Qur'an on 'Geocentricity' and a 'Flat Earth'

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by SaadSohail, Feb 15, 2019.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AbdulMalik027

    AbdulMalik027 New Member

  2. Mohd Farhan Ali

    Mohd Farhan Ali New Member

    Umar sir did you there is a professor and teacher of geocentrism name is Robert sungenis he even made a movie debunking the nasa lies that earth revolve the sun the move name is the principle 2014) but Umar sir I just understand that earth is startionary and it is the truth but I just confusion about whether the scholars only give the startionary earth or flat earth also because this is not possible.
  3. Umar99

    Umar99 Veteran


    technically, there is nothing "unscientific" about considering the sun to orbit the earth. as has been mentioned in a few posts previously, the frame of reference is what matters according to the theory of general relativity. it allows us to hold on to our scholarly tradition whilst not contradicting modern scientific theory.
  4. Mohd Farhan Ali

    Mohd Farhan Ali New Member

    Why not you also specify please.
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    our forum is about 17 years old. there are posts about this topic. you can use the search feature.

    if someone suddenly pops up on our forum and begins shooting these questions, and in this abrupt manner - thus will be our response.
    our response would not be the same for members who have been here for a while and are genuinely concerned or confused.

    because you are asking questions in a rude manner. we don't know whether you are a genuine student or a troll or a spy (take heart; even i am accused of being a spy..) - so we answer in a similar manner.

    imagine you were sitting in a library reading a book. someone joined on your table and began shooting questions about your aqidah, your family, etc etc. it is natural to get irritated. my first response would be: "who are you? and why are you asking these questions?"

    the brother has already answered it.
    Umar99 likes this.
  6. Mohd Farhan Ali

    Mohd Farhan Ali New Member

    Sir I am a Science student why are answering such rude what happened I just ask I believe in ala hazrat stand poin of STATIONARY earth I know these atheist scientists hide the geocentric UNIVERSE because it proves allah swt
    And i believe that the earth is stationary and sun revolving according to Qur'an and hadees provided by ala hazrat in nuzule ayate furkaan
    Never pre judge anyone ok I know gravitation pricipilea I AM JUST ASKING ABOUT AL HAZRAT VIEW ON SHAPE OF EARTH PLEASE ANSWER THIS ONLY THANKS.
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    if you are not a science graduate (or have knowledge of undergrad level physics/math), there is no way you can understand any argument related to planetary motion.

    if you can blindly follow and quote present day scientists and science literature, and blindly repeat the false charges against islam, what stops you from blindly accepting the statements of ulama?

    people who are incapable of writing a legible english passage should spend their time improving it - as it is a more useful skill which will improve their standing (or increase their chances) in a worldly career, instead of arguing about a subject which they have no clue, nor trained in it or have the aptitude to appreciate a nuanced argument in that science.

    give me empirical and directly observed proof that the earth is not stationary and is orbiting the sun. if you do not understand what this means, you should not try to punch above your weight.

    you can read alahazrat's books and start with fauz e mubin. read the book in its original urdu and if you are unable to understand it, the answer to this question is greek and latin to you.

    can be found in alahazrat's books. start with fauz e mubin. i won't link it here either. find the original, read it and come back with questions. if you cannot, then do something which is within your ability.

    give me empirical proof that it is not static. no proof by induction. just directly observable, empirical proof. thank you.

    i will answer you but only if you have fulfilled the following conditions:

    1. translation of kanz from al-hamd to wa'n nas.

    2. tafsir upon kanz: khazayin al-irfan and nur al-irfan

    3. anwaru'l qur'an

    4. anwaru'l hadith

    5. any commentary of nuz'hatu'n nazar of ibn Hajar; nuz'hatu'n nazar itself with sh.nuruddin itr's annotations.

    6. tadrib al-rawi

    because anyone who has not read the above shouldn't be demanding proof from qur'an and hadith, without having the ability to comprehend them.

    Umar99 and Abdullah Ahmed like this.
  8. Mohd Farhan Ali

    Mohd Farhan Ali New Member

    1) you are saying that if ala hazrat was present today he will say that the earth is rotating and not stationary ???????? CLEARFY PLEASE
    2) what is our ala hazrat r a model of universe FLAT EARTH & STATIONARY....OR..... SPHERICAL EARTH & STATIONARY..
  9. Mohd Farhan Ali

    Mohd Farhan Ali New Member

    1) Sir what is our ala hazrat R.a view on this because he PROOFED that the earth is STATIONARY and.. what is currently said by ulema and Alim of Sunni jamat about flat or spherical earth.we know they all said earth is STATIC.

    2) Did our scholers are on belief of Flat & stationary earth.By hadees & Qur'an & by ala hazrat R a

    3) it is not About SCHOLAR it's about facts by Qur'an sarif and HADEES sarif and what did our current scholar say on this matter according to that please reply brother I want to know.❤️
  10. Khanah

    Khanah Well-Known Member

    You need to learn a couple of things bro:

    1. Some verses can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, there are verses which are interpreted by some scholars as meaning the earth is flat whilst other scholars reject this interpretation and believe the earth is spherical.

    2. You don't need to hold onto a particular scholar's interpretation as they could be wrong. These interpretations are not from the necessities of the religion and can be acceptably differed upon by the ulema.

    3. If modern science says x and a classical scholar A agrees and classical scholar B disagrees- you can take the position of classical scholar A. Indeed, if classical scholar B was alive today, would they still hold the same position?

    4. You need to stop speaking to Islamophobes or stay off social media if you're easily confused.
  11. Mohd Farhan Ali

    Mohd Farhan Ali New Member

    AllahuAkbar some people make allegations that he think hai earth is stationary and Flat. So here Is a new model of solar system where earth is SPERICAL but STATIONARY according to ala hazrat.But What does the QURAN AND HADEES SAY ABOUT FLAT EARTH Because some ayat say about earth being BED, SPRED OUT LIKE CARPET,SPREAD OUT LIKE FLOOR AND MAKE IT SMOOTH AND FLAT. sir please explain this to me what does this mean and what early scholers say about this topic and TAFASIR LIKE JALAYAN say earth is flat what about that and there is one hadith also :-- https://sunnah.com/muslim:2889a
    Please explain this hadith because it indicates earth is FLAT. AND PLEASE TELL THAT ALA HAZRAT SAY THAT EARTH IS SPRICAL BY HADEES AND QURAN AND BY SCIENCE FAUZE MUBEEN DAR RADDE HARKAT ZAMEEN......and there are more HADITH like sun goes beneath throne when it sets at night and prostate how sun at sunset go and prostate because sun is setting only for Us but apposite side it is RISING for some people..... another HadithIt is said when DAJJAAL COME it's Frist day is like ONE YEAR HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE IF THE FRIST DAY OF DAJJAL IS ONE YEAR THEN ACCORDING TO SPERICAL EARTH OTHER SIDE IS COMPLETE NIGHT FOR ONE YEAR HOW THIS IS POSSIBLE IN SPERICAL EARTH...........third HADITH:-- before coming of the qyamat the biggest sign is THE SUN RISING FROM WEST is you see the hadith of this you find that sun rise from West and comes at noon time and then again go back and set and then from next day it will rise normal how this can be happening both sides of SPERICAL EATH........now one ayat of Quran Surah yaseen Ayat 40 (36:40) how can sun overtake but it is far away from the moon how can or cannot sun overtake the moon please brother explain what is mean by the " it is not for the sun to overtake take the moon" bro we know it is not close even in size or distance.....in One more ayat it say that Moon follow the sun (91:2) Qur'an is it mean SUN AND MOON ON SAME ORBIT..... PLEASE SIR REPLY DETAIL I AM VERY SAD ABOUT THESE ESSUE AND NO ONE HERE TO SOLVE THIS PLEASE HELP❤️
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2022
  12. Umar99

    Umar99 Veteran

    Yes alahazrat says the earth is spherical round.
    Mohd Farhan Ali likes this.
  13. Mohd Farhan Ali

    Mohd Farhan Ali New Member

    Umar sir is ala hazrat really say the earth is SPERICAL round or not please clearfy
  14. Juwayni

    Juwayni Veteran

    Before going into models for the rotation of planets around an axis/around the sun/around the galactic core/through the supercluster, do we even agree with some of the fundamental aspects of the theory being used to underpin these models?

    Namely, do we even agree that "space" is a "thing" that can be "warped" rather than just being pure void?
  15. Mohd Farhan Ali

    Mohd Farhan Ali New Member

    Does ala hazrat say there is no gravity and if what is the correct proof and is he think the earth is flat.
  16. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Well-Known Member

    The meaning you have taken that the earth orbits the sun and that Allah Taala only restrains it to the extent that it does not move out of its orbit, can this be shown from any Sahabi, Tabi, Imam, Tafsir, or any Islamic book where this is mentioned?

    Aoa brother, sorry for bumping a year old thread. What about this?
    Imam Alusi (d. 1317/1854)
    "And the philosopher of this age used to claim that the sun does not move at all and (they used to claim) that the moon moved in orbit around the earth. And the earth around the sun. And we have heard that they changed their opinion. So they claimed that the sun moves (according to) another planet. And this indicates that they don't have a proof for their first claim - as the one who used to support them said. And the apparent is that their condition today and even tomorrow is the same as their condition from yesterday. And we follow the apparent meanings (of the verses, I guess) until there is an absolute proof for the opposite and then we will lean for ta'wiil and it's door is wide"[Ruh al-Ma`ani]

    (a) despite holding a contrary position, Imam Alusi acknowledges that if the evidence of those who state the sun is stationary is established, then that is the position that will be adopted. (b) that the primary texts themselves allow for a sufficient scope of interpretation that would allow for such a position.
  17. Umar99

    Umar99 Veteran

    Fauz e Mubeen by AlaHazrat RadiAllahu Anhu

    Attached Files:

  18. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    Something similar here.

    However, this frame of reference, called heliocentrism, still is not the best frame for everything. Astronomers who study other galaxies use a galactic coordinate system based on our Milky Way galaxy, and the Sun is just another star inside it. Call it galactocentrism, if you want, and it’s just as useful as geo- or heliocentrism in its limited way. And none of those systems work if I want to know turn-by-turn directions while driving; in that case I use a carcentric system (specifically a Volvocentric one).

    You use coordinate systems depending on what you need.

    So really, there is no one true center to anything. I suppose you could say the Universe is polycentric, or more realistically acentric. You picks your frame of reference and you takes your chances.


    towards the end he says that if one uses geocentrism as the frame of reference (for everything) then a lot of phenomena become unnecessarily complex. The math just becomes undoable or scales and the cause-effect chain becomes implausibly huge.

    However, this is no argument at all - especially for people who believe in a millions of years long "evolution" with jump-starts and tiny pushes every now and the - for no good reason at all - miraculous is the right word. Claims of over-complexity or implausibility from such quarters are very very rich indeed.
  19. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator


    I think this entire issue is a bit problematic from a logical standpoint. To determine what is moving and what is stationary is a relative issue. If you have two objects which are changing in position relative to each other, then you cannot tell if both or one of them are moving without a 3rd reference point. Then you have to decide which one is stationary, and only after that will you be able to say which of the two is moving. However, deciding the reference point, and determining it as being stationary is arbitrary, or dependent on another arbitrary reference point. The only way to decide what is moving and what is not then, is by reference to a 3rd reference point, arbitrarily determined as being “stationary.” In other words, when you say that the sun is moving, and not the Earth, what is the reference point, and how do you determine it without arbitrary choice? Now, clearly modern scientists make these conclusions based on what is known about physics, and their belief that the was a big bang somewhere in the middle of cosmos perhaps (which is, like Darwinism, only a theory). Basically, as I understand it, they consider larger objects as more stationary than smaller objects that move in relation to them. This is not completely arbitrary, but it is also not something we can say is the unequivocal truth, and known with certainty. Alternatively, if the objects at the outer surface of creation has no changing position relative to one another, then we can consider everything inside in relation to it. This is because the movement of creation as a whole is impossible, because it has no relative position to something else outside of it. So in this sense, the creation as a whole is not moving, relative to something else. However, this outer surface is not observable to us. For this reason, I see not reason for why both cannot be correct at the same time, as they are based on different assumptions of what is to be considered relatively stationary. It has an element of comparing apples with oranges in it in other words, so there is no need to exaggerate and make this issue very big.

    also see the follow-up comments.

    This thing was always at the back of mind - that how can we say with certainty that the Earth is moving -without having a third - "neutral" so to speak - reference point to validate that view. I see that shaykh. abu adam agrees.

    As I see it, the fact that many ulama have written about and defended the view of a stationary Earth - I would say that it is always safer to hold the opinion - that according to a third and absolute reference point - which is not accessible to humans as of now - the Earth is stationary and the celestial objects moving.

    P.S: I feel that this Darwinism article has been updated since I read it a few years back. There's things I don't remember reading. Which means shaykh abu adam is still updating the blog. Can anyone confirm?

    P.P.S: As for my personal opinion, if someone proved with absolute certainty (yes, we are going hypothetical here) that Alahazrat had held a view - which goes against the evidence of my senses - I would deny my senses and affirm Alahazrat's opinion.
    Umar99 and Aqdas like this.
  20. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

Share This Page