round or not. Their admittance into heaven or their lack therof wasn't based on this knowledge whatsoever (It still isn't!), so it wasn't important to explicitly mention the overall state of the Earth.

The point was that I do not believe the creator of the universe would misunderstand the true nature of things like this, just as was demonstrated in the jinn and shooting stars thread. I do not believe this is the creator of the universe writing this, and I believe that the Quran gets caught with it's pants down by modern knowledge in certain areas, particularly pertaining to the cosmos, particularly pertaining to the least intuitive, hardest to guess truths about the cosmos. But that Muslims scurry around (figuratively) and invent things to cover it up. And I do not believe I have run into any religious group that is more inventive, even when there's not much left to invent. It often amazes me.

Hamza Ibrahim

22nd July 2007, 02:20

I really wish you wouldn't split my post into a billion parts. It makes for some really annoying reading.

I can see why you would do it though. It gives off the impression that you actually answered my post.

Paragraph #1, I already explained this (EURGH). Paragraph #2, I have no idea what you're saying, so I won't respond. Paragraph #3, again, an undecipherable response probably intended more as a jab than one with honest intellectual intent. Paragraph #4, an irrelevant point that I already covered in my last post (specifically, how the belief that these lines are evidence for a flat earth don't invalidate or validate Islam). Paragraph #5, again, a statement that falsely rephrases my position. I never said science tells us what to REALLY believe (in the sense that it corrects the Qur'an). It simply clarifies issues of science that the Qur'an doesn't go into. Paragraph #6 doesn't go anywhere, except to elucidate your point on paragraph #5.

Paragraph #7 is probably your worst paragraph. Your statement that "I do not believe the creator of the universe would misunderstand the true nature of things like this" implies that my literal interpretation of this line exemplifies a creator who doesn't understand the true nature of things. You couldn't be anymore wrong.

All in all, nice try though. I have better things to do than get into a pointless 50 quote debate with you, especially when you continue to misrepresent my position. So I'm not biting.

vinod

22nd July 2007, 02:59

Wise decision, Hamza.

Arnold

22nd July 2007, 14:37

I really wish you wouldn't split my post into a billion parts. It makes for some really annoying reading.

I can see why you would do it though. It gives off the impression that you actually answered my post.

For as much as it annoys you, it is actually the best way to give a thorough and specific response where each point is answered individually, and then a summary statement or conclusion is made in terms of the lager, overall issue.

Paragraph #1, I already explained this (EURGH).

I don't think you fully understood the question. Let me rephrase. Why would it tell us that Allah flattened out the earth for us? Why not just say that Allah created the earth and just leave it at that? But instead, it appears to go out of it's way to be a little more specific and descriptive.

Paragraph #4, an irrelevant point that I already covered in my last post (specifically, how the belief that these lines are evidence for a flat earth don't invalidate or validate Islam).

Well, if you say so, but it sounds like a clever 7th century man to me. Look at how many times it tells us the same thing? Don't you think he should have remained silent on this? And you think it's impossible for this to be what's right in front of our eyes? A very understandable 7th century perception? That's clearly what he is displaying.

Paragraph #5, again, a statement that falsely rephrases my position. I never said science tells us what to REALLY believe (in the sense that it corrects the Qur'an). It simply clarifies issues of science that the Qur'an doesn't go into.

So science clarifies that meteors (shooting stars) don't pursue or chase anything, and they have absolutely nothing to do what stars whatsoever and are millions of miles away from any star, and suddenly, these verses in the Quran that speak of the stars as missiles get reinterpreted as a spiritual matter. It happens all of the time, and people don't seem to have a problem with it. And I don't understand how. For me, I saw it right in front of my face as plain as my hand.

Here's an interesting question for you Hamza that maybe you may want to research for yourself, as I'm trying to find out the answer to this as well and maybe you could tell me if you find it faster. Obviously, the Quran speaks of the sun orbiting, but it doesn't explicitly say what the sun is orbiting. I would imagine that before Copernicus, everybody would have obviously interpreted the Quran as accurately telling us about the sun orbiting the earth, and it really wouldn't have been a particularly special mention except as to say what we all can commonly observe with an uneducated eye. Then, after Copernicus , it was the earth spinning that caused day and night and not the sun orbiting the earth. The sun was thought to be still. So what did Muslims do during this period of time when Copernicus appeared to have contradicted the Quran? How did they preserve the perfection of the Quran? They would have HAD to have reinterpreted in some fashion, and I'll bet you it was a really clever whopper of a doozy too. That's what I'm currently looking for but I find it hard to find. What did they say about what appeared to be a clear error? I wish I could find it. Then, science later discovers an obscurity of the sun orbiting the center of the galaxy, and suddenly, the old interpretation is brought back out of the trashcan and is offered again (of course with a little twist to it). See what happens? Muslims take science, and re-mold the Quran to fit it. This is how the Quran is preserved as error free and it's been going on for hundreds of years. Muslims make the Quran perfect. And, of course, in my opinion, the Quran meant exactly what it said the first time. There is absolutely no good reason to interpret it any other way. The sun orbits the earth. Why think of those verses as anything else when they are quite clear?

Paragraph #7 is probably your worst paragraph. Your statement that "I do not believe the creator of the universe would misunderstand the true nature of things like this" implies that my literal interpretation of this line exemplifies a creator who doesn't understand the true nature of things. You couldn't be anymore wrong.

Don't you think it would have been a little clearer and better if it said it flattened out the land rather than the whole earth? Land and earth are obviously not the same exact word, and yet, it seems like in every instance it uses the word earth.

My interpretations fit the verses like a glove. They work perfectly, because that's what they really meant. There's only one good reason to go out on a limb and make these verses mean something other than the best fit. And that is a poor reason that represents skewed, subjective and therefore erroneous methodology.

Hamza Ibrahim

22nd July 2007, 21:22

For as much as it annoys you, it is actually the best way to give a thorough and specific response where each point is answered individually, and then a summary statement or conclusion is made in terms of the lager, overall issue.

I'd normally have no problem with the set-up if you kept your responses concise and relevant. But since I constantly have to ask you what you actually mean, I find that it detracts from the main arguement.

They would have HAD to have reinterpreted in some fashion, and I'll bet you it was a really clever whopper of a doozy too.

Again, it's not reinterpration in the sense that we're correcting the Qur'an. You even said it yourself, the Qur'an NEVER explicity mentions anything about the Sun orbiting the Earth. So there's nothing to correct. All the Qur'an says is that the Sun is in an orbit. And any astronomy major will tell you that the Sun does have an orbit of its own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun). Muslims who may have believed that the Sun was actually orbiting the Earth in the 7th century were implicity interpreting the Qur'an. There's a huge difference between the words "implicit" and "explicit". Look them up in the dictionary (www.dictionary.com) and you'll see what I mean.

Don't you think it would have been a little clearer and better if it said it flattened out the land rather than the whole earth? Land and earth are obviously not the same exact word, and yet, it seems like in every instance it uses the word earth.

"Ard" has a dual-meaning. It can mean land or earth. But even if it didn't, "Earth" is sufficient enough for my interpretation.

Those are the only things worth responding to in that whole big post of yours, believe it or not. Everything else (especially your first 3 paragraphs) are just rehashes of comments that were in your previous posts. The kind of responses that are vague and don't really say anything but restate your opinion that you find my interpretation wrong on the basis that "you clearly" see such and such fact. When, on the contrary, they're just a compendium of "what if" statements that are anything but clear. Your second paragraph is especially frustrating because it's already been answered in post #207. It's not my fault that you're not bothering to actually read my posts. So I certainly won't do you the honor of even quoting these kind of questions because it implies they're actually good questions.

Heck, you could have just saved yourself a lot of time by simply saying "I disagree" instead of giving out the impression that you're actually objectively disproving my interpretation.

Arnold

22nd July 2007, 22:00

I'd normally have no problem with the set-up if you kept your responses concise and relevant. But since I constantly have to ask you what you actually mean, I find that it detracts from the main arguement.

Again, it's not reinterpration in the sense that we're correcting the Qur'an. You even said it yourself, the Qur'an NEVER explicity mentions anything about the Sun orbiting the Earth. So there's nothing to correct. All the Qur'an says is that the Sun is in an orbit. And any astronomy major will tell you that the Sun does have an orbit of its own

So which orbit do you think it's talking about and why? Do we just say orbit, and then shut up? Why?

Arnold

22nd July 2007, 22:07

Bottom Point: The pain in this world is so relatively miniscule that when a follower of God enters Paradise, it is like he never experienced pain on this Earth.

Why not see through to the true nature of the pain itself?

Hamza Ibrahim

22nd July 2007, 22:13

Arnold

22nd July 2007, 22:32

I'm convinced that you just like seeing yourself type.

I told my 9th grade sister to come in just now, and told her to interpret my paragraph about the sun, and she understood it 100%. I hate to be blunt, but your questions are the epitomy of irrelevance.

Why would your 9th grade daughter immediately assume that the Quran is talking about the sun orbiting the galaxy? Because her science teacher tells her that the sun orbits the galaxy? So what? Maybe she can teach you about the true nature of meteorites and such, and you can hide that part of the quran from her..

Hamza Ibrahim

22nd July 2007, 22:38

Why would your 9th grade daughter immediately assume that the Quran is talking about the sun orbiting the galaxy? Because her science teacher tells her that the sun orbits the galaxy? So what? Maybe she can teach you about the true nature of meteorites and such, and you can hide that part of the quran from her..

lol, okay. I'm done. I'm serious. The fact that you think she's my daughter reinforces the notion that you just don't read so I'm honestly not going to waste my time anymore.

hasan

23rd July 2007, 00:03

heheh

hasan

23rd July 2007, 00:15

Hamza, Brother.

I havent also come across any qualified exegete that states the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that the Earth was flat:

What should be curious to the discerning mind is that Qualified exegetes of the Holy Quran have never stated the Earth was flat or that the Sun had revolved around it. It should be interesting to note that it was common knowledge to Muslims, based on Qualified exegetes of the Holy Quran, that celestial bodies spun around while in Orbit, including the Sun. This knowledge was promulgated by exegetes and jurists like but not limited to al-Dahhak who lived in the 8th century, al- Kalbi in the 9th, al-Razi, in the 12th, Baidawi in the 13th & Asiruddin-i Abhari in the 14th century and Hasret Ibn Abbas who lived in the 7th century, who was a companion of our Beloved Prophet and considered blessed in his exegete of the Holy Quran, said himself that celestial bodies "revolve like a spinning wheel, in a circle." The famous Ibni Hazm Ali bin Ahmad proved in his book Al-Fasl that the earth was round through ayats and hadiths nine centuries ago. The earth's diameter and inclination angles toward the sun was measured in the deserts of Sinjar and Kufa by Musa bin Shakir's sons, Ahmad and Muhammad, in the time of Khalifa Mamun. The tools for astronomy made by these two brothers are clear documents for the importance which the Muslims of that time laid on knowledge and science. Ahmad died in 265, and Muhammad died in 259 [873 A.D.]. The Indian Mulla Qudsi, in his book Asrar-i malakut, collected the meanings which Islamic savants had given to those ayats about the earth, the moon, the sun, the sky and the stars and to this day all fully agree with today's modern discoveries.

However Heliocentricism, the idea espoused by secular humanists as the idea that sprung the renaissance is in fact incorrect. The modern data we have now show that the universe does not revolve around a stationary Sun but that the Sun itself revolves around in its own orbit.

Responses to this are here (http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showpost.php?p=101484&postcount=146) and here (http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showpost.php?p=101549&postcount=153)

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 00:24

lol, okay. I'm done. I'm serious. The fact that you think she's my daughter reinforces the notion that you just don't read so I'm honestly not going to waste my time anymore.

Oh no, I read it correctly. I just didn't want to face the fact that perhaps I have been talking to high school kids this whole time, and yet, when I review the system of logic, it doesn't seem like such a crazy idea and I give you credit to do enough to not make me see this. Ouch. Where am I? Did I take the wrong exit off of the turnpike? Maybe you should be spanked for being here. Or, maybe you're a non graduate in College. Either way, I feel pretty stupid for talking to you. Thanks.

hasan

23rd July 2007, 00:31

Relying on primal instinct to swing blindly in the dark

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 00:38

Hey Hamza, what about that one question I asked you about how Muslims explained the Quran saying the sun orbited before anybody knew it orbited the galaxy? What did they do between the time of Copernicus and the time of when it was theorized that the sun orbited the galaxy? How did they re-explain the Quran to keep it error free for all of those years?

Kabeer

23rd July 2007, 10:11

Oh no, I read it correctly. I just didn't want to face the fact that perhaps I have been talking to high school kids this whole time, and yet, when I review the system of logic, it doesn't seem like such a crazy idea and I give you credit to do enough to not make me see this. Ouch. Where am I? Did I take the wrong exit off of the turnpike? Maybe you should be spanked for being here. Or, maybe you're a non graduate in College. Either way, I feel pretty stupid for talking to you. Thanks.

Salaams Arnold,

Why should it matter of his age? What matters is the content of ones speech.

Peace

Ron

23rd July 2007, 11:45

Ron

23rd July 2007, 11:48

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 13:32

Arnold,

The desperation is in plain sight that when you could not back up your arguments after a week or so you searched and googled until you ran into that guy who "knows what he's talking about." I mean after all he quotes things in Arabic...guess what, if I did what you and he are doing I can make pretty much any sentence say anything I want it to say, removing all context and definitely all other connotations or meanings...only to fulfill my agenda.

By the way did the Arabs think the earth was flat or round or something else?

I think what's important is what Muhammad and his initial followers thought, not what people a hundred or more years later thought. You people ridiculed me for not having definitions, which was obviously nothing but a diversionary barrier you were setting up. Articles weren't good enough, you needed definitions. Then I supply definitions, and it's still not good enough. We both know, that nothing will be good enough so we might as well not bother with this little game of requests from you anymore. Nothing but a purposeful barrier, not a sincere request. As far as him making it anything he wants, there is no denying that the words flat, flatten, level, flat land, plain are all over those definitions. And you just try to poo poo it away by saying anybody can make anything up. Well, pardon me while I don't believe you.

Ron

23rd July 2007, 13:49

Arnold,

I think what's important is what Muhammad and his initial followers thought, not what people a hundred or more years later thought.
Prove this statement. All we are asking is that you prove your point with some solid evidence. Now you're giving it that 100 years later they didn't think this or that...Can't you just give a straight answer?

You people ridiculed me for not having definitions, which was obviously nothing but a diversionary barrier you were setting up. Articles weren't good enough, you needed definitions.
Don't cry foul when you were the one being foul. The victim game won't work. Also, you've been doing a lot of bending the truth...for example, we didn't ask you for definitions and articles in the way you put it, we asked that you provide us with the definition of dahaha where it says it means "flat." You never provided it even though you spent thousands of words trying to support it...then in the end you admitted it didn't say flat. You are so ill-equipped for this conversation that after a week of all the trouble you put yourself through you think that the article you found on the web would save your argument. Just stop arguing; it's pointless. What was not "good enough" for us was dishonesty, that's about it. We welcomed you and obliged in conversation but you made apparent what you are here for. Even in your other thread you admitted that you had an agenda and that you were not asking honest questions in which you already had arguments for. Just think what sort of person does that...

We both know, that nothing will be good enough so we might as well not bother with this little game of requests from you anymore.
Sure whatever you'd like...you still never complied; you only now realize that dahaha does not mean flat but you still won't say it because it will ruin your whole argument. One would think that you had such a powerful argument that the little ole dahaha would not be of much concern to you; but you can't let it go...

As far as him making it anything he wants, there is no denying that the words flat, flatten, level, flat land, plain are all over those definitions.
Even he is does not have the passion to beguile as you do.

And you just try to poo poo it away by saying anybody can make anything up. Well, pardon me while I don't believe you.
It doesn't concern me that you don't believe me or anyone else, but it does say a lot about a person who is willing to commit so much time and energy to people he doesn't believe. Have you asked yourself why you are doing this?

Notice how you didn't answer the question directly...just as usual you runaway and post long irrelevant things to veer people's attention from the topic. Why couldn't you simply answer?

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 14:07

Salam All,

Just for clarification, my view and Ihsan's view are not different. Arnold wants to make it seem that way but it is untrue. As a matter of fact, Ihsan, Hussein, Hamza, Hasan and everyone else who has contributed to this thread pretty much agree. If he is not convinced then that's not a burden I am concerned about; it's his.

Regards

You believe that the earth was spread for sustenance.

ihsan believes it means it was spread out to show hospitality and honor, and THEN fruits are provided. So he does not relate the spreading directly to sustenance and does not make vague statements such as "it was spread for life", but instead, sees two separate actions. The rolling out for honor (carpet), THEN the sustenance.

Hasan doesn't seem to want to explain very much and seems to say that it could mean anything. His main thrust is to merely show enough doubt to my interpretation without really specifically explaining his position.

Hamza takes an entirely different approach in that he is the first one to acknowledge that this could be talking about the shape of the earth, which is why his example actually does involve the shape of the earth. His take is that it's okay to speak of the shape of the earth as flat because it's so big that it is essentially flat. It is interesting to see this angle come about after a number of definitions were offered that had the words spread, flat, flatten, level, flat land, plain etc etc...written all over them.

And you call this consistency? Who are you trying to kid?

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 14:37

Here's your straight answer Ron. Dahaha does not have the word flat in it's definition. It has the word spread. To flatten, is one of the definitions of spread. Another one is too stretch out. But this does not necessarily mean that dahaha involves flattening. We can't be sure. So to research a little further to clear up the ambiguity, we look at the definitions for the words found in all the other verses where the Quran talks about the creation of the earth, and they have the words flatten, level out, etc etc.. When we put these all together, I don't think dahaha needed to expressly say flatten, as all the other verses have done that for it. This is why you wanted to treat each of these situations as completely isolated, so that nobody sees the larger picture and connects the dots.

Ron

23rd July 2007, 14:41

Arnold,

You believe that the earth was spread for sustenance.
Is that what I believe? Are you now telling me what I believe?

ihsan believes it means it was spread out to show hospitality and honor, and THEN fruits are provided.
Sounds like you didn't read much of anything he wrote either.

So he does not relate the spreading directly to sustenance and does not make vague statements such as "it was spread for life", but instead, sees two separate actions.
Again, you want to take things out of their context...not only the Qur'an's words but our words.

The rolling out for honor (carpet), THEN the sustenance.
Interesting, did the sustenance come before the establishment of this vast beautiful planet of ours?

Hasan doesn't seem to want to explain very much and seems to say that it could mean anything. His main thrust is to merely show enough doubt to my interpretation without really specifically explaining his position.
Obviously, again, you haven't read anything.

Hamza takes an entirely different approach in that he is the first one to acknowledge that this could be talking about the shape of the earth, which is why his example actually does involve the shape of the earth.
This is brazenly untrue. He said no such thing. You are misrepresenting every one of us. This has been your method throughout. It is a clear sign of an ineffectual argument.

His take is that it's okay to speak of the shape of the earth as flat because it's so big that it is essentially flat. It is interesting to see this angle come about after a number of definitions were offered that had the words spread, flat, flatten, level, flat land, plain etc etc...written all over them.
Where does he say that the Qur'an says that the earth is flat?

And you call this consistency? Who are you trying to kid?
When you are able to be more truthful about what people say then we can figure out what's right and wrong.

Again, you failed to answer a simple question: did the Arabs think the earth was flat or round or something else?

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 14:41

Arnold,

Prove this statement. All we are asking is that you prove your point with some solid evidence. Now you're giving it that 100 years later they didn't think this or that...Can't you just give a straight answer?

Yes, Muhammad and his initial followers thought the earth was flat. Prove Muhammad and his initial followers knew the earth was round? I don't think they did. One can know the earth is round a hundred or more years later if one is truly a studied scholar, and then just make the exegetes as vague as possible.

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 14:49

Arnold,

Is that what I believe? Are you now telling me what I believe?

Spread for life. I've already had to requote you on this. Do I need to do it again?

Interesting, did the sustenance come before the establishment of this vast beautiful planet of ours?

Spread out for life. It was spread out as a matter of sustenance.

This is brazenly untrue. He said no such thing. You are misrepresenting every one of us. This has been your method throughout. It is a clear sign of an ineffectual argument.

Hamza even illustrated with mathematics. How can you possibly say he was not discussing the shape of the earth? It's right in front of everybody, and he even gave pictures. What does it take?

Where does he say that the Qur'an says that the earth is flat?

He said if the Quran meant the earth is flat, that's okay because the earth is so big, that it is essentially flat. That was clearly his argument, and he even used mathematics and illustrations to substantiate his angle. Again, what else does it take for you to see he was speaking about the shape of the earth and NOT speaking of these verses as if they have nothing to do with shape at all?

When you are able to be more truthful about what people say then we can figure out what's right and wrong.

YOU are being untruthful, particularly in Hamza's case. It's right there in plain language and illustration for anybody to see. I don't know why you would even attempt what you attempted.

Ron

23rd July 2007, 15:48

Arnold,

Yes, Muhammad and his initial followers thought the earth was flat.
It's time to put up. On what basis do you say this?

Prove Muhammad and his initial followers knew the earth was round?
I don't have to. Did they say so either way?

I don't think they did.
Tell us why you think this.

One can know the earth is round a hundred or more years later if one is truly a studied scholar, and then just make the exegetes as vague as possible.
Is that when it was discovered that the earth was round?

Spread for life. I've already had to requote you on this. Do I need to do it again?
Sure. Requote in context and the whole paragraph.

Spread out for life. It was spread out as a matter of sustenance.
Is this what you believe or are you explaining something?

Hamza even illustrated with mathematics. How can you possibly say he was not discussing the shape of the earth? It's right in front of everybody, and he even gave pictures. What does it take?
Again, at this point your dishonesty is blatant...where did I say that he was not discussing the shape of the earth? I said that he does not say that the Qur'an is saying the earth is flat.

He said if the Quran meant the earth is flat, that's okay because the earth is so big, that it is essentially flat. That was clearly his argument, and he even used mathematics and illustrations to substantiate his angle. Again, what else does it take for you to see he was speaking about the shape of the earth and NOT speaking of these verses as if they have nothing to do with shape at all?
Again, it is absolutely clear that he does not say that the Qur'an says the earth is flat. He said, "Did you know that if you wanted to be mathematically technical, that the Earth is technically flat at a diminutive view. If you there was an ounce of truth in what you are trying to project on him then you would simply quote where he would say explicitly: "the Qur'an says the earth is flat."

YOU are being untruthful, particularly in Hamza's case. It's right there in plain language and illustration for anybody to see. I don't know why you would even attempt what you attempted.
I don't think that you are the measure of truth or that you are a good judge of it. If I have misquoted anyone then I don't mind being corrected. However, I think even Hamza will agree that he made no such statement that the Qur'an says the earth is flat that that would be possible. He merely said that the earth can be viewed as flat depending on mathematical variants. He never stated that the Qur'an says the earth is flat and then tried to support that interpretation. That's just what you're trying to make it seem.

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 16:32

I was merely showing you that they could technically be interpreted literally as well. This being that perhaps God chose to imply flatness in his scritpures to bring a certain "relativeness" to his eventual followers.

So he's saying that indeed we could interpret these verses literally and he told us why God could have meant them literally. Therefore, the Quran could have meant the earth was flat, but that it was merely reporting from our perspective. This means it was indeed talking about shape. It means the Quran was referring to shape, something that you and ihsan continually deny.

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 16:37

Again, at this point your dishonesty is blatant...where did I say that he was not discussing the shape of the earth? I said that he does not say that the Qur'an is saying the earth is flat.

You said the verses have nothing to do with the shape of the earth but he is discussing the shape of the earth. There's your difference right there. We don't even need to go any further.

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 16:39

Arnold,

It's time to put up. On what basis do you say this?

I don't have to. Did they say so either way?

I believe that the verses spoke for them, not to mention all the crazy hadiths that also point to a sun orbiting the earth.

Kabeer

23rd July 2007, 17:56

I believe that the verses spoke for them, not to mention all the crazy hadiths that also point to a sun orbiting the earth.

Salaams,

235 replies, 1,545 views to this thread, and I stick by my first reply in this thread.
This discussion is really a bit pointless, the Quran doesnt explicitly say the Earth is a globe, nor does it explicitly say its flat.

The only way you could take it as flat, is if you look at it from one angle and squeeze the view out of it. Thats hardly objective is it?

Peace

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 18:31

Salaams,

235 replies, 1,545 views to this thread, and I stick by my first reply in this thread.
This discussion is really a bit pointless, the Quran doesnt explicitly say the Earth is a globe, nor does it explicitly say its flat.

The only way you could take it as flat, is if you look at it from one angle and squeeze the view out of it. Thats hardly objective is it?

Peace

Squeeze the view when it says spread, flat, level etc etc...all over the definitions for the words it uses? I don't think there is squeezing when we look at what the definitions for the words actually say. That's not squeezing in the least if that's what the words really say according to the dictionary. You may disagree with my interpretation, but it's hardly squeezing when the words are right in front of us. You may be squeezing a more complex and less likely interpretation out of it. After all, when does it use the word hospitality or sustenance as two other people are suggesting? At least in my interpretation, we find the words with the exact meaning I suggest. But somehow it is ME that is squeezing? Did you read all of those Arabic definitions I posted? I have consistently picked the simplest and most obvious interpretation. I don't need to squeeze anything in the least to do this. It's people who need to gain more complex interpretations out of it that are squeezing. But this is amazing how the tables get flipped for no good reason.

Kabeer

23rd July 2007, 18:45

Salaams Arnold,

I am not saying you cant have your interpretation of it, but can you honestly say that you can disregard all the other views?

You even said yourself that you had it explained to you that the verses are saying the Earth is flat, and then upon looking over them you found that this explanation worked.

Can you honestly say that you were reading throught the Quran and randomly happened upon these verses and then understood the Quran was saying the world is flat?

Whichever way it is, ok lets say your view is possible, then other views that have been presented are equally possible are they not?

In that case, we have a scenario where the Quran has not been totally explicit and different intepretations are abound. So the only other way of confirming the understanding of the Quran is through what the Prophet (phuh) said these verses mean.

In all these cases we will end up going in circles, because no explicit sources exist (to my extremely limited knowledge, if you can bring forth then do so). Hence me sticking by my first post.

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 19:19

Salaams Arnold,

I am not saying you cant have your interpretation of it, but can you honestly say that you can disregard all the other views?

I don't think they are nearly as likely, and yet you say it's ME squeezing out something that's already there right in front of us? Why would you say that? Their explanations are very vague and not tightly connected. The best reason I can see to interpret in a less than likely fashion is because the simplest and most likely interpretation puts the Quran at odds with science. So it gets reinterpreted to any less than likely thing that can be thought of. Here's a question that was asked to someone else and ignored. When the Quran said the sun orbited, nobody had any problems with that for years. Then, after Copernicus, what did Muslims do to explain the Quran referencing an orbiting sun? They must have thrown that interpretation out and somehow cleverly twisted a new one out of it, otherwise, the Quran would have been clearly proven as being in error. And boy, I wish I could find articles from way back then to see how they reinterpreted. Then, science finds out new information that the sun does indeed orbit, but orbits the galaxy. Suddenly, the old interpretation is pulled back out of the trashcan and twisted a little to meet this new scientific discovery (the Quran meant the sun orbited the galaxy). And this sort of monkey business has been going on for hundreds of years. The Quran is perfect because Muslims cheat. Anybody with any common sense can see that the Quran meant precisely what it originally said (sun orbits the earth), and there is only one reason, and only one, to interpret it as anything else. It's because it would prevent the Quran from being in error. Otherwise, there is little or no reason to interpret any way else. Why is it only the problematic verses that seem to get the complex, less than likely, circus oriented interpretation?

You even said yourself that you had it explained to you that the verses are saying the Earth is flat, and then upon looking over them you found that this explanation worked.

Who even needs them to be interpreted for them? Anybody's first impression would have been that the earth was spread out, stretched out and therefore flattened. That's simple common sense straight from the verses themselves.

Can you honestly say that you were reading throught the Quran and randomly happened upon these verses and then understood the Quran was saying the world is flat?

Why wouldn't someone think that when it consistently says Allah spread the earth out? Does that sound like "rolling up" to you? I can't find one single spot where it references the earth being round, but I can find plenty where it talks about spreading flattening and leveling out

Whichever way it is, ok lets say your view is possible, then other views that have been presented are equally possible are they not?

Not if they have contradictions in them, which I continually point out. For example, one theory says Allah was talking about spreading out and flattening the land not the earth. So then we ask ourselves, does it mean that the mountains were flattened out and then Allah added the mountains?

In that case, we have a scenario where the Quran has not been totally explicit and different intepretations are abound. So the only other way of confirming the understanding of the Quran is through what the Prophet (phuh) said these verses mean.

Good idea. Let's see what the prophet said about the sun orbiting the earth

Bukhari:V4B54N421 "I walked hand in hand with the Prophet when the sun was about to set. We did not stop looking at it. The Prophet asked, ‘Do you know where the sun goes at sunset?' I replied, ‘Allah and His Apostle know better.' He said, ‘It travels until it falls down and prostrates Itself underneath the Throne. The angels who are in charge of the sun prostrate themselves, also. The sun asks permission to rise again. It is permitted. Then it will prostrate itself again but this prostration will not be accepted. The sun then says, "My Lord, where do You command me to rise, from where I set or from where I rose?" Allah will order the sun to return whence it has come and so the sun will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the statement of Allah in the Qur'an.'"

That's a sun that moves everyday. Daily orbit. Yeah, I know. This hadith doesn't count, right? They never do when they embarrass Muslims. So shifty.

ihsan

23rd July 2007, 19:26

Squeeze the view when it says spread, flat, level etc etc...all over the definitions for the words it uses? I don't think there is squeezing when we look at what the definitions for the words actually say. That's not squeezing in the least if that's what the words really say according to the dictionary. You may disagree with my interpretation, but it's hardly squeezing when the words are right in front of us. You may be squeezing a more complex and less likely interpretation out of it. After all, when does it use the word hospitality or sustenance as two other people are suggesting? At least in my interpretation, we find the words with the exact meaning I suggest. But somehow it is ME that is squeezing? Did you read all of those Arabic definitions I posted? I have consistently picked the simplest and most obvious interpretation. I don't need to squeeze anything in the least to do this. It's people who need to gain more complex interpretations out of it that are squeezing. But this is amazing how the tables get flipped for no good reason.

Again, as I said comical.

1. Now, I am being told what my exact position is. I've explicitly said, countless times, that the ostrich analogy has nothing to do with the usage of 'daha' in the above situation. Wat did you end up doing? You keep attributing to me the ostrich position, when it was YOU that was making the invalid analogy.

2. Because of point 1, I then asked you to show me where the usage of a verb in one sentence, necessitate the word has the same usage in a different sentence. What did I get? Consistent run-around.

3. Then, the issue of singular, physical object was brought, and I asked, where does one get proof for this alleged claim. The issue of being 'taught' in elementary school was the reply, as if this constitutes proof. Again, you have no proof. Surprisingly, I explicitly stated in response to this bogus claim, are you denying that words cannot be used rhetorically in reference to singular physical objects. The amusing thing is that you couldn't see the connection between this point and the issue of 'where is the proof for the singular physical object' claim.

4. I then asked how did the discussion move from 'spreading' to 'wide expanse'. The obvious result of this was because of how our friend had no support for his point about 'daha'. You did not give me an answer. Further, if he actually read my previous posts, it was made clear why the word 'carpet' is understood, even though it is suppressed in this verse, as suppression is a clear feature of Arabic.

5. I also stated in the past, the simplest explanation does not mean the explanation is correct, nor does the simplest explanation make it the best explanation. Sometimes the simplest explanation is because the person is an idiot, or too lazy to try and understand.

6. We already went through a list of meanings from a dictionary regarding the word 'spreading'. We already know that certain connotations of the word 'spread' point to laying out of a surface. As I have stated over one hundred times now, the word itself, even according to an english dictionary, can be used rhetorically. This again points to the real ignorance of Arthur regarding language. Does the usage of a verb in one situation constitute the same meaning in another sentence?

7. He then tells me the action of 'spreading' is different from creating, and again shoots his opinion, as if I was talking abut creation from a scientific perspective. I asked him if the hanging of lamps as well as the appointing of night and day belong to the 'raising of the sky' as a 'roof of a tent'. God really didn't create the earth like a beduoin who lays out his tent. Is it scientific terminology or imagery being used? Again, no answer. Which brings me to point 8:

8. I than asked him about the eart being called a couch in another verse, and likened to a camel in another verse. I asked him if a couch was a flat object, or the shoulders of a camel are flat. Does this point to imagery or a scientific reality?

ihsan

23rd July 2007, 19:40

YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);

In this verse some muslims suggests that the Koran says that the earth is eggshaped. They claim that dahaha = eggshaped, but this is not true at all.

Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha

وَالأرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ دَحَاهَا

دَحَا = daha=spread out , level off , level. The last ha = هَا in dahaha means this. So dahaha actually means spread out this, level off this, level this.

What I asked for was the definition of the word DAHA. I did not ask you to provide me with other verses. Again, I do not find any word that says 'flat', nor is the source for 'level' given. The 'ha' is clearly the object that is being spread. As far as the ostrich definition, there goes the answer to your 'ridiculous' analogy, because we already have been telling you this for days.

The fact that 'daha' means spread, we already know. The issue, as we have been discussing for aeons now, is whether 'daha' can be used rhetorically.

Again, I am still waiting for your response. And I will quote a portion from wikipedia to help you understand what an idiom means:

Idioms are, in essence, often colloquial metaphors — terms which require some foundational knowledge, information, or experience, to use only within a culture where parties must have common reference and as such are not considered an official part of the language, but rather a part of the culture. As cultures are typically localized, idioms are more often not useful for communication outside of that local context. However some idioms can be more universally used than others, and they can be easily translated, or their metaphorical meaning can be more easily deduced.

Kabeer

23rd July 2007, 19:41

Salaams Arnold,

I dont really wish to get into a big discussion in this thread, if you read my posts I havent even given any stances. I was merely saying that since nothing has explicitly been said in the Quran about the Earth being flat (even though you say its spreading indicates its flat, it doesnt have to, you can spread earth and have bumps (mountains)), that no real conclusion can be drwan here and this discussion will continue as it has (in circles).

Secondly you are quoting me and changing topic to the Sun orbiting the Earth.
As for the hadith you posted about the Sun, firstly I am not in a position to explain hadith to you myself. Secondly it is unrelated to whatever I was talking about since the hadith is not explaning anything from the Quran.

You take spreading out and think of something being flat, therefore the entire Earth is flat. I dont see any difference in your leap of thinking to anyone elses which would allow for the Earth being round.

As for Muslims constantly refining their interpretations of the Quran, whats the problem with that?
As a human, the people reading the Quran and trying to understand it are just looking at it from a human perpective using whatever knowledge they have. The fact that even after making scientific discoveries, the verses dont become nonsense must surely be something significant? (For example if the Quran had explicitly mentioned the entire world as being flat, then scince would have conlusivly proved it as being false, but it hasnt).

Either way Arnold, I havent seen anythign conclusive from you to say the Quran says the Earth is flat. Maybe what you have said might prove conclusive to some people, and to others not, I think I shall have to leave it at that.

Peace

ihsan

23rd July 2007, 20:01

The creation of the earth itself may indirectly have to do with sustenance to the degree that it means we have a place to live and therefore, a place for God to provide sustenance. But how does the spreading of the earth create sustenance? The two really don't seem to relate. I think that spreading the earth was a separate event from the provision of sustenance. We do not need to strip those two events together and make them one and the same. There really isn't any compelling reason to do so. Even in other instances where it basically tells us the same chronology of events or actions. If it just said "we created the earth", then there wouldn't be a problem. But it went further. It seems to say that the earth was already created and then spread out, and I think there is a reason why it went more specific.

Now you brought in the issue of 'creation of earth'? Where have I said anything in relation to 'creation of the earth'? Did I not state that the action of 'spreading' included the issue of providence, just as the ordaining of the night and day is included in the raising and ordering of the heavens? Did you answer this? No...

The night and day follow a precise pattern, just as the movement of the stars, thus the affiliation with ordering. In the same manner, the sittin of a guest as well as serving him includes the action of hospitality, and making a guest feel comfortable.

You'll say that because it wanted to show it as a sign of hospitality, as one spreads out a carpet. While other verses might fit this idea, 79:30, according to the origin of this very old and little known word daha, does not really fit that idea very well, and instead, does indeed refer to an action that changes the physical shape of something (the dirt).

How do you know whether the origin of this word is old, and it is little well known, considering you have absolutely no knowledge of Arabic. Now once again, your making things up. I asked you, show me the proof where the word cannot be used idiomatically? You haven't given any. Now, your telling me other verses may fit this idea, so you changed course once again. Further, I told you that the word 'daha' is not only employed in this verse, but is employed in other verses.

You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. As I said, comical.

Both. It speaks of a physical reality or even object and it's function

I asked you, how does a mountain of the Arabian penincual look like a tent peg? Is the description of the mountain being a tent peg accurately fit the description of tent peg? You keep avoiding the question.

Who says it emphasizes stability? It seems to me, that it simply describes a known physical object and tells us the function that it has. While stability is certainly part of the meaning, it's telling us about a true physical reality and how God provided this stability in a physical sense. You seem to want to whisk away that part. Who says imagery never points to what the author views as physical realities? That just simply isn't true.

Because the Quran itself says, so the earth does not quake with you. Does the word have to be spelled out for you, i.e. stability, for you to understand that what is meant is stabilization? Have you forgotten this clear point in the Quran? You remember, the very point you had no trouble recognizing earlier?

Well, if you tell us that this is what it means, then you should be able to expound. Your answer didn't tell us why we should think that spreading has anything to do with inhabitability. It can't see where it does. I only see you relating it to a verse that comes after. But these verse don't need to be spliced together in any way and work perfectly as separate actions. If you think these verses are both talking about the same action, then we ask why spreading relates to inhabitability and sustenance. And all you had to say was "why not?". Not very good.

All I have said is 'why not?' Didn't I even give you countless examples from english, where the word 'space' is equated with hospitality, and being comfortable? Your a big joke now, that you would blatantly lie like this. It is all there for you to see. Do people like to be crowded? Do people want to sit in spaces where another guy is up in their 'face'? Absolutely comical...

ihsan

23rd July 2007, 20:38

ihsan

23rd July 2007, 20:48

Confirmation of Hess's theory of seafloor spreading came from a magnetic survey of the material on either side of a midocean ridge (see Of Magnetism and Time). Examining the ridges and faults radiating from the ridges helped show that the earth's crust is made up of several plates (see Plates in Motion).

Wow! Because Hess affirms that the seafloor is spreading, it obviously necessitates that Hess believes the earth is flat.

Convergent Boundary

New crust is continually being pushed away from divergent boundaries (where sea-floor spreading occurs), increasing Earth's surface. But the Earth isn't getting any bigger. What happens, then, to keep the Earth the same size? The answer is subduction.

Oh, look at that. I guess the earth is a flat object, because sea-floor spreading occurs.

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 22:25

Again, as I said comical.

1. Now, I am being told what my exact position is. I've explicitly said, countless times, that the ostrich analogy has nothing to do with the usage of 'daha' in the above situation. Wat did you end up doing? You keep attributing to me the ostrich position, when it was YOU that was making the invalid analogy.

No, in my last posts, I was speaking of all of the verses if you go back and read it.

2. Because of point 1, I then asked you to show me where the usage of a verb in one sentence, necessitate the word has the same usage in a different sentence. What did I get? Consistent run-around.

I've continually told you that I am confused by that issue, and have asked you to show me where the same exact verb is used in multiple verses. Show me what verb and what verses. You never answer this. If you did, then link where you answered it. Fair enough?

3. Then, the issue of singular, physical object was brought

Because you made me have to qualify while you were throwing any problem at my claim that you could think of. So you raised the problem, and I offered the added qualification that wasn't originally explained. No problem whatsoever.

and I asked, where does one get proof for this alleged claim.

I don't have absolute proof, as nobody ever has absolute proof when dealing with religious matters. Where do you get proof that the Quran means something totally different than spread out, level, flat, all of which it says, and instead means something totally different? Why is THAT to be assumed, rather than what it actually says? Like this one, "we raised the heaven above the earth". Yeah, that must be talking about Allah's glory and nothing else. And everybody who thinks the most intuitive interpretation that the heaven was indeed believed to be raised above the earth better just shut up. It's ridiculous.

The issue of being 'taught' in elementary school was the reply, as if this constitutes proof. Again, you have no proof. Surprisingly, I explicitly stated in response to this bogus claim, are you denying that words cannot be used rhetorically in reference to singular physical objects.

No, you're just not doing a good job at telling us why. You say words, but they don't end up checking out, so you hide that and come up with other angles.

The amusing thing is that you couldn't see the connection between this point and the issue of 'where is the proof for the singular physical object' claim.

Proof for a singular object comes from the fact that it talks about the earth. If you want to say it's not singular, then be my guest.

4. I then asked how did the discussion move from 'spreading' to 'wide expanse'.

And I answered that other instances where the Quran speaks of the same exact topic, constitutes further clarity and therefore, context, of what the verse means. And that's what I offered, and why I offered it. Any questions?

The obvious result of this was because of how our friend had no support for his point about 'daha'.

"Spread" works good enough, and I've explained precisely why and you shouldn't mention this unless you want to also talk to the other verses as well, but you and I both know that you're not going to do that, because it only goes downhill from 79:30 dahaha.

You did not give me an answer. Further, if he actually read my previous posts, it was made clear why the word 'carpet' is understood, even though it is suppressed in this verse, as suppression is a clear feature of Arabic.

Actually, I was just taking your lead on that and Yusufali's. But curiously enough, most other translators that are older than him don't seem to mention anything about carpets, and even YusufAli merely signifies that it was a comment of his by putting it into parenthesis

5. I also stated in the past, the simplest explanation does not mean the explanation is correct, nor does the simplest explanation make it the best explanation. Sometimes the simplest explanation is because the person is an idiot, or too lazy to try and understand.

Look. Occam's razor, okay? If you want to look like this big time smart, clever, avoidance guy, then talk to that. Tell us why what you say is clearly more likely? You're the guy inventing, not me. I go with the words themselves. you need to show why it's otherwise.

6. We already went through a list of meanings from a dictionary regarding the word 'spreading'. We already know that certain connotations of the word 'spread' point to laying out of a surface.

And some even go so far as saying stretching and even flattening.

As I have stated over one hundred times now, the word itself, even according to an english dictionary, can be used rhetorically.

And I've said a hundred times, rhetorically or figuratively to point to what it believed was an actual reality. No good reason to think otherwise has yet been provided. Only strange, vague and shaky explanations.

This again points to the real ignorance of Arthur regarding language. Does the usage of a verb in one situation constitute the same meaning in another sentence?

Do you mean King Arthur? Are you actually going to attempt to divert into this area?

7. He then tells me the action of 'spreading' is different from creating, and again shoots his opinion[/quote]

No, your examples said that. You clearly spoke of stage one, which is the carpet being laid out for the honored guests, and then stage two, which is the fruit being distributed to the honored guests. Can you relate this to "spread for life"?. Seems like "spread for life" is talking about one event, and you are describing two things going on, as to say the sustenance is not related to the spreading itself, but to the distribution of fruit to the guests after things have been spread out.

as if I was talking abut creation from a scientific perspective.

I never claimed you were.

I asked him if the hanging of lamps as well as the appointing of night and day belong to the 'raising of the sky' as a 'roof of a tent'. God really didn't create the earth like a beduoin who lays out his tent. Is it scientific terminology or imagery being used? Again, no answer. Which brings me to point 8:

Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second. That's the best darn explanation a 7th century person can possibly give if he believes the earth is flat and the sky is a solid sort of covering. It fits like a glove. It was actually a perfect, well thought of analogy. So why couldn't it have really meant that? There's only one reason to think it doesn't, and that's because we now know better in the 21st century, than during the 7th century when the book was written. I don't see any more compelling reason to interpret it other than the common sense of the words themselves, other than the fact that we have been taught otherwise by 21st century science, and people can turn words into whatever they like, no matter how creative and less intuitive. Give someone enough time and you can make a barnyard pig look like a model.

8. I than asked him about the eart being called a couch in another verse, and likened to a camel in another verse.

Yes, and I explained why it was talking about the flat parts in both examples. Did you forget to mention that? Of course you did. What else is to be expected from you?

I asked him if a couch was a flat object, or the shoulders of a camel are flat. Does this point to imagery or a scientific reality?

Absolutely. Does a rider sit on the round part of a camel's back (the hump)? Or, does he rest on the flat part? Answer it. Is the top of a couch that you rest on flat? Almost always, and certainly, always back in those days. They certainly didn't have any ball shaped couches. So what the heck could you possibly be visiting this issue again for? Is it Sado Masochism? It's pretty clear, the camel's back is flat, except for it's humps. Flat part of back=flat earth, humps=equal mountains on flat earth. Since when is a camel's back anything close to being a sphere?

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 22:36

What I asked for was the definition of the word DAHA. I did not ask you to provide me with other verses.

So why don't you want to see them too? Information can never be a bad thing, right? winkee winkee.

Again, I do not find any word that says 'flat', nor is the source for 'level' given. The 'ha' is clearly the object that is being spread. As far as the ostrich definition, there goes the answer to your 'ridiculous' analogy, because we already have been telling you this for days.

All you need to do is to specifically answer these definitions. I saw the word spread flat, flatten, smooth, level flat land, plain etc...Why are these all supposed to be simply ignored?

The fact that 'daha' means spread, we already know. The issue, as we have been discussing for aeons now, is whether 'daha' can be used rhetorically.

And we bring other verses which speak of the identical event for further clarification, and we gain a better understanding of which aspect of dahaha it was speaking of. Nothing wrong with doing that.

Again, I am still waiting for your response. And I will quote a portion from wikipedia to help you understand what an idiom means:

Will that mean that the Quran is speaking in idioms in this case?

Arnold

23rd July 2007, 22:42

Wow! Because Hess affirms that the seafloor is spreading, it obviously necessitates that Hess believes the earth is flat.

He is speaking of a fragmented surface. Why do you think I made sure that I mentioned that the Quran is speaking of a singular, non fragmented object (the earth)? If you think it's speaking of the land instead of the earth itself, than we can discuss it from that angle, but you have to indicate one way or the other, and we both know that you will not do this, right?

Oh, look at that. I guess the earth is a flat object, because sea-floor spreading occurs.

Oh, I guess the Quran is right, because of a scientific fact that it never mentioned.

ihsan

24th July 2007, 00:21

No, in my last posts, I was speaking of all of the verses if you go back and read it.

Actually, your not. The fact that you keep bringing up irrelevant analogies related to ostriches in regards to my opinions reveals how your not reading properly.

I've continually told you that I am confused by that issue, and have asked you to show me where the same exact verb is used in multiple verses. Show me what verb and what verses. You never answer this. If you did, then link where you answered it. Fair enough?

Of course your confused about the issue. I already answered this, so why should I keep answering it? If you had paid attention, than you would have known that the verb is employed in other verses. I told you to look up the word spreading, and than find a transliteration of the Arabic, and do the analysis.

Because you made me have to qualify while you were throwing any problem at my claim that you could think of. So you raised the problem, and I offered the added qualification that wasn't originally explained. No problem whatsoever.

I raised an issue at your claim, because it was bogus. You then came up with a bogus answer, or in your words, a 'qualification'. A qualification that doesn't exist anywhere in language. By simply asserting it is known in elementary school isa cop-out, and is contradicted simply by the fact that words are always used in language rhetorically with respect to 'single physica objects'. You make things up as you go along to try and save face.

I don't have absolute proof, as nobody ever has absolute proof when dealing with religious matters. Where do you get proof that the Quran means something totally different than spread out, level, flat, all of which it says, and instead means something totally different? Why is THAT to be assumed, rather than what it actually says? Like this one, "we raised the heaven above the earth". Yeah, that must be talking about Allah's glory and nothing else. And everybody who thinks the most intuitive interpretation that the heaven was indeed believed to be raised above the earth better just shut up. It's ridiculous.

Of couse it is used figuratively, considering the sky is being compared to a beduoin tent, and the mountains are being compared to a roof. What left is there regarding a tent, other than the carpet and interior of the tent. Only a fool would try and argue otherwise. As I stated before, if one spreads a carpet out for a guest, thatguest is surely not thinking in his mind that what is being implied by the host is that the earth is flat.

No, you're just not doing a good job at telling us why. You say words, but they don't end up checking out, so you hide that and come up with other angles.

Your the one that made the claim and came up with the 'new' angle. I'm asking you for proof for this angle. I have no need to substantiate a claim I never made.

Proof for a singular object comes from the fact that it talks about the earth. If you want to say it's not singular, then be my guest.

I did not ask for proof for the singular object. I asked for the proof that when referring to a singular, physical object, the verb employed is referring to something physical. You still haven't given the proof.

And I answered that other instances where the Quran speaks of the same exact topic, constitutes further clarity and therefore, context, of what the verse means. And that's what I offered, and why I offered it. Any questions?

No, you made things up. You, for at least 100 posts, kept continually talking about 'daha' and ostrich eggs, and now you back-tracked, and are trying to refer to other verses, because of a new link. But you don't realize that those very verses don't prove your point either. They also have trouble recognizing a couch is not a flat object. And that the word choice does not negate the imagery, and word choice is dictated by rhyme. There are synonyms in Arabic too. The fact is, those verses, are saying the exact same thing, in slightly different ways. But we need to stick to 'daha' for now.

"Spread" works good enough, and I've explained precisely why and you shouldn't mention this unless you want to also talk to the other verses as well, but you and I both know that you're not going to do that, because it only goes downhill from 79:30 dahaha.

No, we need to firsttalk about 'daha'. I am still awaiting your fine explanation on how it is an unsuauly word and rarely used, considering your vast expertise of the Arabic language. Until then, I say we stick to 'daha'. I know there are other verses that use different words than 'daha', but there are things called synonyms in Arabic too.

Actually, I was just taking your lead on that and Yusufali's. But curiously enough, most other translators that are older than him don't seem to mention anything about carpets, and even YusufAli merely signifies that it was a comment of his by putting it into parenthesis

No, you weren't taking my lead on that. Please stop trying to make excuses for your errors. You know the very link you quoted to give definitions for words also quotes carpets alot. You don't agree with that either?

Look. Occam's razor, okay? If you want to look like this big time smart, clever, avoidance guy, then talk to that. Tell us why what you say is clearly more likely? You're the guy inventing, not me. I go with the words themselves. you need to show why it's otherwise.

Oh... Don't hurt yourself with the big words. Occam's razor does not dictate reality. The fact that the simple explanation isn't always the right explanation is an established fact. If it weren't light would be considered a wave. And Occam's razor, while it tends to work for physical phenomenon, does not work very well in literature, especially in imagery and poetry. the simplest explanation of 'come down to earth' is physical, but it has nothing to do with a physical act.

I'm not inventing anything. The fact is imageryand idioms are common in all languages.

And some even go so far as saying stretching and even flattening.

So what...

And I've said a hundred times, rhetorically or figuratively to point to what it believed was an actual reality. No good reason to think otherwise has yet been provided. Only strange, vague and shaky explanations.

You mean the discussion about the skybeing a beduoin tent, and the mountains being tent-pegs isn't a reason to think otherwise? Why should I believe your position? Because you ASSUME that the Arabs thought the earth was flat, without any proof.

Do you mean King Arthur? Are you actually going to attempt to divert into this area?

Your humor also needs some work...

No, your examples said that. You clearly spoke of stage one, which is the carpet being laid out for the honored guests, and then stage two, which is the fruit being distributed to the honored guests. Can you relate this to "spread for life"?. Seems like "spread for life" is talking about one event, and you are describing two things going on, as to say the sustenance is not related to the spreading itself, but to the distribution of fruit to the guests after things have been spread out.

Where did I say creation? Where did I say 'spread for life'? you keep telling me I said it, but you don't give any proof. I stated that the spreading is affiliated always with the granting of sustenance, because the Quran is painting a picture of a tent. It is, when referring to the earth, referring to the providence and generosity of the Lord. Where did I say creation?

You like ot make things up over and over...

Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second. That's the best darn explanation a 7th century person can possibly give if he believes the earth is flat and the sky is a solid sort of covering. It fits like a glove. It was actually a perfect, well thought of analogy. So why couldn't it have really meant that?

Wow... what assumptions... if he believes the earth is flat and the sky is some sort of covering, than... you still haven't proved he did... but yet again, why the mountains being tent pegs, and the words being employed for the sky a beduoin tent? What imagery is left for the earth in respect to a tent?

Yes, and I explained why it was talking about the flat parts in both examples. Did you forget to mention that? Of course you did. What else is to be expected from you?

Of course, but the shoulder isn't flat, nor is the couch. The earth also has flat parts... What's your point

Absolutely. Does a rider sit on the round part of a camel's back (the hump)? Or, does he rest on the flat part? Answer it.

That is all well and good, but the Quran is not talking about the 'flat' part, but likens the whole earth to a camel, and The Quran says to walk on the SHOULDERS. The earth to has flat parts. What is your point? Can you comprehend this?

Is the top of a couch that you rest on flat? Almost always, and certainly, always back in those days. They certainly didn't have any ball shaped couches. So what the heck could you possibly be visiting this issue again for? Is it Sado Masochism? It's pretty clear, the camel's back is flat, except for it's humps. Flat part of back=flat earth, humps=equal mountains on flat earth. Since when is a camel's back anything close to being a sphere?

You answer things that have no relevance ot the issue. Surprise suprise.
Cushions are often round. Whether there are flat portions on a couch or not is irrelevant. The earth also has flat surfaces. The Quran talks about the earth as a camel. It does not liken it to the hump, but the whole camel. It says to walk on it's shoulders, and shoulders are flat. They are not round. The objectof movement is attached to the SHOULDERS, not the back.

What's your next excuse?