the flat - not round earth

Discussion in 'Tafsir' started by abu Hasan, May 9, 2008.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i do not agree with brothers who scorn kN; and i am sorry that such talent is put to waste. he seems fine but i think his predilections are because of poor reasoning. also, some of his sarcastic comments were taken at face value and thereafter he simply lost control of both threads.

    he is still welcome, though.
    Last edited: May 9, 2008
    Bazdawi likes this.
  2. SA01

    SA01 Veteran

    I think he was just here in an attempt to bamboozle us with his twisted and warped logic through the use of so-called literary jargon that even he couldn't make sense of!

    Little did he know that ALL people aren't stupid!

    Good Riddance!

    CHISHTI Well-Known Member

    He came here to raise doubts in our mind about the veracity of the Holy Qur'aan, the Sahaaba, orthodox Muslim Ulema, to make intoxicants halal and propagate modern scientific arguements over and above scripture. I think he's been reading too much sir sayyid ahmad khan or maybe muhammad ali lahoris "tafseer" of Qur'aan. Forget the earth....the only thing which was flat was his reasoning!!

    ....and as for..."and not growing here"....well growth is an anatomical impossibiltiy for a dwarf!!
  4. Hilarious!

    Was this guy for real?
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    yeah, it rained here a couple of days ago. and yes, they are fine. and they send you regards. no, the car is still in the garage.
  6. right, so their faith was stronger. of a different and purer strength. come let me reason: the stronger the faith the less needful glasses are - not withstanding bad eyesight, which is common in their day as well as our day.

    it's better to suffer with stronger faith than to cop out to a weaker faith thru someone expending time to manufacture glasses.

    so glasses, fridges, watches - I understand the sahaba used to measure time by the amount of ayah one reads- sellotape, cellphones, this forum, ballpoint pens, paper are products of a weaker faith.

    if ony we had more faith we could go without paper!
    If only we had more faith we could go without blood transfusions
    if only we had more faith we could go without hearing aids and glasses!

    I believ glasses, heaing aids are important as is mathematics and anatomy and biology.


    Yet I can see people are riled and upset. and I'm stultified and disconsolate..and not growing here.

    but bear the parthing shot, I feel it's best if I withdraw from this forum. no swet. I leav u all in peace. and I wish u leav me in peace.

    salamallah alaykum.

    admin: please delete my membership forthwith.
  7. faqeerkhan

    faqeerkhan Guest

    mod: don't waste your and OUR time. peace.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2008
  8. sid kunh,
    i am totally confused by your posts above. can you succintly and clearly write what POINT you are trying to make? Also can you please tell us unambiguously
    what you consider yourself: are you Sunni? Hanafi? Maturidi? Ashari or are you Mutazili?
    And what is your personal view of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan and Imam Abu Hanifa :ra:? What do yoiu think of Wahabis? What is your view on following a madhhab?
    Last edited: May 8, 2008
  9. SA01

    SA01 Veteran

    One cannot possibly reason with the unreasonable. Complete waste of time. Wonder what he will pick next!
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    as usual, your contempt for 'reason' is obvious in the way you - ironically - reason.

    as usual, you have glossed over half a dozen argument and pick at something which you imagine as pickable. i am beginning to see the futility of arguing with a person like you - very very salafi like - who chooses an argument and picks whatever that suits it and suddenly develops figurative glaucoma. that is glaucoma of the heart.

    not that their sights were imperfect, but they were in a different age. it is amazing that a person living in a developed country is pitifully ignorant of the society itself. the challenges we face are certainly not the same the elders did. but more importantly, their faith was stronger than ours.

    may i remind you a hadith that says addressing the companions: 'you are in a time when you shall perish if you omit 1/10th of what you are commanded; and there shall come a time when [a muslim] shall attain salvation if he fulfils 1/10th of it.'

    haven't you heard of the hadith of the companion who lost his vision and he was indifferent to it and did not pray for his vision back - not because it was not commanded in the qur'an - but because he said: 'what use is vision when i cannot set my eyes on my beloved Mustafa sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam anymore?'

    not that people were not handicapped, but their needs were not as many as ours. are you saying that our salaf did not give a damn if a handicapped person lay around struggling? surely, they would come up with devices like crutches or prostetic devices...and yeah, having a gold tooth was permitted by our Hanafi ulama, including a gold nose for one who lost his nose.

    how is that different from a wheelchair which is far more useful? the point is that they were preoccupied with things that were important and did not spend time 'inventing' things; but if you gave them the resources and they could build on the previous knowledge, they would come up with inventions - and who knows, they might have already.

    since we never patented things, we never got to lay our claims to fame.

    if people got tired of living in an oppressive country, they simply moved to a conducive one; but is that possible today? there are dozens of procedures and impediments - and the crowning glory is that you cannot get asylum in any islamic country! our salaf were heedful of their duty to fellow beings and today it is every man/woman for themselves. even parents despair of any service from their own progeny. the salaf did not live in apartments - and they did not need lifts. but for us middle-class folk, the only affordable place is an apartment. there were dozens of things a man could do to earn daily bread; and they were spared many ailments of today because of the times - no pollution, no artificial lighting, no cramped spaces, no monopoly of resources...

    your argument is getting sillier and sillier. if you ask me - i am a quasi-luddite by the way - i would tell you, no. we don't need submarines. we don't need no missiles. we don't need no nukes. [frankly, muslims should say no to nukes even as a deterrent.] surely, we don't even need to spend ostentatious mosques in a vulgar display of wealth. [SEE THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION/PPS BELOW; 3.1MB]

    but why are we arguing about that here? what has that got to do with revelation?

    anyway, i think i am wasting my time with someone who is so proud to be unreasonable...
    Last edited: May 8, 2008
  11. thank you abu hasan..

    when I was in jordan I popt round to Mr Albaani and tried to ask him the same question: does the qur'an encourage people to invent bicycles or spectacles or a wheel chair [you remark there was no need. i.e. all their sights were perfect and all was fully able, no handicapt muslims are those with disabilities that warranted the invention of a wheel chair].

    He, like yourself started on about permissibility but this is not my question at all. mine's about 'production'. bicycles, hoovers, helicopters, laptops, guns, watches do not descend from heaven like manna. they are produced thru human experiment effort, diligence, invention that there is merit in science, in expending the powers of developing velcro, trains, telephones and television sets..

    are glasses trivial to you? I wear hearing aids because I'v some congenital hearing loss. are hearing aids, cochlear implants trivial to you yaa abaa hasan? is this something that is of 'no concern' to the awliyaa the true great muslim savants who heed and and put into practice islam? alas!

    was there a need for 'electricity' a need for public transport, doctors? mathematician? a 'need' to tell the time, was there a 'need' for faster, better communication e.g. between Ali and Mu'awiya?

    does the qur'an encourage people to such experiment, discover chemicals, invent electricity? does it view such knowledge as worthy of inculcation, to build boldly build what no-one has built before or to improve it. NuH made a ship/ark. Great. did anyone realise the potential for transport? does revelation say encourage submarines....

    again I am struck by the irony that the renowned scientists are not good muslims at all and the good muslims were not scientists at all yet today people erroneously think that the golden age of islam was the blossoming of science and those glossy pictures of astrlobles and and dissecting anatomists..nothing to do with the quran and sunnah whatsoever.
    when abdussalam won the nobel prize - again a heretic- just look at those waxed lyirical about the (non existent) scientists like phenomenal Ali b HuSayn ibn Siina whom ghazzali calls a kafir..yet some people have the gall to claim him as a legitimate son.

    I iterate: there is no causal relation between islam and science. period.

    suyUti: were all the firsts by Muslims?
    what about sporting events? does islam encourage competitive sport? did it legitimate/islamise the olympics

    does suyuTi list any firsts by non-Muslims? I realised a few years ago that the firsts who publicly celebrated al-Mawliid were the Fatimids of Egypt..but suyUti disregards their first because he doesn't consider their rule as legitimate. His book needs an updated version: the first to invent the telephone..the toothpaste (which btw displaces thoroughly displaces the sunnah of the siwaak -and such an invention would be condemned.

    again you express contempt for 'worldly glamour and glory'. now we seem to jump to 'motive'. are you condemning hearing aids just because the inventor might've wanted fame, that's why he went about inventing it? Please I plead with you in all abject humility get me the hearing aid invented by Ala Hazrat or his disciples or the awliyaa and let me wear that! what do i care about motive but give me its fruit.
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    you are mixing up things.

    did great muslims - worthy of emulation - ever spend their time inventing things?
    no, they probably did not.

    but would they invent a bicycle?
    certainly they would, if they saw a use and the idea occurred to them.

    would the salaf do anything unislamic?
    in all probability no and as a group, no; [though individual fallibility shouldn't be considered in our argument]

    where does the qur'an ask you to invent a bicycle?
    it doesn't but the principle is that of 'permissibility'. that is, if anything is not forbidden, nor can be forbidden by analogy - then it is permissible.

    then, why did the salaf not do it and what makes you think so?
    because the salaf took the Hadith: 'the beauty of a muslim's faith is that he does not indulge in things that concern him not.' that is, maa laa ya'aanih. our elders deem'd anything that is not of benefit in this world [permissible] and/or the hereafter to be a waste of time.

    imam ghazali frowned upon the grammarian* who is obsessed with correct grammar and spends time perfecting it. or the zoologist who wastes his time studying species. instead, the salaf said, make dhikr and withdraw from the world; make your hereafter rich and spend time in fixing it. take as much from this world as you need.

    even learning grammar is not the way of the salaf: take imam al-ayni for example, who in the discussion of beverages [kitab al-ashribah] says: 'the prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam was sent to teach religion [commandments] not linguistic finesse.'** yet imam suyuTi claims that arabic grammar was 'invented' by sayyiduna `ali ibn abi Talib. [al wasayil, entry no.767]

    but that does not mean they believed that inventing beneficial things was unislamic unless found in the qur'an and sunnah.

    for example, take the armour. it is said in the hadith, that the prophet Dawud `ala nabiyyina wa `alayhi's salam was the first to 'invent' armor. well, why did he do that? because there was a need for it.

    in ash-shifa, we find a hadith where the companions experimented a pollinating method and the prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam was not exactly happy with it, though he did not disapprove it. when the companions insisted that it was useful, our master sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam said: 'you know your worldly matters best.' so, it is tacit approval of experimenting ways to do things better.

    a bicycle is mentioned in the qur'an - included in an oblique reference to 'vehicles that will be created.' check out surah an-NaHl.

    going further, should we find an explanation in the qur'an and sunnah for every trivial invention or discovery?
    no. probably not.

    should we justify the qur'an and sunnah by quoting philosophers and their philosophies?
    certainly not. we believe that the qur'an and sunnah are themselves documents for the verity of other things.

    should we abandon the qur'an and reinterpret it to fit theories and scientific 'discoveries'?

    NOT abandon the qur'an; but reconcile in a reasonable manner, not bend over backwards to justify contemporary findings and practices. if the theory/discovery does not contradict ANY stated principle or statement of belief, there is no harm in considering it. and if empirical proof is compelling, then we reinterpret those verses which are NOT a core belief and APPEAR to oppose the empirical.

    because, the qur'an has majaz - figurative descriptions - and we shall interpret this in such a manner. that is what imam al-ghazali said - and if you did not know, imam ghazali was admired by not only suyuTi and hadith masters like abu shamah, nawawi, subki and ibn Hajar who were far greater than suyuTi and by his own admission. riDwanullahi `alayhim ajma'yin.

    [i had written a short essay on the vindication of imam al-ghazali and the slip of imam ibn Hajar when he criticized al-ghazali for accepting the phenomenon of eclipse as described by the physicists. i will digg it out sometime later, inshaAllah.]

    in the book al-wasayil fi musamarah al-awayil by as-suyuTi, he lists 'the firsts..' consider the following:
    entry no.277: the first person to make a ship was sayyiduna nuH `alayhi's salam as reported by ibn `abbas through ibn abi shaybah.

    entry no.455: the first person to weave clothes was sayyiduna idris `alayhi's salatu wa's salam, and people used to wear skins prior to that.

    did not the Creator ask sayyiduna nuH alayhi's salatu wa's salam to make a ship? so how is it different from another 'vehicle' as long as it is meant to be useful in our daily chores?

    should we herald and gloat over ibn sina and razi?
    certainly not. we don't have to compete with other nations for this worldy glamour and glory.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.

    * like some people nowadays who unreasonably expect everybody to speak correct arabic and seem to look down upon those who don't.

    ** people argued on the proper description of at-Tilaa'a and imam ayni made that comment.
    Last edited: May 7, 2008
  13. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    In this age you have people who use the names of Imams of our Deen as Shaykh 'Abd ar-RaHman ash-Shaghouri :ra: called them, without respect

    yes, call them suyuTi (your brother). Wait a minute, the sahaba are your brothers too! which sahaba? oh the one, you know, Mu'awiya, Abu dharr, Amr "etc"

    Oh I forgot about that chap, who? oh you know Ahmad bin Hanbal, he used to narrate a lot of hadiths, my brother he was, I will use his work for the sake of my forum posts. I will also use that sufi chap, ghazzali. I like him.

    Wait wait, how about that brother of yours the golden one, what did they call him?..yes yes, my good friend dhahabi. He is no Imam...hehehehe

    Wow, I never knew Ahmad bin Hanbal was your brother.
  14. I dont think Nazzam even wrote fadlul i'tizaal,rather it was Al Qadi Abdul Jabbar(another one of your mutazilite heroes) wasn't it?

    You sure you have'nt forgotten nazzam ?
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    you are just forcing everything in the straitjacket of your agenda with blatant generalizations and erroneous reasoning. [yeah, i know that you despise reason]

    forgive me for my suu adh-DHann, but sometimes a thought crosses my mind that you are a troll; planted just to ruffle feathers and nothing more. but i will eschew it; and i will continue with my good faith that you are a good hanafi muslim which i sincerely believe.

    frankly, your attitude to upholding qur'an even in the face of mockery is admirable. there is a small problem of misplaced enthusiasm but the courage to state and stand by one's belief is certainly admirable.

    indeed, if anyone says that the earth is round 'as proven by the qur'an' like ibn Hazm for example, then your objection is valid questioning it; but as i have explained majaz, figurative speech- you have no right to be adamant about the exact meaning of sutiHat.

    and your latest post is absolutely haywire; better stop drinking brother.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
    Last edited: May 7, 2008
  16. ahlan jamii',

    akh SA:1001 inventions by renowned muslims: you mean such as Mu'awiya, Amr, Abdullah ibn Umar? Abu dharr? these are the Great Muslims...

    Or do you mean renowned "muslims" like Ibn Siina (whom ghazzali and ibn taymiyyah deem a kaafir) or Muhammad b Abu Bakr ar Razi who deemd revelation to be a load of old crock?

    What did Ahmad b Hanbal say about the Bayt al Hikmah instituted by the Caliph Ma'moon who had translation of greek science done?

    something that was NEVER adopted as valuable knowledge by the salaf?

    Pray tell which SaHabii - the best to exemplify islam - said well euclid says such and such so we can say such and such..

    Mathematics, physics didn't start 1400 years ago...they're millenia old..if such knowledge is good, praiseworthy, benefits mankind..why the glaring omission of it from the final revelation ?

    suTiHat..doesn't ONLY mean flat?! is this what is claimed? the top of the mountain was made flat? flat is still flat...again it must be iterated where in the qur'an does it say the world is like a sphere?

    it doesn't ! But suyUti says it's Flat according to the Qur'an.
    strangely enough QurTubi also states the the ulama' of Muslims (as well as Jewish/Xtian) scholars state the earth is flat not round as per the astronomers.
    and abd al qadir al-baghdadi has ' there is Consensus of the ahl ul-sunnah that the earth is stationary, motionless and fixed'.

    deary me!

    The strangest thing is that people say qur'an encourages mathematics or medicine? BUt which O which of the best muslims set up labs? autopsied animals? analysed blood? made glasses and microscopes? didn't they have metal? didn't they have glass? it was so easy...

    does the qur'an and sunnah engender scientific enquiry? research inventiveness? then which of the Salaf al-saaliH made .e.g. a bicycle?!


    Abu Hasan cites a telling example of Islam's attitude towards science/innovation and invention..saying that the stereo/systems/TV are the musical instruments/songstresses (what about male tenors? or the ring tones on your cellphone..I guess that's not allowed since music is prohibited...(set to vibrate!) predicted in the hadith.

    does islam encourage the invention of stereo systems/tv sets? obviously not since it is condemnatory in the predictive hadith !

    alas alas alas!
  17. SA01

    SA01 Veteran


    CHISHTI Well-Known Member

    Brother kunh al-naqiibah i don't understand your stance one post you advocate that intoxicants (not wine) are halal, in another you try to show how the Qur'an is unscientific and infact against science and you praise the innovators like ibn hazm the literalist - (a practise you seem to despise when done by salafis but praised by you when done by hazm) and nazzam who was an insulter of Hazrat Ali RadyAllaahu Anhu.

    You want brothers/sisters to speak correct Qur'anic arabic but at the same time you have disdain for the Qur'an and the Ulema of Sunni orthodoxy like Imam Suyuti Rahmatullahi Aley.

    "No-one but no-one no saHaabi the best muslims who put islam into practice invented cars, bicycles, spectacles though material was available."...well cars, bicycles etc weren't invented by Prophets Aleyhimus Salaato Was Salaam either so do you find a deficiency of knowledge with them? Could the scientists of today build an ark which could contain all life as per Hazrat Nuh Aleyhis Salaam?

    As for mathematics , and science in general, then Muslims have had a massive input and only a blind bigot wouldn't be able to see the advances in these fields made by Muslims.

    "what did ghazaali call ibn Siina that superlative scientist, the physician...." Imam Ghazali didn't refute ibn siina because of his science but because of other reasons...if somebody is deviant -yet a great surgeon - it doesn't mean he's acceptable as an Imam of just means he is a great surgeon who has erred in his understanding of Islaam and it's up to those who are upon Haq to refute him so his missunderstandings don't spread and gain currency amongst laymen.

    Do you believe the Holy Qur'an when backed up by science and disbelieve the ayats of Qur'an which go against modern scientific knowledge?
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    as i said in another thread, cherry picking makes an interesting hobby. one can probably find an atypical opinion for every matter under the sun; and surely you will find one scholar or the other favoring it. suyuTi for this, asqalani for that and so forth. that is a general observation.

    as for logic and suyuTi's distaste for it: he probably meant formal logic or pure reason pursued as a subject. if he meant practising logic, he would contradict himself because that is an indispensible tool of a scholar. that is why, abu shamah (nawawi's teacher) said: 'after all, every scholar [mujtahid] is [has to be] logical by nature.'

    the last statement was quoted by dhahabi in his siyar under the entry of imam ghazali.

    so imam ghazali's [or ibn Hazm's] insistence on logic was surely the application of the science - not the science per se. but any organized mind knows that a formal study of these methods sharpens the mind and helps us avoid erroneous reasoning. incidentally, if you had used this 'tool' in your argument for a flat earth, you could easily see the fallacy.

    so where does it say in the qur'an that suTiHat ONLY means flat and spread like a carpet? yeah, there are different verses: the earth is spread out, did We not make it a carpet, and We made the earth a bed, etc.

    but to insist that there is no other meaning but the literal meaning invalidates the majaz of the qur'an. ironically, you are advocating the blind literalism of the ahl ad-DHahir and prominent among them, is ibn Hazm; along with the salafis in our time. if we follow your methodology,
    • the infidels are honorable and respected. 'taste it, you are honorable and respectable'
    • and we can walk around naked in the night because 'We made night a raiment'
    • only the sins we do with our hands will be punished because: 'this is what your hands have sent forth'
    • a city can answer because: 'ask the cities'
    • grapes are subterranean like onions and radishes: [from the earth grow..] 'and grapes..
    • keep eating in ramaDan until the black thread and the white thread are apparent because of the ayah. [which is well into daylight]
    • many of us today - al iyadhubillah - eat our bretheren's flesh because most of us indulge in backbiting.
    the fallacy of your logic is the premiss that suTiHat only means flat and in the absolute sense. yes, it is a flat piece of land stretched out for us; but does it necessitate that it is absolutely flat? for example there is an illustration of 'even a stone hath water spring from it.' [2:74] mean that water springs from every stone?

    a commonly occurring expression in the qur'an is 'streams flowing underneath'; take the verse 43:51, does it mean that the pharoah was always in water? and he left a puddle where he went? because: 'and streams flow underneath me..'?

    or the verse 27:88: 'you see the mountains steady; but they move, like the passing of clouds.'

    let us check this with at-Tabari, whose standing you extolled in your other post about the dhabiH:
    do you not see the earth, outstretched? [al-ghashiyah, 88:20] that is extended, extensive. ayy busiTat. it is said about a mountain with a flattened top as a 'flattened mountain' jabalun musaTTaH.
    [and he explains this in its proper context]
    exegetes have reported from qatadah that he said: that is the earth is extended, widened; and he said: 'would it be difficult for Him who has made such an [extensive] earth, to create What He pleases in paradise?'
    exactly. the qur'anic verse is not talking about geology or astronomy; it is describing the wonder of the Creation of Allah. this is what most mufassirs explain - check bayDawi, check ibn kathir, and who...?

    suyuTi? jalalayn for you:
    that is spread out. this verse is used to describe the Grand Power of Allah ta'ala and His Oneness. and the camel is mentioned because they [the arabs] were more acquainted with this animal than any other. and the 'suTiHat' obviously means that the earth is flat and not round like the physicists claim, even though [such an idea] does not nullify any core belief of the shari'ah.
    { وَإِلَى ٱلأَرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ } أي بسطت، فيستدلون بها على قدرة الله تعالى ووحدانيته، وصدرت بالإِبل لأنهم أشدّ ملابسة لها من غيرها. وقوله «سطحت» ظاهر في أن الأرض سطح، وعليه علماء الشرع، لا كرة كما قاله أهل الهيئة وإن لم ينقض ركناً من أركان الشرع.

    my point is very simple: it could be flat or round; but claiming that undeniable proof exists in the qur'an for flat is unfounded. otherwise, suyuTi would have insisted upon it and not clarified that it is not a 'core point of belief'.

    if you read the reasonable arguments of imam al-ghazali, you will realize that one need not be so hostile to logic and philosophy; or physicists or science in general. one can use their tools to validate our arguments.

    i somewhat agree with you. yes, trying to retrofit newer 'discoveries' to islamic documents [quran, sunnah] is asinine. particularly when EVERYthing is attempted to be explained in that way a la zakir naik, harun yahya etc - why, almost a sinnin'.

    didn't you read the recent chain-mail that tells us the 'scientific' benefits of prostration?

    but to deny that certain marvels proven empirically are not foretold in the qur'an or sunnah is patently unreasonable. for example, the hadith speaking of final days tells of 'people competing with each other in making tall buildings'. who had thought fifty years ago, that it would be as overwhelming and insane as this? don't say that the sunnah was not about 'civil engineering'.

    RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam foretold that 'there will appear instruments of music and dancers/songstresses in every home' [Dhaharat al-ma'azif wa'l qaynaat] ma'azif: instuments of music; qaynaat, pl of qaynah:songstress

    these are proofs of prophethood. notice, that he said Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: 'appear' which is starkly obvious and accurate today: television and sound systems blaring a deafening cacophony is a fine example...

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Last edited: May 7, 2008
  20. Nazzam certainly hasn't been forgotten -I just mentioned him in the previous posting! And just seen his faDl-al-i'tizaal. Next you'll be saying JaaHiz or zamakhshari jaar Allah has also been forgotten. deary me.

    Right flat earth...:

    Well the interesting bit is that there is absolutely no ayah that states the shape of the earth is as a ball.

    Instead we read in the quran: it's flat; it's like a carpet spread out; it's extended; it's flattened; it's like a bed..

    So from this Qur'an is trying to tell people pssst: it's really spherical!

    No wonder suyUti – someone steeped in the Sunnah, following the guidance of the Qur'an – not logic states that the qur'an CLEARLY states that the earth is flat NOT spherical -suTiHat LAA KURAH - "as the physicists states otherwise some of the shar' would lose validity.

    True there are scholars who say that the world is round but the source of this is certainly not the Qur'an and Sunnah but reason and empiricism.

    Now, Ibn hazm's interesting, he had a secular education, well versed in logic and philosophy so much so that GF Haddad (who subsumes him under "innovators") sez quoting al-dhahabi:

    "Al-Dhahabi said: "I saw a volume of his in which he puts logic at the head of all the sciences, and I was pained for him…"

    Pained" alas… "

    خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ يُكَوِّرُ اللَّيْلَ عَلَى النَّهَارِ وَيُكَوِّرُ النَّهَارَ عَلَى اللَّيْلِ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى أَلَا هُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفَّارُ... الزمر

    Ibn hazm cites this ayah as proving the sphericity of the earth.. but scientifically the night and day don't move it is the earth that Kuwwira not the night and day.

    Ibn Hazm, doing what Muslims do today, fit the facts of science on to the qur'an. But of course he fell in to error when he fancied the sun revolving round the earth, which of course is ptolemy's legacy. Sourced ultimately to

    Ibn khardaadhibah who sez such knowledge is from….Ptolemy.

    ، ذكر ابن خرداذبة المتوفى سنة 280هـ ذلك كله في مقدمة كتابه (المسالك والممالك) حيث قال:

    صفة الأرض أنها مدورة كتدوير الكرّة، موضوعة في جوف الفلك كالمحّة في جوف البيضة، والنسيم حول الأرض، وهو جاذب لها من جميع جوانبها إلى الفلك، وبنية الخلق على الأرض أن النسيم جاذب لما في أبدانهم من الخفة، والأرض جاذبة لما في أبدانهم من الثقل لأن الأرض بمنزلة الحجر الذي يجتذب الحديد، والأرض مقسومة بنصفين بينهما خط الاستواء وهو من المشرق إلى المغرب وهذا طول الأرض وهو أكبر خط في كرّة الأرض كما أن منطقة البروج أكبر خط في الفلك

    and what pray be the source of the above the qur'an? the salaf?

    إيضاح مسالك الأرض وممالكها وصفتها وبعدها وقربها وعامرها وغامرها والمسير بين ذلك منها من مفاوزها وأقاصيها ورسوم طرقها وطسوقها على ما رسمه المتقدمون منها فوجدت بطليموس قد أبان الحدود وأوضح الحجة في صفتها بلغة أعجمية فنقلتها عن لغته باللغة الصحيحة لتقف عليها
    المصدر في المسالك والممالك

    The scientific blossoming that took place during the time Abbasids, especially ma'moon and his founding of the dar al-Hikmah is not because of Qur'an and sunnah but because of greek/Persian civilizations in spite of the qur'an and sunnah.

    Indeed Ahmad b Hanbal states that one who sez the qur'an is created is a kaafir. Here's maamoon –never mind saying it, he's promoting it. With translators translating greek scientific treatises of Ptolemy..the early muslims never studied Pythagoras, mathematics, physics, biology at the instance of the the Qur'an no-one but no-one from the early muslims sez let's examine the human body, animal anatomy let's classify blood..

    No-one but no-one no saHaabi the best muslims who put islam into practice invented cars, bicycles, spectacles though material was available.

    Were the efforts and labours of Proclus, Euclid or Pythagoras worthy of merit so as to be included in the final revelation for mankind?

    Which SaHaabi therefore developt mathematics? NONE!

    It is asinine to even suggest a causal relationship between science and the qur'an. Islam is against science or at best contemptuous of it.

    Recently there was an islam-expo at Manchester met university. There was a display of so called muslim scientists such as 'Muhammad b Abu Bakr al-Raazi the scientist, the lutist, the director of Baghdad's hospital…'

    The utter utter irony was utterly lost on the expo people: they're using a man to promote the very message he condemned! Haven't they read his "hiyal al-mutanabiyyiin" – 'the trickery of the would be prophets'…and what did he call the qur'an…. what did ghazaali call ibn Siina that superlative scientist, the physician....

    Since the qur'an overrides science, muslims ought to flatly disbelieve any sensory empirical evidence and affirm that the earth is indeed flat..and We have Made the Earth FLAT !

Share This Page