Contradictions within the Qur'an

elwill · Jul 6, 2009

Beckyy25 said:
I thought this verse does talk about how long a matter needs to go up to Allah (see the above underlined words), not to go down to the earth from Allah.

It is the angels who execute Gods orders:
Quran 32.5] (Allah) Rules the cosmic affair (Yudaber Al-Amr in Arabic) from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels (Yaruj) to Him (by angeles) a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count.
the first half of the verse refer to allah who manage or rule the earth from his place in heavin , then the angeles is the creature which excute God's order

the verse refer to angels. "Araj" means a man with a lame leg; "Yaruj" means a man stepping. This verse says that angels are taking steps: indicating motion of angels. Their motion in one day is equal to 1000 years of what people back then counted (the moon).

So you want to say that the day in those 2 verses is the same for Allah but we will perceive it as two different time periods?

no , i wanna to say that the context of two verses are differs , although two verses are talking about time , but mathematically they are two different data or two different equations

the first verse referring to distance , God is saying that angels travel in one day the same distance that the moon travels in 12000 lunar orbits

the second verse
it says that angels will experience 1 day while humans will measure it as 50,000 years . according to the theory of special relativity, this is the time difference (time dilation)

For an object to move it needs to accelerate; but acceleration causes clocks to run slower, the stronger the acceleration the slower the clock.

Beckyy25 · Jul 6, 2009

elwill said:
It is the angels who execute Gods orders:
Quran 32.5] (Allah) Rules the cosmic affair (Yudaber Al-Amr in Arabic) from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels (Yaruj) to Him (by angeles) a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count.
the first half of the verse refer to allah who manage or rule the earth from his place in heavin , then the angeles is the creature which excute God's order

the verse refer to angels. "Araj" means a man with a lame leg; "Yaruj" means a man stepping. This verse says that angels are taking steps: indicating motion of angels. Their motion in one day is equal to 1000 years of what people back then counted (the moon).

Well, I still do not fully understand this, but let's leave it. It seems that the english translation is not very clear, or maybe it is me who can't understand this verse in the correct way, as english is a foreign language for me and I do not always understand the correct meaning of something.

elwill said:
no , i wanna to say that the context of two verses are differs , although two verses are talking about time , but mathematically they are two different data or two different equations

And what exactly is this 'context'? Maybe we should define first what this context is so we can move further.

Also how can we compare the two verses, if they differ mathematically? If you say the context of the verses is also different, then how can we compare them?

IMO not the context is important here, but the fact that the angels will do something in 1 day, and this 1 day is perceived by humans as two different time periods. Why is that? How can this be?

elwill said:
the first verse referring to distance , God is saying that angels travel in one day the same distance that the moon travels in 12000 lunar orbits

the second verse
it says that angels will experience 1 day while humans will measure it as 50,000 years . according to the theory of special relativity, this is the time difference (time dilation)

Huh, Physics and Maths were not my best subjects at school.

For the first verse you said:
1 day = 1,000 years = 12,000 lunar orbits
time vs. distance

I understand this.

For the second one you are saying:
1 day = 50,000 years
time vs. time

I asked you if in Arabic for the word 'day' the same Arabic word is used in both verses. If the same word is used, then there should not be any difference in the length of this day. How can a day be once perceived as 1,000 years or 12,000 lunar orbits and the same day is perceived another time as 50,000 years?

Also I do not understand why time vs. time does apply here? For me there is no difference to the first verse. Both verses do show on one side angels, who do something specific in 1 day and on the other side the humans, who do perceive that 1 day as 1,000 years or as 50,000 years. I would also apply to the second verse the same as for the first one:

1 day = 50,000 years = 600,000 lunar orbits

But then do we see any clarification of this issue? No. We still have a difference. We have the same starting point, which is 1 day, but we have different results, 1,000/50,000 years.

So I really have no idea why you do apply two different concepts on the two verses.

elwill said:
For an object to move it needs to accelerate; but acceleration causes clocks to run slower, the stronger the acceleration the slower the clock.

This statement (the second part of it) has really no logic for me at all. But that is not important.

What I do not understand, why you do not apply this concept, e.g. the time dilation to both verses? In both verses the angels are moving, so they accelerate (because for an object to move it needs to accelerate). So because of that for us the time seems to run slower. But it is only logical to apply this theory on both verses. Both have the same starting point, e.g. angels who are moving in 1 day.

Mahammad · Jul 6, 2009

in arabic Day = yom

and yes yom is used in the 3 verses but what that have to do with it?

Beckyy25 · Jul 6, 2009

formy said:
in arabic Day = yom

and yes yom is used in the 3 verses but what that have to do with it?

Yeah I know the word for day is yoom in Arabic. So good to know it is used in all the verses. And what that has to do with it? Well I would say everything, because it is clear that Allah does not speak about different kind of days. He does use the same word when mentioning the word 'day', so that is a good start. We know now that all three verses do speek about the same thing: 1 day! Just the length of the day does vary. And we'll hopefully find out why it is like that.

Mahammad · Jul 6, 2009

Allah(swt) said:

فِي يَوْمٍ كَانَ مِقْدَارُهُ

in a Day, whereof the measure is a

You can see that there can be different days

I don't know if the translastion is correct because I don't know what thereof means, but I hope you get what I mean.

SlaveOfGod · Jul 6, 2009

Beckyy25 said:
Yes, that's how I understand it. The first verses obviously say that the Muslims should give a part of their belongings to Muhammad. The last ones say he (Muhammad) did not ask for a payment. So did they have to share with Muhammad from their belongings or not?

These verses you quoted have to be understood within the right context. In my other post I gave an example where Allah says (interpretation) in the Quran:

"So, woe unto those performers of Salah" 107:4

This if read on its own appears that Allah is telling us not to pray, whereas we know in reality this is true for prayer is an established act in Islam.

There are a lot of ayahs that have been quoted and it would take quite a long time to explain each one therefore I will post a brief explanation and give you the sources where you can read further. Hope this is ok.

If we look at the verses that have been quoted which claim that Muhammed took a "fee".

And spend in the cause of Allah and do not throw yourselves into destruction, and do good. Truly, Allah loves Al-Muhsinin (those who do good) 2:195

Taken from the explanation of Ibn Kathir:

The Ayah (2:195) includes the order to spend in Allah's cause, in the various areas and ways that involve obedience and drawing closer to Allah. It especially applies to spending in fighting the enemies and on what strengthens the Muslims against the enemy. Allah states that those who refrain from spending in this regard will face utter and certain demise and destruction, meaning those who acquire this habit.

Please see for quite a detailed explanation: Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

And know that anything you obtain of war booty then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion [i.e., decisive encounter] the day when the two armies met [at Badr]. And Allah, over all things, is competent. [8:41]

There is no doubt that one fifth of the spoils of war belong to Allah and His Messenger. And the Prophet through his kindness and generosity said in a hadith:

This is also a part of the war booty you earned. Verily, I have no share in it, except my own share, the fifth designated to me. Even that fifth will be given to you (indicating the Prophet's generosity). Therefore, surrender even the needle and the thread, and whatever is bigger or smaller than that (from the war spoils)......

Please see for another detailed explanation: Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Take Sadaqah from their wealth in order to purify them and sanctify them with it, and Salli for them. Verily, your Salat are a Sakan for them; and Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower [9:103]

This relates to the obligatory Zakah which is to be levied on the rich to be distributed to the poor. This is a pillar of Islam and an obligation and those who refuse to give should be fought until they do. Just as Abu Bakr did when he was the Leader

See Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's cause, so they kill and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Tawrah and the Injil and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success [9:111]

This verse actually relates to Jihad and nothing to do with money or taking a fee.

See: Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

You are now invited to spend in Allah's cause; but among you are those who withhold (stingily). And whoever acts stingily is but stingy toward himself. For Allah is indeed free of needs, while you are the needy. And if you turn away, He will replace you with other people; then they will not be like you.) [47:38]

This relates to "Showing the Triviality of the Worldly Life and encouraging Spending". There is nothing here to indicate Muhammed taking a fee for Allah is asking is followers to willingly spend in his sake by offerring sadaqah (charity) and helping the muslims through wealth and other means.

See: Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

And what is the matter with you that you spend not in the cause of Allah And to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth. Not equal among you are those who spent and fought before the conquering. Such are higher in degree than those who spent and fought afterwards. But to all Allah has promised the best. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do [57:10]

Again this ayahs explanation is very similar to the one above. And i would say read this explanation first then the one above as it will be much clearer and assist your learning.

See Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir for a very nice explanation of what it means to spend in the way of Allah.

None of the abovet indicate anywhere that Muhammed took a fee, rather the last couple of ayahs stress that Muslims generally should spend from their own wealth for the sake of Allah, by offering charity. This can be through wealth amongst other things. All Praise be to Allah.

I am not going to go into the details of the ayahs where it is claimed that Muhammed never took a fee because the above proves that he never did, therefore there is nothing to prove anymore. However I can if you want me to. I would just like to finish this post with a few additional comments (apologies if you think i am diverting but i feel it is neccessary).

There are many enemies of Islam who try to slur the Prophet's way of life and claim he did what he did for status and wealth in this world and that he took money from his followers. This is far from the truth for history about his life tells us how much of a simple life he led, may Peace and Blessings be upon him. Below are a few examples of what I mean:

Anas, the helper of Prophet Muhammed said about him:

"According to my knowledge, Allah's Messenger has never tasted a thin flattened loaf in all his lifetime nor has he ever seen a roasted goat with his own eyes"

Aisha, the wife of Prophet Muhammed said:

"Over two months would pass during which we would have seen three cresecents - while no fire was kindled in the houses of Allah's Messenger (i.e. they did not cook food)". An individual asked her "what did you eat to sustain yourselves?" She said "Two black things: dates and water"

There are a number of other narrations that exist about the hard life of Muhammed and if he was to take a fee off the people then certainly he wouldnt have lived as he had.

When Aisha was asked about the Prophet's bed she explained "It was made of coarse animal skin filled with date-bark". When the same question was asked to Hafsah his other wife she replied "it was just a piece of sackcloth...."

It is also known that Muhammed coat of mail used during the battles has been pawned to a Jew in return for 30 dirhams but he didnt have enough money to get it back from him. And the Muhammed departed this world and the coat of mail was still with the Jew.

All that The Messenger left was his weapons, a mule and a coat of mail as inheritance but with instructions that these were to be given as charity. Glory be to Allah, he still acted generous on his death bed.

Given what history tells us about Muhammed and his way of life, some muslims have tried to recreate the house of the Prophet based upon what has been reported about his life in the authentic Sunnah. It has been suggested that it looks like the below, certainly not the type of house of man who sought a fee.

SPi-V panorama

As it says in the book from which i have in front of me:

"Are they not blind who accuse him of lifting his sword against his own people for personal gain, sensual desire, for power, for wealth or fulfilling a lust for territorial gain"

To summarise this long post the ayaat which were quoted above either have been taken out of context, meaning they refer to other aspects of the religion like Zakah and Jihad - this is not fair and injust to Holy Quran. Finally some of the ayat refer to spending in the way of Allah, meaning supporting his deen through wealth and other means.

Hope you find this useful just let me know if you need anything further

Regards

humblemuslim · Jul 6, 2009

Beckyy25 said:
3) How many angels talked to Mary?

One

19:16-19 And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East, And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God- fearing. He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

More than one

3:42 And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above (all) the women of creation.

3:45 (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

4) Who leads disbelievers astray?

Allah

2:6-7 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering.

6:25 We have placed upon their hearts veils, lest they should understand, and in their ears a deafness.

17:97-98 As for him whom He sendeth astray, for them thou wilt find no protecting friends beside Him, and We shall assemble them on the Day of Resurrection on their faces, blind, dumb and deaf; their habitation will be hell; whenever it abateth, We increase the flame for them. That is their reward because they disbelieved Our revelations.

18:57 Lo! on their hearts We have placed coverings so that they understand not, and in their ears a deafness. And though thou call them to the guidance, in that case they can never be led aright.

Iblis

7:16-18 Now, because Thou [Allah] hast sent me [Iblis] astray, verily I shall lurk in ambush for them on Thy Right Path. ... He [Allah] said: Go forth from hence, degraded, banished. As for such of them as follow thee, surely I will fill hell with all of you.

15:39-40 He said: My Lord! Because Thou hast sent me astray, I verily shall adorn the path of error for them in the earth, and shall mislead them every one, Save such of them as are Thy perfectly devoted slaves.

19:83 Seest thou not that We have set the devils on the disbelievers to confound them with confusion?

5) Can Allah do anything?

Yes, Allah can do anything.

35:1 Praise be to Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, Who appointeth the angels messengers having wings two, three and four. He multiplieth in creation what He will. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.

No, there are some things Allah cannot do.

6:100-101 Yet they ... impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him. ... The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child?

I do not have the time to read 9 pages of replies at the moment so I am just going to reply to as many of these as time allows. Forgive me if I am repeating anything already said. I'll leave the one's I did not have time for in the quote above so I can come back to them at a later time.

1) Have some passages in the Quran been abrogated?

Short answer - No

Verses alleged to dispute this answer - 2:106 and 16:101.

The Arabic word being translated here as "revelation" has a much broader meaning than just the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an is part of God's revelations, but not the only revelation. 2:106 states better revelations can be brought forth, but that does not mean past revelations no longer apply. My understanding of 16:101 is not as the contradictory understanding suggests. Based on surrounding verses such as 16:87 and 16:105, the understanding that I come to suggests that God is replacing (Correcting) the corrupted verses in other Scriptures with the verses in the Qur'an. People holding the corrupted texts would naturally be inclined to accusing the messenger of being a liar/inventor/fabricator/etc. since they believe their Scriptures are just fine.

2) Is it OK to drink alcohol?

Short Answer - Potentially yes. Recommended, no.

Verse alleged to dispute this answer - 2:219

If we look at verse 2:219 we find that is states that in drinking alcohol there is great sin and benefit.

Part of Qur'an 2:219 English Translation said:
They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say: "In them is great harm, and a benefit for the people; but their harm is greater than their benefit."

The activity is not recommended, however it is stated that drinking alcohol does have benefits, although the harm exceeds these benefits.

I would like to note that I do not believe that the very act of drinking alcohol is the harm being referred to, or the only harm at the very least. This broad reference can apply to any number of harmful activities resulting from drinking. Drunk driving. Unplanned pregnancy. Spread of disease. Violent behavior. And so on. It can also be applied to the damage that is done to one's liver when drinking in excess.

elwill · Jul 7, 2009

Beckyy25 said:
Also how can we compare the two verses, if they differ mathematically? If you say the context of the verses is also different, then how can we compare them?

well , that's my point , you cant say there are contradiction while we can't compare between them
anyway , all what i can proof to you is that those two verses actually proof the truth of quran , i will quote for you my proof in end of this post

IMO not the context is important here, but the fact that the angels will do something in 1 day, and this 1 day is perceived by humans as two different time periods. Why is that? How can this be?

i will descript my point in deatails for you , i discussed this point many months ago in another forum , i will search to find it for you

I asked you if in Arabic for the word 'day' the same Arabic word is used in both verses. If the same word is used, then there should not be any difference in the length of this day. How can a day be once perceived as 1,000 years or 12,000 lunar orbits and the same day is perceived another time as 50,000 years?

no , absolutely you are wrong
use the word day while you in mars , and use it while you in the earth and use it while you on the moon . it will differ according the place you count from it . you have to define the reference for your caculations to the length of this day
and that's what i'm talking about , the reference in the first verse was the lunar orbit but in the second verse it gave us the time dilation as reference to our calculations

Also I do not understand why time vs. time does apply here? For me there is no difference to the first verse. Both verses do show on one side angels, who do something specific in 1 day and on the other side the humans, who do perceive that 1 day as 1,000 years or as 50,000 years. I would also apply to the second verse the same as for the first one:

1 day = 50,000 years = 600,000 lunar orbits ---- in this verse the lunar orbit not mentioned

What I do not understand, why you do not apply this concept, e.g. the time dilation to both verses? In both verses the angels are moving, so they accelerate (because for an object to move it needs to accelerate). So because of that for us the time seems to run slower. But it is only logical to apply this theory on both verses. Both have the same starting point, e.g. angels who are moving in 1 day.

read my next post Beckyy25

elwill · Jul 7, 2009

one of the verses are talking about angels

32-5 (Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count.

the verse is talking about the angels whom carry out these orders from heavens to the earth .
in the time of mohammed (pbuh) people measured the distances neither in kilometers nor in miles but rather by how much time they needed to walk.

For example, a village two days away meant a distance equivalent to walking for two days; ten days away meant a distance equivalent to walking for ten days... However in this verse the Quran specifies 1000 years of what they counted (not what they walked). Those people back then followed the lunar calendar and counted 12 lunar months each year. These months are related to the moon and not related to the sun. Hence in 1 day the angels will travel a distance of 1000 years of what they counted (the moon). Since this verse is referring to distance, then God is saying that angels travel in one day the same distance that the moon travels in 12000 lunar orbits.

Outside gravitational fields this speed turned out to be the known speed of light , which means that the speed of the angles equal the speed of the light
(mslems believe that angels are low density creatures, and that God created them originally from light )

yet , i didn't proof anything , be patient

there is another verse in the quran informes us different informations about traveling of angles from earth to heaven which say

70-4 The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years.

Here angels will experience 1 day while humans will measure it as 50,000 years (time vs. time and not time vs. distance as the previous lunar verse)

However, according to the theory of special relativity, given this time difference (time dilation), we can calculate the speed at which that object traveled.

We can verify if those angels really accelerate up to the speed of light, as claimed by Moslems, on the first verse

Where ∆to is the time measured for a mover by a mover;
∆t is the time measured for a mover by a stationary frame; v is the velocity of the mover relative to the stationary observer)
∆to is the time experienced by angels (1 day).
∆t is the time as measured by humans (50,000 lunar years x12 lunar months/lunar year x 27.321661 days/lunar month).
v is the velocity of angels in this case (which we intend to calculate and then compare to the known speed of light).
c is the known speed of light 2997924.48 km/s, the speed of light in vacuum

From the above equation we can solve for the unknown velocity:

So lets insert the Moslem claims and see if their angels really accelerate up to the speed of light or not. Insert dates from this verse The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years into the formula

v = 299792.4579999994 km / s ( and this is the speed of light )

Beckyy25 · Jul 7, 2009

formy said:
Allah(swt) said:

فِي يَوْمٍ كَانَ مِقْدَارُهُ

in a Day, whereof the measure is a

You can see that there can be different days

I don't know if the translastion is correct because I don't know what thereof means, but I hope you get what I mean.

Where are the different days? I do not see them. I see that for the word 'day' the Arabic word yoom يَوْمٍ is used.

Beckyy25 · Jul 7, 2009

SlaveOfGod said:
There are a lot of ayahs that have been quoted and it would take quite a long time to explain each one therefore I will post a brief explanation and give you the sources where you can read further. Hope this is ok.

I will need some times to read all the explanations in the links you gave me. After I read them I will ask if I should have questions.

SlaveOfGod said:
I am not going to go into the details of the ayahs where it is claimed that Muhammed never took a fee because the above proves that he never did, therefore there is nothing to prove anymore. However I can if you want me to.

It would be nice if you would do so if you think you can find some time for that.

SlaveOfGod said:
I would just like to finish this post with a few additional comments (apologies if you think i am diverting but i feel it is neccessary).

It is OK, sometimes you need to talk about more things to make a point clear.

SlaveOfGod said:
There are many enemies of Islam who try to slur the Prophet's way of life and claim he did what he did for status and wealth in this world and that he took money from his followers. This is far from the truth for history about his life tells us how much of a simple life he led, may Peace and Blessings be upon him. Below are a few examples of what I mean:

Anas, the helper of Prophet Muhammed said about him:

"According to my knowledge, Allah's Messenger has never tasted a thin flattened loaf in all his lifetime nor has he ever seen a roasted goat with his own eyes"

Aisha, the wife of Prophet Muhammed said:

"Over two months would pass during which we would have seen three cresecents - while no fire was kindled in the houses of Allah's Messenger (i.e. they did not cook food)". An individual asked her "what did you eat to sustain yourselves?" She said "Two black things: dates and water"

There are a number of other narrations that exist about the hard life of Muhammed and if he was to take a fee off the people then certainly he wouldnt have lived as he had.

When Aisha was asked about the Prophet's bed she explained "It was made of coarse animal skin filled with date-bark". When the same question was asked to Hafsah his other wife she replied "it was just a piece of sackcloth...."

It is also known that Muhammed coat of mail used during the battles has been pawned to a Jew in return for 30 dirhams but he didnt have enough money to get it back from him. And the Muhammed departed this world and the coat of mail was still with the Jew.

All that The Messenger left was his weapons, a mule and a coat of mail as inheritance but with instructions that these were to be given as charity. Glory be to Allah, he still acted generous on his death bed.

Given what history tells us about Muhammed and his way of life, some muslims have tried to recreate the house of the Prophet based upon what has been reported about his life in the authentic Sunnah. It has been suggested that it looks like the below, certainly not the type of house of man who sought a fee.

SPi-V panorama

Thanks for the examples. From what I've read so far about Muhammad's life, I also had the impression he lived a very simple life.

SlaveOfGod said:
As it says in the book from which i have in front of me:

"Are they not blind who accuse him of lifting his sword against his own people for personal gain, sensual desire, for power, for wealth or fulfilling a lust for territorial gain"

Do you mind telling me which book it is that you did quote from?

SlaveOfGod said:
To summarise this long post the ayaat which were quoted above either have been taken out of context, meaning they refer to other aspects of the religion like Zakah and Jihad - this is not fair and injust to Holy Quran. Finally some of the ayat refer to spending in the way of Allah, meaning supporting his deen through wealth and other means.

Hope you find this useful just let me know if you need anything further

Regards

Your post has been clear, but as I said I will read the explanations in the links you gave me, and in case I do not understand something, then I'll just ask.

Mahammad · Jul 7, 2009

Beckyy25 said:
Where are the different days? I do not see them. I see that for the word 'day' the Arabic word yoom يَوْمٍ is used.

the different is in "whereof the measure is"

Beckyy25 · Jul 7, 2009

humblemuslim said:
I do not have the time to read 9 pages of replies at the moment so I am just going to reply to as many of these as time allows.

Hi humblemuslim, it's been a while since we talked. Nice to see you joining the discussion.

humblemuslim said:
Forgive me if I am repeating anything already said.

No problem, I'm curious to see your POV on these points also.

humblemuslim said:
I'll leave the one's I did not have time for in the quote above so I can come back to them at a later time.

OK.

humblemuslim said:
1) Have some passages in the Quran been abrogated?

Short answer - No

Verses alleged to dispute this answer - 2:106 and 16:101.

The Arabic word being translated here as "revelation" has a much broader meaning than just the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an is part of God's revelations, but not the only revelation. 2:106 states better revelations can be brought forth, but that does not mean past revelations no longer apply. My understanding of 16:101 is not as the contradictory understanding suggests. Based on surrounding verses such as 16:87 and 16:105, the understanding that I come to suggests that God is replacing (Correcting) the corrupted verses in other Scriptures with the verses in the Qur'an. People holding the corrupted texts would naturally be inclined to accusing the messenger of being a liar/inventor/fabricator/etc. since they believe their Scriptures are just fine.

You present things from a completely different POV. You are basically saying that the Qur'an does not abrogate the Qur'an, but the Qur'an does abrogate previous revelations, such as the Torah, Psalms, Gospel,... right? Okay, this is clear to me, because the Qur'an says completely different things than the Bible regarding some issues, an example would be Jesus' crucifixion.

But besides this, still Muslims do acknowledge the abrogation within the Qur'an. I've read once (it's a few years now I think) an explanation from Ibn Kathir regarding this. Unfortunately I don't have the link anymore. Ibn Kathir is a renowned Muslim scholar as you sure know, and as far as I know his explanations are held in great esteem by Muslims. His explanations are very clear to be honest, although I have to say I do not like his view on sura 9:5 where he says that this verse did not only apply for Muhammad's time in that particular situation of war, but is valid at any time, which if applied nowadays, would mean that any Muslim who meets a non-Muslim who does not want to convert to Islam should kill that person. But anyways, I'm deviating from the topic now.

What I want to say is that most Muslims do accept the abrogation within the Qur'an. So what makes you not accept it? The fact that the Qur'an pretends to be a perfect revelation from Allah? What is your comment on these verses:

Beckyy25 said:
No, the Quran is perfect and can never be abrogated.

2:85 Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and ... the most grievous doom.

6:34 There is none to alter the decisions of Allah.

6:115 Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words.

10:64 There is no changing the Words of Allah.

18:27 And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words.

Do you think all these verses do refer to the Qur'an?
Do you think, because these verses do say the word of Allah can not be changed, therefore it can't be that some verses in the Qur'an were abrogated?

humblemuslim said:
2) Is it OK to drink alcohol?

Short Answer - Potentially yes. Recommended, no.

Verse alleged to dispute this answer - 2:219

If we look at verse 2:219 we find that is states that in drinking alcohol there is great sin and benefit.

The activity is not recommended, however it is stated that drinking alcohol does have benefits, although the harm exceeds these benefits.

I would like to note that I do not believe that the very act of drinking alcohol is the harm being referred to, or the only harm at the very least. This broad reference can apply to any number of harmful activities resulting from drinking. Drunk driving. Unplanned pregnancy. Spread of disease. Violent behavior. And so on. It can also be applied to the damage that is done to one's liver when drinking in excess.

So you are saying that drinking alkohol is not a sin if done to a certain extent or as a medicine?

Give me an example from your own life if you don't mind. Did you ever drink alkohol? Or you're going for the recommended one and don't drink it at all?

Also you know, in my Qur'an I have a footnote for sura 2:219, which says:

The word "khamr" (wine) includes all intoxicants. The final prohibition is given in 5:90-91.

5:90-91 O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.

Satan only wants to cause between you animosity and hatred through intoxicants and gambling and to avert you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. So will you not desist?

The footnote for the word 'avoid' in verse 90 says the following:

This prohibition understood from the word "avoid" is stronger than if Allah had merely said, "Abstain." The former requires distancing oneself from anything remotely related to these practices.

So for me this is a clear case of abrogation. The verses were all revealed at different times and the latter do abrogate the previous ones.

Beckyy25 · Jul 7, 2009

formy said:
the different is in "whereof the measure is"

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say. Are we maybe talking about two different things?
I mean the words whereof the measure is only refer to the length of the day. One verse says the day is like 1,000 years, the other says it's like 50,000 years. But the word 'day' is the same in both verses. Therefore there should be no difference in the length of the two days.

I'm not sure how to explain to you what I mean with that. Hmmm, you know, if you use one and the same word (in this case the word 'day') to explain two different things (in this case 1,000/50,000 years) then this will only cause confusion. So if we assume that Allah does distinguish between different types of days, why would He use the same word (e.g. day) to describe two different time periods?

humblemuslim · Jul 7, 2009

Beckyy25 said:
Hi humblemuslim, it's been a while since we talked. Nice to see you joining the discussion.

Yes it has been quite awhile. Looking forward to contributing what I can.

Beckyy25 said:
You present things from a completely different POV. You are basically saying that the Qur'an does not abrogate the Qur'an, but the Qur'an does abrogate previous revelations, such as the Torah, Psalms, Gospel,... right? Okay, this is clear to me, because the Qur'an says completely different things than the Bible regarding some issues, an example would be Jesus' crucifixion.

But besides this, still Muslims do acknowledge the abrogation within the Qur'an. I've read once (it's a few years now I think) an explanation from Ibn Kathir regarding this. Unfortunately I don't have the link anymore. Ibn Kathir is a renowned Muslim scholar as you sure know, and as far as I know his explanations are held in great esteem by Muslims. His explanations are very clear to be honest, although I have to say I do not like his view on sura 9:5 where he says that this verse did not only apply for Muhammad's time in that particular situation of war, but is valid at any time, which if applied nowadays, would mean that any Muslim who meets a non-Muslim who does not want to convert to Islam should kill that person. But anyways, I'm deviating from the topic now.

Yes that is what I believe. Yes there are muslims that believe in abrogation of the Qur'an verses.

Beckyy25 said:
What I want to say is that most Muslims do accept the abrogation within the Qur'an. So what makes you not accept it? The fact that the Qur'an pretends to be a perfect revelation from Allah? What is your comment on these verses:

Do you think all these verses do refer to the Qur'an?
Do you think, because these verses do say the word of Allah can not be changed, therefore it can't be that some verses in the Qur'an were abrogated?

There are a few reasons I do not accept the idea of internal abrogation.

1. The lack of a verse clearly stating that internal abrogation should be accepted. There are some verses, as are being cited in this thread, which can be understood to mean internal abrogation. However the cited verses and some others found in the Qur'an do not just come right out and state the belief plainly. A plain statement would need to include a direct mention of the Qur'an, which could also be referred to indirectly as "This Book" or the likes thereof.

2. Holding the belief would require one to decide which verse is being abrogated and which is abrogating. Such a decision would likely be based on the history of order of revelation. Yet another detail that God has not told us is guarded from corruption.

3. Honestly the position feels like a cop-out to me. This is more of an emotional response, but none-the-less part of the reason I do not accept the belief.

Regarding the individual verses:

I do not believe 2:85 is only referring to the Qur'an. It is just a general statement against hypocrisy. Because if we refer back to a prior verse, 2:79, we again find a Scripture is being referenced only this time the Scripture is being forged.

Again I believe 6:34 has a broader meaning than simply referring to the Qur'an. The verse mentions previous messengers. The understanding I walk away with is that God's message has not changed since the beginning, since the first messenger. The only thing that is changing is what people are recording and attributing to God. The same goes for the remaining verses listed in the quote.

Beckyy25 said:
So you are saying that drinking alkohol is not a sin if done to a certain extent or as a medicine?

Give me an example from your own life if you don't mind. Did you ever drink alkohol? Or you're going for the recommended one and don't drink it at all?

Also you know, in my Qur'an I have a footnote for sura 2:219, which says:

The word "khamr" (wine) includes all intoxicants. The final prohibition is given in 5:90-91.

The footnote for the word 'avoid' in verse 90 says the following:

This prohibition understood from the word "avoid" is stronger than if Allah had merely said, "Abstain." The former requires distancing oneself from anything remotely related to these practices.

So for me this is a clear case of abrogation. The verses were all revealed at different times and the latter do abrogate the previous ones.

The very act of drinking alcohol itself is not directly being labeled as a sin as I understand it. Notice 5:90-91 labels it a tool of the devil. With the absence of the devil would the drink then still be bad? Such as would be the case in heaven for example.

I personally do not drink alcohol due to taking heed of the recommendation. Think about it like a warning label. You may take a medicine to relieve headaches but then you look on the label and it says "Warning: May cause spread of STDs, unplanned babies, violent behavior, loss of teeth, reckless behavior, vehicular damage, or death."

2:219 states there can be harm and benefit, but the harm is overpowering essentially. 5:90-91 is stating the same thing in different terms. Instead of mentioning benefit/harm the verse gets straight to the point, the harm is too great for the action to be justified.

If only verse 2:219 existed then some might be inclined to not take heed believing that God is suggesting to drink responsibly. But along with 5:90-91 it is fortified that drinking, even responsibly, is dangerous and harmful. So much so that it should be avoided altogether.

I believe this is a case of clarification rather then abrogation. One simple way to suggest a correct understanding is to repeat statements with differing wording, yet retaining the core idea.

peaceful soul · Jul 8, 2009

humblemuslim said:
Yes it has been quite awhile. Looking forward to contributing what I can.

Yes that is what I believe. Yes there are muslims that believe in abrogation of the Qur'an verses.

There are a few reasons I do not accept the idea of internal abrogation.

1. The lack of a verse clearly stating that internal abrogation should be accepted. There are some verses, as are being cited in this thread, which can be understood to mean internal abrogation. However the cited verses and some others found in the Qur'an do not just come right out and state the belief plainly. A plain statement would need to include a direct mention of the Qur'an, which could also be referred to indirectly as "This Book" or the likes thereof.

2. Holding the belief would require one to decide which verse is being abrogated and which is abrogating. Such a decision would likely be based on the history of order of revelation. Yet another detail that God has not told us is guarded from corruption.

3. Honestly the position feels like a cop-out to me. This is more of an emotional response, but none-the-less part of the reason I do not accept the belief.

Regarding the individual verses:

I do not believe 2:85 is only referring to the Qur'an. It is just a general statement against hypocrisy. Because if we refer back to a prior verse, 2:79, we again find a Scripture is being referenced only this time the Scripture is being forged.

Again I believe 6:34 has a broader meaning than simply referring to the Qur'an. The verse mentions previous messengers. The understanding I walk away with is that God's message has not changed since the beginning, since the first messenger. The only thing that is changing is what people are recording and attributing to God. The same goes for the remaining verses listed in the quote.

The very act of drinking alcohol itself is not directly being labeled as a sin as I understand it. Notice 5:90-91 labels it a tool of the devil. With the absence of the devil would the drink then still be bad? Such as would be the case in heaven for example.

I personally do not drink alcohol due to taking heed of the recommendation. Think about it like a warning label. You may take a medicine to relieve headaches but then you look on the label and it says "Warning: May cause spread of STDs, unplanned babies, violent behavior, loss of teeth, reckless behavior, vehicular damage, or death."

2:219 states there can be harm and benefit, but the harm is overpowering essentially. 5:90-91 is stating the same thing in different terms. Instead of mentioning benefit/harm the verse gets straight to the point, the harm is too great for the action to be justified.

If only verse 2:219 existed then some might be inclined to not take heed believing that God is suggesting to drink responsibly. But along with 5:90-91 it is fortified that drinking, even responsibly, is dangerous and harmful. So much so that it should be avoided altogether.

I believe this is a case of clarification rather then abrogation. One simple way to suggest a correct understanding is to repeat statements with differing wording, yet retaining the core idea.

I will not attempt to discuss everything here because I am not personally interested; but I do contest your idea of abrogation. If alcohol is allowed earlier, then a verdict saying that you can't drink it under any circumstances would change the earlier verdict. You can't have drinking and non drinking at the same time. The easiest way to see this is by looking at the time chronology in which these commands were given. Earlier ayats would be canceled by more recent ayats. That seems logical and reasonable to me. What are your thoughts? repeating something with changes is abrogation. Thou shalt drink with conditions is contradictory to thou shalt not drink at all. One has to be subjected to the other. They cannot both be true in the same context and time; otherwise, they become contradictions.

Beckyy25 · Jul 8, 2009

elwill said:
well , that's my point , you cant say there are contradiction while we can't compare between them

I did not say I believe that the two verses do differ mathematically, you said that. I do not believe that they do. I believe you can apply the same logic on both, as both have a common starting point, which is the 1 day. Just that the result differs, and that is what I want to find out. Why is that?

elwill said:
no , absolutely you are wrong use the word day while you in mars , and use it while you in the earth and use it while you on the moon . it will differ according the place you count from it .

But where in those verses do you find an indication which makes you believe that the 1 day is not the same in all verses?

elwill said:
you have to define the reference for your caculations to the length of this day and that's what i'm talking about , the reference in the first verse was the lunar orbit but in the second verse it gave us the time dilation as reference to our calculations

The reference for me is the starting point which is '1 day'. That is the point you can start from to compare the both verses, that is the common point in the two verses. That is the reason why you are able to compare those verses, because they have a common point.

But OK, let me quote again the question with the verses:

Beckyy25 said:
6) How long is Allah's day?

1,000 years

22:47 And they urge you to hasten the punishment. But Allah will never fail in His promise. And indeed, a day with your Lord is like a thousand years of those which you count.

1 day = 1,000 years

32:5 He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count.

1 day = 1,000 years = the time the angels need to ascend to Allah from earth to Heaven

50,000 years

70:4 The angels and the Spirit [i.e., Gabriel] will ascend to Him during a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years.

1 day = 50,000 years = the time the angels and the Spirit need to ascend to Allah from earth to Heaven

All these verses are talking about "a day". In the text there is no evidence that this day is different than any other of the days mentioned in the other verses. So we have to assume it is the same day in all verses.

Also in the last two verses we see that angels do ascend to Allah from earth to Heaven. They are doing the same thing in both verses. Therefore we have to assume that the distance from earth to Heaven is the same. Therefore the length of time of this one day should be the same for us humans. But according to the two verses it is not the same. We have a huge difference.

elwill said:
one of the verses are talking about angels

32-5 (Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count.

the verse is talking about the angels whom carry out these orders from heavens to the earth .
in the time of mohammed (pbuh) people measured the distances neither in kilometers nor in miles but rather by how much time they needed to walk.

For example, a village two days away meant a distance equivalent to walking for two days; ten days away meant a distance equivalent to walking for ten days... However in this verse the Quran specifies 1000 years of what they counted (not what they walked). Those people back then followed the lunar calendar and counted 12 lunar months each year. These months are related to the moon and not related to the sun. Hence in 1 day the angels will travel a distance of 1000 years of what they counted (the moon). Since this verse is referring to distance, then God is saying that angels travel in one day the same distance that the moon travels in 12000 lunar orbits.

Outside gravitational fields this speed turned out to be the known speed of light , which means that the speed of the angles equal the speed of the light
(mslems believe that angels are low density creatures, and that God created them originally from light )

yet , i didn't proof anything , be patient

there is another verse in the quran informes us different informations about traveling of angles from earth to heaven which say

70-4 The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years.

Here angels will experience 1 day while humans will measure it as 50,000 years (time vs. time and not time vs. distance as the previous lunar verse)

However, according to the theory of special relativity, given this time difference (time dilation), we can calculate the speed at which that object traveled.

We can verify if those angels really accelerate up to the speed of light, as claimed by Moslems, on the first verse

Where ∆to is the time measured for a mover by a mover;
∆t is the time measured for a mover by a stationary frame; v is the velocity of the mover relative to the stationary observer)
∆to is the time experienced by angels (1 day).
∆t is the time as measured by humans (50,000 lunar years x12 lunar months/lunar year x 27.321661 days/lunar month).
v is the velocity of angels in this case (which we intend to calculate and then compare to the known speed of light).
c is the known speed of light 2997924.48 km/s, the speed of light in vacuum

From the above equation we can solve for the unknown velocity:

So let’s insert the Moslem claims and see if their angels really accelerate up to the speed of light or not. Insert dates from this verse The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years into the formula

v = 299792.4579999994 km / s ( and this is the speed of light )

My knowledge in Physics and Maths is not the best to start discussing with you Einstein's theories and formulas. But since you told me that the relativity theory, specifically the time dilation has to be applied here, I did not believe that. I said to myself it really makes no sense to apply this theory here.
I've spent my days reading about that. I even asked my brother-in-law and my mom about it, but they also do not believe that it is necessary to apply this theory on the verses in question.

So, I did some research and I actually found the links where you have taken all this from. Next time you quote something from any links, please give the links as a reference, so that everyone can read the whole story and not only selected parts of it.

Here are the two links for anyone interested to read everything about this claim:

Speed of Angels
Speed of Light

But I also did some research to find an answer to this claim. And I found one made by an Austrian Mathematician Here is the link to his answer. I think this is a must read for anyone interested in such things! I read it all and I'm not interested in such things, yet I found it very interesting. So here is the link:

Prof. Dr. Arnold Neumaier

I would like to quote a little part of Dr. Arnold Neumaier's answer for those who are too lazy to read the whole paper:

Prof. Dr. Arnold Neumaier said:
The equation is completely unrelated to special relativity;
the equations mentioned follow from elementary geometry, and the
references in the text to relativity could be dropped without affecting
the logical chain of arguments. But that relativity is mentioned gives
the text of course a much more scientific feel, an important decoy if
one wants to lure our modern, science-credulous folks into accepting
something they would otherwise be suspicious of.

Beckyy25 · Jul 8, 2009

humblemuslim said:
I believe this is a case of clarification rather then abrogation. One simple way to suggest a correct understanding is to repeat statements with differing wording, yet retaining the core idea.

peaceful soul said:
I will not attempt to discuss everything here because I am not personally interested; but I do contest your idea of abrogation. If alcohol is allowed earlier, then a verdict saying that you can't drink it under any circumstances would change the earlier verdict. You can't have drinking and non drinking at the same time. The easiest way to see this is by looking at the time chronology in which these commands were given. Earlier ayats would be canceled by more recent ayats. That seems logical and reasonable to me. What are your thoughts? repeating something with changes is abrogation. Thou shalt drink with conditions is contradictory to thou shalt not drink at all. One has to be subjected to the other. They cannot both be true in the same context and time; otherwise, they become contradictions.

peaceful soul gave you a good answer. To call it a clarification is not enough, as you can't do both things at the same time, e.g. to drink and not to drink alkohol. Therefore abrogation is the only answer that does make sense. If it was not so, then we would have many contradictions within the Qur'an... and how could this be as the Qur'an claims to be a perfect revelation from Allah?

elwill · Jul 8, 2009

Beckyy25 said:
I did not say I believe that the two verses do differ mathematically, you said that. I do not believe that they do. I believe you can apply the same logic on both, as both have a common starting point, which is the 1 day. Just that the result differs, and that is what I want to find out. Why is that?

But where in those verses do you find an indication which makes you believe that the 1 day is not the same in all verses?

The reference for me is the starting point which is '1 day'. That is the point you can start from to compare the both verses, that is the common point in the two verses. That is the reason why you are able to compare those verses, because they have a common point.

But OK, let me quote again the question with the verses:

All these verses are talking about "a day". In the text there is no evidence that this day is different than any other of the days mentioned in the other verses. So we have to assume it is the same day in all verses.

My knowledge in Physics and Maths is not the best to start discussing with you Einstein's theories and formulas. But since you told me that the relativity theory, specifically the time dilation has to be applied here, I did not believe that. I said to myself it really makes no sense to apply this theory here.
I've spent my days reading about that. I even asked my brother-in-law and my mom about it, but they also do not believe that it is necessary to apply this theory on the verses in question.

So, I did some research and I actually found the links where you have taken all this from. Next time you quote something from any links, please give the links as a reference, so that everyone can read the whole story and not only selected parts of it.

Here are the two links for anyone interested to read everything about this claim:

Speed of Angels
Speed of Light

But I also did some research to find an answer to this claim. And I found one made by an Austrian Mathematician Here is the link to his answer. I think this is a must read for anyone interested in such things! I read it all and I'm not interested in such things, yet I found it very interesting. So here is the link:

Prof. Dr. Arnold Neumaier

I would like to quote a little part of Dr. Arnold Neumaier's answer for those who are too lazy to read the whole paper:

Click to expand...

okey , this is what i believe , no problem if you can't refute me and no problem if you don't want to believe it and feel wellcome if you wnat discuss it with me

by the way . can you ask your prof. to backup his view with little conviction material , ask him to show us what is wrong in our equation specifically
because merely openion dosn't help actually

Beckyy25 · Jul 8, 2009

elwill said:
okey , this is what i believe , no problem if you can't refute me and no problem if you don't want to believe it and feel wellcome if you wnat discuss it with me

Actually with all that I said I did refute it. I told you so many times that the time dilation theory is not necessary, even before I found the paper written by Dr. Arnold Neumaier. His paper is only a confirmation to what I have already told you. First I thought my knowledge in this area is too little to be able to understand the issue, but I see that I was right.

elwill said:
by the way . can you ask your prof. to backup his view with little conviction material , ask him to show us what is wrong in our equation specifically
because merely openion dosn't help actually

Have you read the paper? If not then let me quote for you a part of it. I will highlight for you the things (only the most important ones, otherwise the whole paper would be red) which he says are wrong. And you should be fair to accept that he does not present his opinions here, but specifically tells what is wrong:

Prof. Dr. Arnold Neumaier said:
4. Identification of the "affair":
---------------------------------

This is justified in the document by observing that the above
interpretation reduces to the equation

[speed of light]*[sidereal terrestrial day] =
[ONE THOUSAND LUNAR YEARS]*[months/year]*[moon orbit length],

in short, C * t = 1000 * 12 * L.

To prove the equation, the document quotes the following figures and
relations, which allow one to check the equation by an easy calculation.

C = 299792.458 km/s
(speed of light)
t = 23 hr, 56 min, 4.0906 sec = 86164.0906sec
(one sidereal terrestrial day)
T = 655.71986 hr = 27.321661 days
(one siderial lunar month)
Y = 1 year = 365.25636 days
(one revolution of earth around sun)
R = 384264 km
(average radius of lunar geocentric orbit)
V = 2 pi R/T = 3682.07 km/hr
(average orbital velocity of the moon)
alpha = T/Y*360 degrees = 26,92848 degrees
(angle travelled by the earth moon system around the sun
during one sidereal month)
L = V cos(alpha) T
(mean length of moon's orbit around the earth)

The problem here is with the definition of L, which, according to the
above, should be a precise definition of the >>maximum distance in
space equivalent to that which the moon passes during<< one lunar
month. Obviously, this distance depends on the reference frame used to
observe the moon. The author quotes the Quran,

"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" (21:33).

The straightforward interpretation is that the right point of reference
should be the center of mass of the earth, since the sun is describes
as travelling in an orbit (around the earth, as was tradition at that
time). However, the authors interpretation of this is, surprisingly,

>>Here an essential scientific fact is clearly stated, namely, the
existence of the earth's, sun's and moon's orbits<<

The earth is not at all mentioned here. But (in dubio pro reo) let us
again assume that the author's interpretation is adequate.

Then the orbit of the sun would have to be the relative motion of the
sun with respect to the center of the galaxy. However, this is
completely ignored in the calculation. Instead, the center of mass of
the sun is taken as the intended reference frame: >>the earth, and
consequently the moon's orbit, have travelled some way around the
sun...<<

However, instead of specifying clearly the reference frame used
and then calculating a proper arclength along the moon's path in this
frame, the author gives apparently deep physical arguments...

>>This validity condition of the second postulate of special
relativity is considered in the present work because the constancy of
the velocity C needs absolute space (vacuum). To attain vacuum in the
Einstein's sense of this word. it is not sufficient just to eleminate
from a volume of space every atom, molecule and particle, it is
necessary also to get rid of the gravitational field. Therefore we
have screened out the effect of the solar gravitational field on the
geocentric orbital motion of the moon<<

(This is pure nonsense. To the accuracy c is determined by the claimed
calculation, the gravitational field of the sun doesn't affect the
speed of light in free space; it only causes a tiny deflection very
close to the sun. If one eliminates the effect of the solar
gravitational field, there is no revolution around the sun and the
measure of years becomes inappropriate. On the other hand, would the
the author take his argument seriously, he'd also need to screen out
the terrestrial gravitational field; but if one eliminates a l l
gravitational fields there is no orbital motion!)

... that should justify the averaging method that leads to the above
formulas:

>>L is the inertial distance which the moon covers in co-revolution
around the earth during one sidereal month, i.e., L is the net length
of the moon's orbit due to its own geocentric motion, without the
interference of its spiral motion caused by the earth's revolution
around the sun, i.e., L is the lunar orbit length excluding the effect
of the solar gravitational field on the measured value.<<

Thus the definition of $L$ used has an intrinsic ambiguity completely
uncharacteristic of >>GOD (in Arabic ALLAH: the ONE and Only GOD,
the CREATOR)<< who must have loved invariance principles because they
rule the physics on earth and in the heavens.

It is already very difficult at this stage to keep faith in the
truth of the whole story. But (in dubio pro reo) let us assume that
the definitions given are adequate, and correspond to the intentions
of the writer of the Quran.

5. The consequences drawn are not conclusive:
--------------------------------------------

>>This astonishing result emphasises the unity of the physical world,
the validity of the special theory of relativity and the authenticity
of the Glorious Quran for unbelievers.<<

This conclusion, while it may reflect the authors feelings, is not
based on the new interpretations exposed in the document.
The unity of the physical world does not show in numerical
coincidences between otherwise unrelated quantities, but instead
in a coherent interrelation of laws and facts that add insight into
the working of the universe. What is the use of knowing
C * t = 1000 * 12 * L ? Even if accepted as true, it is an isolated
fact, not helping in understanding the universe.

Furthermore, there is nothing relativistic about the
>>new relativistic interpretation of this Quranic relation<<.
The equation is completely unrelated to special relativity;
the equations mentioned follow from elementary geometry, and the
references in the text to relativity could be dropped without affecting
the logical chain of arguments. But that relativity is mentioned gives
the text of course a much more scientific feel, an important decoy if
one wants to lure our modern, science-credulous folks into accepting
something they would otherwise be suspicious of.

Also, the authenticity of an whole book cannot rest on the correctness
of isolated and hidden facts that are open to interpretation. One part
of a book can contain facts and another part be erroneous. Even the best
modern physics books, and especially those for laymen, contain together
with lots of truths a good number of inaccuracies or even outright
falsehoods. And anyone can quote a truth to embellish his work.

The fact that the relation (if true and intended) could not be
the work of human beings with the limited knowledge of their time
might be counted as sign of a signature of a trancendental power.
But even then it remains dubious whose signature it is; it could
be the signature of an irritating or even deceiving spirit, and cannot
be uncritically attributed to the CREATOR.

>>This new law deduced in the present work is important so far as it
confirms the law of conservation of momentum in the Earth-Moon
system. Moreover it implies the influence of the tidal effect and the
gravitational change factor on the this system.<<

The paper contains no new law, only an equation that does not allow
anything to be predicted from it except this equation itself. Nothing
at all in the arguments involved in the derivation of the equation is
related to either conservation of momentum or tides or gravitational
changes; therefore it cannot confirm or imply these things in any
significant sense of the words. But again, mentioning it impresses
many people by its scientific appearance.

>>According to Dirac's cosmology, the universal gravitational constant
G must be variable in time!<<
Stated here as a fact, this is a speculative minority view in physics,
and there is no theory of gravitation that embeds Dirac's speculations
into a common framework with the part of general relativity confirmed
by experiment. The equations quoted after this statement are true but
lead nowhere except to a wish that >>Correlating the last three
equations, further studies in Cosmology may be prompted and
facilitated<<, but they serve the goal of making the arguments more
seductive to laymen and casual readers.

>>This work proves the universality and constancy of the fundamental
constant C as the Greatest Cosmic Speed and reveals the Glorious Quran
as a Holy Book worth studying with meticulous analysis since its author is the CREATOR of the Universe.<<

Universality is proved by many physical experiments and functioning
clocks and other devices, not by some speculations as those in this
paper. Constancy is a matter of definition, after having accepted the
framework of relativity; there is nothing to prove. And, indeed,
the present paper proves nothing in these respects.

Contradictions within the Qur'an

Senior Member

Christian

Kafir

Christian

Kafir

Member

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Christian

Christian

Kafir

Christian

Christian

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.

Senior Veteran

Christian

Christian

Senior Member

Christian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency