ArchivedDifference of understandingOk, before we begin on the issue of whether these verses of the Quran do indeed portray the idea of the moon “reflecting” light from the Sun – which is the source of light, Its good to know both Muslims so far have not disputed the fact that such information was known before the Quran. Without discussing that point too much, this alone is enough to discredit the argument that what we have here is a scientific miracle – i.e. knowledge that could only have been known through divine inspiration – which is really the core argument a lot of Muslims try to use to validate the Quran as a divinely inspired text. First of all, you pasted the verse as it reads, and then you pasted some Muslims commentary of the verse, and then somehow concluded that this is the implied meaning. Well I tell you what, there is a lot of things written in that commentary which I have no idea of how you can consider it as being obviously implied by the verse. For example, the commentary states that the Moon is giving off “borrowed” light. Well I don’t see the word “borrowed” in the verse, why does the commentator feel the need to insert that adjective as a modifier for the light of this moon?? Whats the basis for it?. Actually ive read a lot of work of the authors of Answering-Islam, and im sure they are very aware of the fact that words take on different meanings according to the context – this is something that concerns English, as well as the Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. You’re obviously completely missing the issue, because the argument isn’t centred around nor is it concerned with the translation of the word light. The fact is as the Answering-Islam authors rightfully point out, that you Muslims are assuming that because 2 different words for light are used in relation to the Sun and Moon, that somehow this implies the moons light is the reflected light from the Sun. But the point is (as the Answering-Islam authors appropriately point out) that in the Arabic text – and even in the English translation, there is no adjective modifying the “light” of the moon – to say that it is either “reflected” or “borrowed” from the Sun – so on what basis does a Muslim assume this is the implication of the text. At this point its obvious they are trying to impose a meaning that the text obviously does not convey. They (the Answering-Islam team) also appropriately pointed out, that Arabic words for “reflected” and “borrowed” (or any similar adjective) did exist, so if the author of the Quran (whoever it may be) wanted to use this verse to emphasise that the moonlight is reflected light, why didn’t they simply insert the appropriate adjective in the text. The fact is they didn’t, and the fact also is there is no basis for assuming it. The problem is that these verses don’t give any further support to the implication that has already been discredited, that 25:61 portrays a Moon giving off “refelected” or “borrowed” light. In fact the above verses are a huge problem because they say that the Moon IS a light in itself. 71:16 says the Moon was designed to be a light (not to reflect th suns light or any similar idea) and 10:5 portrays basically the same idea. Don’t be took quick with the ad hominem remarks, because my comment right now is going to place that very harsh adjective on your own head. You said “God calls himself a NOUR…but thius doesn’t mean he reflects light”. THAT’S PRECISELY THE POINT THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE. They compared the literary structure of 71:16 and 10:5 (which say that the Moon is a light) with that of 24:35 (that says Allah is a light). Their POINT is that, since its ridiculous to receive an implication from 24:35 that Allah reflects light, then it is equally ridiculous to assume an implication from 71:16 and 10:5 that the Moon reflects light. The whole point of this particular argument is that “It is ridiculous to try to maintain that "muneer" implies reflection rather than its own brilliance.” Do you realize that logically speaking the answering-Islam team AGREE with your rendering of this verse!! It is the agreement of this rendering that FALSIFIES the original argument that the verses in question because of their two distinguishing words for light, give an implication that the Sun is the source of light, and the Moon is the reflector of light. Why? Its obvious you haven’t read the article carefully, or maybe you just needed them to be more explicit in what they were trying to say. Lets look at what they are showing to us very simply. In 17:15-16, the word used for moon is “noor” and the word used for sun is “siraaj”. The Muslim trying to prove that the verse implies that the moons light is simply a reflection of the Suns light because of the two different words for light used, has in his line of reasoning the presupposition, that “siraaj” (translated as lamp for the sun) implies “source of light” and “noor” implies the “reflection” of this light. But how valid is this presupposition in the light of the following verses which show the usage of both words in question: Sura 24:35 says that "Allah is the light (noor) of the heavens and the earth". Here Allah is described as the “noor”, and Sura 33:45-46 shows that Muhammed is the “siraaj”. Therefore, if you insist that the Arabic words "noor" and "muneer" imply "reflected light, then based on the use of these words in the Qur'an, Muhammad is like the sun, and Allah is like the moon. “Do Muslims really want to say that Muhammad is the source of light, and Allah is only his reflection?” as the answering-islam author asks….i DOUBT it. According to proper hermeneutics, the only appropriate factor in this case of determining the usage of such words is precedent. Precedent can only be prevailed over in this case, if there is additional evidence in the immediate context to suggest a particular woprd must convey a different meaning. However, there is nothing in the context that allows us to assume that any light associated with the moon is simply reflected or borrowed, and therefore there is no validity in your assertions because you have no support. Ofcourse to our 21st century minds it would only make SENSE if this light was reflected light, but the text does not explicitly or implicitly show this, therefore you're assumption is groundless. Was this comparison ever made? No. Did you read the article properly? Id like to think for your sake that you didn’t, because the only other alternative would lead me to accusing you of ineptness or deception. I certainly didn’t. Your response was made in ignorance of the main argument posed by the answering-islam team, it also attacked arguments that never existed, falsely accused the authors of the articles of methods that they never employed, and lacked any factual basis for your assumption of the implication of the verse in question. I don’t think there is any response that can use this issue to prove any divine relationship to the Quran, unless they can somehow bring forth evidence that a) knowledge of the issue truly never existed before it was stated in the Quran or b) that it was absolutely impossible that Muhammed would have been able to access such information (which would be impossible to prove). Secondly you have not revealed any lies or deceptions at all, and frankly im not impressed by any ad hominem remarks concerning people like this merely formulating a logical opinion based on the facts at hand. To prove true deception you have to prove the delieberate concealation of certain vital and relevant information to the issue at hand, or prove the factual error in any of the assertions made. As for Mr UNITE: You're convincing no one with you're ad hominem remarks. If you believe there is a misconception PROVE IT, show us. That is what this whole forum is about, you cant arrograntly assert such opinions unless you show some direct proof from the article where you feel their is a lie or a "word game" - it all seems pretty straight forward to me buddy, open your eyes, open your mind, and stop talking trash - talk facts - data - evidence. You should be really interesting person, as you could blame me for being self righteous after your first sentence above. One of the key words in "self righteous" is SELF. My first sentence that you were referring to was directed towards the faith i entrust my salvation in, if you notice the next line i state is the exact opposite of self righteous. Your self righteousness is evident when you think you can decide that every Christian refutation is simply "deception" demagogy" etc etc and other emotionally sensationalistic words, without even dealing or even properly considering the issues at hand. So far youve raised an issue, that issue was answered, and your response was to dismiss the answer without even considering the facts raised - thats what i call dishonesty to one self and concealing the truth. From now on i have nothing further to say in response to you, unless it is based on solid evidence or has any sort of a valid basis to it. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame