‘Scientific Errors’ in Quran Refuted
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 161.81MB
Assalamualaikum warahmatullah wabarakatuh are welcome to this new series by Sapiens Institute. This new series is going to focus on scientific errors or the suppose ID scientific errors narrative which is propounded by some of the anti muslim apologists. This series deals with the most notable contentions as per mentions of these particular contentions on different anti Islamic websites and publications. This is brought to you by Sapiens Institute, an institute which focuses on two primary things. Number one is to further the cause of Islam to make rational arguments for Islam. And that ranges from making arguments from God's existence to the oneness of God, all the way through to the
revelation of the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu wasallam and the proof of his prophethood.
The second objective is that Sapiens Institute's deals with the most contentious and controversial objections against Islam. And this is where this series fits into the scheme of work, if you like, of what we do,
we have decided to spend some months actually collating data, and using the interdisciplinary approach, where we consult with scientists, with theologians, with scholars of different backgrounds within the Islamic tradition, and of course, with philosophers of science,
to come to conclusions about the extent to which there is in fact a conflict as opposed to conflict between what is observably
observable to us, empirically, let's say, and the Quranic text. This, of course, requires knowledge in many different areas. And I would like to thank all of those who contributed to this series before I begin. Now, this video comprises of the as I've mentioned, most common contentions. You may see the most common contentions in the description box below, because you might not need answers to all of them. So you might have a particular contention that you would like answered, rather than all of them. And so you can go to the description box, which will act like a contents page, and you can click on the particular objection that you would like to be answered.
In this way, this will act like a virtual web database, on the matter of suppose that scientific discrepancies in the Quran. Now, here's the thing before we begin, it's very important that we say from the outset, that whatever School of philosophical thought you take on the philosophy of science, whether you are a realist or an anti realist, you must you must realize that even the best scientific theories with the best kind of predictive power are susceptible to change. This is the dynamism and the transient nature of the scientific method. If it were not, so then falsification would not be something which could happen. So science is not a set of eternal truths and
incorrigible facts. To the contrary, science is transient and dynamic. To the contrary, science can change even that which is known to us a scientific fact, can in fact change, as we know, through the great works of Thomas Kuhn, where he refers to these as scientific revolutions.
Not just scientific facts change, but the entire paradigm, where in which science operates may undergo what is referred to as scientific revolution. This has happened many times in history. And so it's important from the outset not to have an expectation
that there must be an perfect correlation between today's science of 2021, for example, and every single verse of the Quran and every single Hadith that there is that is authentic.
This is not a reasonable expectation, not least, because the scientific method itself is in flux. However, having said this, anything which is observably real and true
and has very high epistemic weight from an empirical perspective.
We would say that truth cannot contradict the Quranic narrative. And so, bearing all of these things in mind, it's important to approach the topic of sites in the Quran with care and news
I hope this series is something which you can benefit from. It is certainly something which we have put a lot of time in, a lot of effort in. And we will be doing this with major themes of
narratives against Islam, from morality, all the way through to arguments, as we've said, of God's existence. And hopefully, you can benefit and share this video to all those who you think will benefit.
Today insha Allah, we're going to be dealing with a Hadith, which references Adam alayhis salaam of Prophet of Islam as being 60 cubits tall, which is like 27 meters. And they say this is unbelievable and impossible. But before we get to this Hadees, let's talk about the Islamic stance on the theory of evolution. Generally speaking, talking about the theory of evolution. Muslims don't have an issue or shouldn't really have an issue with a speciation, adaptation or even evolution of animals because we believe that there's nothing explicit in the Quran one way or the other and actually done a podcast with Abdullah JD, Shia Abdullah JD is a prominent figure in Saudi Arabia, who researches
these matters and well published in this field, were in my discussion with him, this was his opinion. So, which is quite frankly, like 99.9%, if we look at it from a math perspective, really 99.9% of the theory, the the issue we have, we take issue with or the point of evolution, that sliver of which really diametrically opposed to some of the Islamic narratives is human evolution. Now, obviously, we have a narrative, we have a narrative in Islam, which is that the Adam our history was created directly or this Prophet Adam was created directly by Allah, by God Almighty. And there are many things which differentiate human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom,
morality, the the ability to question why, you know, this is many different language, civilization, and so on, so forth. And it couldn't have been the case, we would argue that we can actually in any way, be equated to the rest of the animal kingdom. And there's something special about human beings that can run never the other Allah says in the Quran, that he has dignified the children of Adam. So we don't necessarily agree or disagree, we can remain agnostic as to, you know, Darwinian evolution with other animals. But as relates to the human being, there is something special about the human being. And that is why a lot created human being directly. And in this Hadith, there's indication
that he created Adam is 60 cubits tall. Now, the question is, this seems unscientific on many grounds. And I'll tell you what, on three major grounds, number one is biological. Number two is archaeological. And paleontological we can say, as well, from a fossil record perspective. And number three, looking at the kind of disparity in sizes, if we do assume that there was a human being of such great magnitude in terms of size, how can we explain the fact that human beings are like, give or take, you know, six foot tall, give or take, you know, half a meter or whatever it may be? Or more, right? But how can you explain this huge disparity in the fact that you're saying that
you believe in Adam, who's 27 meters tall, and a human being now which is, you know, typically anything between five foot five to six foot five, and obviously, the extremities on on both sides of that equation as more people are taller than 65, like myself, and people are shorter than five foot five, like many, many people. So here,
there's two possibilities which we need to pay attention to, which is the first part of the Hadith talks about that Allah created the
60 cubits tool. And in terms of Hadees, there are some narrations which don't mention this 60 cubits and the awesome narrations that do mention the 60 cubits but we don't say that just because there are some iterations that don't mention the 60 cubits that the nourishes that do mention this as cubits are erroneous that makes no sense Actually, this this doesn't and some people have attempted to argue that this means that this should be disbanded non that doesn't mean that's not how the science works. So that's the first thing other people say the second part of the Hadith which talks about,
let me as a whole campus hotel and the the creation is, is becoming smaller and smaller until now. They found it problematic because imagine himself he mentioned how could it be the case that this is happening right there and we can see as the moods kind of, in dwellings, the the accurate archeological remnants of the soil
We can see that the housing that, you know, the doors and so on, we're not so tall. And he assumed, and without, by the way, nuts and evidence that Adam foods were closer to Adam than they were to us human beings. And obviously the only real evidence we have anything between law and Adam alayhis. Salam
is there's no evidence. I mean, there's only so aliette or kind of biblical narrations. So potentially he was using those to kind of raise his eyebrow, but he did not say this Harris was violent or defective, as many believe that he did. Now having so because of NASS reasons or content reasons, going forward to answering the contentions. There are variations of this Hadeeth which refer to this summer. Okay, that this was in the heaven, not Heaven, as in Jenna, but for summer. Now, obviously, if you look at the Quranic cosmology, heaven agenda is above, okay, because obviously, we know that the profit was taken there in the slot on March. So it could be the case
that this height and this mega size of 27 meters is specific to Jenna. And there's nothing wrong linguistically in believing that, because obviously, we believe that Adam alayhis salaam, he started his journey. Yes, in heaven, M. And we have a whole narrative where he was in a completely different place. And then Allah He sent him down to the earth, He sent him down to the earth. Yes, he's created from the elements of the earth, but he was, in many ways an extraterrestrial, because he came from a completely different dimension, and he came to this earth now in that transition period, could he have shrunk? Could Allah have made him smaller? That's also a possibility. We're not just
regarding that as a possibility. But there's no evidence of that from the Quran and Sunnah. So we can't say that that is what happened. And what we will say is this, let's assume that Allah He brought Adam down. He was 60 cubits either in heaven, and on earth, or in heaven, or India, but let's just assume that he was 60 cubits in heaven and on earth. So when he came down, he was also 2727 meters, which, by the way, now we're starting to make assumptions, which we don't necessarily need to be at need to make, we can say no, this he was like the height in heaven. And when he came onto Earth, he became normal height. That's something you can assume from the from the source. But
let's not assume that, let's say he was 27 meters on the earth. What's the problem? What's the problem? The problem are three different things. Now. Number one, biology, if we use the human anatomy that we have today as the reference point, if the if the human anatomy today is the reference point,
how could it be that something that tall, or human being that tall, the bone structure can maintain that kind of size? Right, because it will collapse because of the weight of the human being? Well, this is a fallacy because we're not starting with the human being today as the reference point we're starting with, why would you start with today's human being as a reference point, the reference point is that 27
metre human being that we're talking about, that's the reference point. So if someone says, Well, we know that if we keep doubling sizes, as I've even heard some, some Muslims try and say, keep doubling sizes and height, then the height will be so tall, and then the weight will be so much and then the bones will not be able to handle that. density of the buzz will not be able to handle that you're using your reference point as the human anatomy of today. And then Ducasse backwards, which is a class malefactor, if you like, or a false type of analogy is a different kind is false kind of analogy. So that's the first problem. You can say, Oh, it's inconceivable that human anatomy can can
handle that size. Well, it's only inconceivable on the basis of analyzing today's human. So that's the first thing. The second thing we may say, Is someone could say, well, we talked about the biological problems. fossilization How come there's no fossil record of such a huge human. The National Science Foundation says that 99.9% 99.9 99.9% of species have not undergone fossilization. So fossilization you expect to find one specimen of a fossil of a human that we don't know, 10s or 100,000, whatever it is years that he existed before. No way. And this is like finding a needle in the haystack. It's ridiculous to expect to find fossils like this. It's absolutely absurd. It's such
a redundant, redundant interrogation, so that that one would be put to the side. The third now interrogation is, well, how can we conceive of such a disparity between
humans within this or any kind of animal within the same species like this? Let's say we don't accept that we don't accept that you can have a 27 meter human being and then you can have a six for human being and that the Spirit existed, and they say humans have been around for 350
50,000 years, which is, by the way estimates we don't have to go with because they keep changing those, quite frankly. But let's just assume for the sake of argument, are you saying to me is my response that you have, there's no species within the species that exhibit this decrease in size, this dramatic exponential decrease in size. Because I can give you an example the dwarf elephants, which the general proceedings National Academy of Science shows, the dwarf elephants were 220 pounds, they they went down in 100,000 years, according to the journal in 800,000 years, they went down 100 times in size. So they were, they were 100 times bigger than they were, they became dwarf
elephants, 220 pounds 100 kilos, which would mean that I'm bigger than those elephants, me person is the one who's talking to you on the imagine an elephant that I can pick up with that you can pick up. And that would be heavier to pick me up than an elephant. I mean, this is just to give you some kind of visuals here. So if you can believe in an elephant
that is that size, because you're looking at the fossil record and you're making your evolutionarily is evolution influences the Why can you not believe in a human being this much bigger? This is just one of many examples. But within a very short time span in evolutionary terms. So why could not that happen to the human? I mean, if you really want to believe it on your paradigm, what cannot happen to the human being? So it's okay when you say these things, but it's not okay. When we say these things, you make a mockery of the Hadith, but the Hadith makes a mockery out of you because it's actually what you believe in as well. And hopefully that answers the question was Santa Monica when
I was alive, okay.
Today insha Allah, we're going to be discussing a particular verse. And actually there's more than one of them in the Quran which make these kinds of references but we'll focus on one because the same thing that can be said of this verse can be said of all of the other ones which have similar physiologies and this is a verse in chapter number 55 of the Quran verses 19 to 21. Well, Allah subhanho wa Taala says, Mirage Albus rainy yell Tachyon, bay now Houma, barossa, hula Varian that he left free, this the two seas of water and he put between them a barrier that he cannot transgress between. Now I recently saw and I saw this before long time ago, a video of Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins actually going to a school with some Muslim students, some young students, and this is a common tactic. You go for the unique ones, the untrained ones, you know, the students, that they're not theologians, they're not learned, they're still actually even haven't finished their GCSEs. And this is the kind of, you know, engagements that Richard Dawkins and the rest of the new atheist movement are used to doing with the Muslims, you get some weak one, and you try and brainwash them into your worldview. And he was, you know, talking
to these little girls, or these young girls. And he was trying to persuade them that really he was that the Quran was wrong. He wasn't saying it in any explicit type of way. But he was being very pedantic. Maybe we can get a clip of this video and see what Yes, what he's doing here. We learn about science and the Quran. By the end of the day, we all came to one conclusion that the Quran is evidence of science. So what science has proved to be just recently, it's already proved in the Quran 1400 years ago when it was written. But that doesn't include evolution, apparently.
So what does it include? It includes stuff like the shape of the earth, about the mountains, how they secure the earth, and how in the sea, the two waters, they don't mix the salty water and drinking water. So it's pure for us to drink. They don't mix but they pass through each other. salty water and fresh water don't mix in the sea. No, is that
the actual barrier, I was shocked that our elbows outside like this, as you saw this man who's badgering the kids.
He doesn't want to go to train theologians and Muslim theologians or public figures or whatever it may be. He's going for the children. And really, he's arguing that this is false in the Quran. If the idea is that you have these, the sweet water, the fresh water and the salty water, that there is a barrier between these no such barrier exists. He said you can go to the kitchen. Yes, you can put the sweet you can put the you know these two waters together and mix them and disprove the Quran. That's, you know, this is such a weak and lazy approach. Don't you want to research what this verse is talking about in the first place? Because if you just went to even an English translation of the
exegesis of such verse is you realize that the
Prominent or the most popular exegetical opinion on this, was that the barrier in question were the land masses. That was separating seas from rivers, for example, the Arabian Peninsula, for example, other land masses that separate these things. So on the one side of this landmass, you have maybe a CNA other land, so you have a river and move or within the land, you have a river flowing. This is what is being referred to here, that God in His Greatness is able to allow such different types of waters to exist
the sphere of the earth, and this is what was wrong. That was what's so unscientific about that, why are you so lazy as to not go to a taxi or an English? And check out that that was the primary exegetical
method of understanding this verse.
You see, and this is what happens when you don't do your research. Yes, there are some scholars who say it's an invisible barrier. And this has now gone to the scientific miracles, narrative and so on. But we're not even going to go there some says is talking about estuaries and others say is this and I'm not going there. This is enough for me to say that your shenanigans has been exposed, that you didn't even make an attempt. You didn't even make an attempt to try understand the verse and read up some opinions on it was so that more like more amateur like I want to get.
Today, inshallah, we're going to be talking about a contention, which is really a feeble and weak intention. contention, sorry, which, like many of those is really lazy academics. at its best, is the contention that says that the Quran mentions sperm, but it does not mention ovum, and therefore the author of authorship of the Quran was unaware that the such an ovum existed in the first place. Well, actually, the Quran doesn't mention spermatozoa what not what would you say sometimes translated as sperm drop. If you look at any of the ancient kind of linguistic dictionaries, it simply means pilet one min mat, or a minute quantity of liquid or fluid. That's what it means. Now
some translators have translated this to mean spermatozoa was no not even that sperm drop or something like this. But that is us putting our own kind of 21st century glasses on and imposing it on the Quran. The Quran even now the Arabs, when they're talking about when they write in the kind of scientific textbooks about sperm, they call it when and men are we okay, this is basically the animal which a sperm animal, you know, this is how they translate it because the word not far is not specific enough to that very, you know, sperm that we see and diagrams, I'm sure you've seen in pictures and so on and films or whatever it may be. So the Quran doesn't mention that, nor does it
mention the egg. It doesn't mention the egg and this because no one would understand this. I mean, think about the Quran is trying to reach out to a seventh century eighth century ninth century audience, not just a 21st century audience. Imagine if it's telling the end user here that inside of the sperm that comes out or you admit as a man,
there is actually animals in there, all the people would be like, what's this talking about? I mean, think about that. The Quran uses physiology, which is appropriate for all peoples and all times. It uses perfect phraseology, which we as for example, 21st century end users of the Quranic discourse, can understand, you know, with with, for example, the biological embryological understanding of today, but also that it couldn't alienate the seventh or eighth central night, central 10th century people, up until the age when the microscope was developed. This is foolishness at score, really this assumption. So yes, it doesn't doesn't mention the sperm in that sense. It doesn't mention the
ovum in that sense. But the indications, to be quite honest with you, are all their that showed that the authorship of Quran of the Quran or the author of the Quran was acutely
aware. Like for example, not 14 m szasz. In the calahonda lesson and not 14 m shashin. Never Khalifa Janos Amanda Sierra as it says sort of Linz and chapter number 76, verse number two, we have created the human being from a mixture of fluids, and we have made him seeing and hearing now what is this mixture almost everybody agrees it's talking about the the male and female fluids combining. Now what fluids are we talking about the entirety of it because we know it only requires one cell from each. And this is also indicated in the Hadith of the Prophet mamzer Solomon
It says Lisa louella dominello may equally okemah Casa de la sala, born child is not from the entirety of the fluid, so Subhanallah even this, so you have this new farm sheshe you have this mixture between the male and female fluids, which we know
happens in fertilization, but it's only a part of this entirety of thing which creates the fertilization. What's fascinating is that the sperm and the ovum and the egg are all contained within a fluid. And this is beautifully elaborated with the one who says booty Jamal kelim. I've been given the brief and decisive speech with the Prophet Hamza Salaam, who said that it's not from the entirety of this liquid, but it's actually from a part of it. So this seems to me that is the author of the Quran. And the Sunnah as well. was aware I was aware of these at the minute Shay, related to these things. And I think this is really a shot in the foot for those detractors because
the more we look at your evidences with the more we realize the beauty and the precision of the Quranic discourse was Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.
Today, inshallah, we're going to be speaking about a very fruitless and frivolous and capricious claim, a weak claim, a ridiculous contention of the highest order, really, a claim that says that the Koran says in chapter number 51, verse number 49, that everything was created in pairs or
in column owner's own janila.
And we know of such a thing as a sexual reproduction, and therefore this is false. So I don't know whether to stop, roll my eyes, or even try and dignify this thing with the with the response, but maybe I should, for the for the satisfaction of those who are a little bit curious. Really, and truly, we've said this more than once, the word cool does not necessarily mean every single thing with the exclusion of nothing in the genus. This is something which we know from the usage of the word cool, which is also used in the Quran, where Allah subhanaw taala mentions in Surah Allah half chapter 46, verse number 25. Well, last part Allah says to them, miroku, lash A and B Emily behalfs
bajo la Yura il MSI Aquino home, that it destroys there's a wind that destroys everything with the command of its Lord. So they came to be not seen except for their in dwellings. And of course, this does not mean that this wind that Allah subhanaw taala is talking about is a wind that destroyed everything, including animals and the earth and the cosmos. Even though there's the exception there illumise I can have them except for they're in dwellings It doesn't mean everything was destroyed except for the dwelling. So the cool here is not intended by any means, or any stretch of the imagination, to mean every single thing on the face of the earth, let alone the entire existence of
entire universe. This is impossible to extrapolate from this verse and that is why many of the scholars have actually written books and criticizes about this word cool, because many people that employ literalistic understandings of the Arabic language do not understand these kinds of usages. So silty wrote a book, el cual, Ramallah he settled out the word cool and what it implies what its
evidence is or shows. Now is it talking about animals. It doesn't say animals in this verse. But it doesn't mean just animals. Because if you look at some of the ex Jesus of the past, even of great scholars like Hassan bursary, and others, and even if you look at poverty, what he says, they don't restrict this to just meaning male and female, for example, the say, zone is anything and it's opposite. So for example, if you have night, then the opposite will be the day. If you have heaven, the opposite will be the earth for example, you know, from our perspective, before someone jumps and says, No, this is just come down. We're talking about the anthropocentric perspective. Otherwise,
it's all meaningless. We're nothing in the universe anyway. So here again, this is a flatly
weak and false contention putting into the Quran what they wish was in there, and is not in there. So simply to answer this question, the word called doesn't mean every single thing. And it's not restricted to male and female
distinctions. It could be anything and it's opposite, quite frankly. And this is facilitated in the language and understood by the classical use of the time, and I hope this answers the question or Santa Monica Miranda line for cattle.
Today, inshallah, we're going to be tackling and dealing with a contention and misconception, a misnomer, really, that some of the anti Islamic apologists use in order to further their case. And this is a very common one that's been circulating, maybe the internet for some time. And really, it's a concession that says that the Quran gets it wrong when it says that the bones formed before flesh when installing hydrogen sort of zoom in on the chapter 22 in chapter 23, respectively, of the Quran, they detail the stages of umbrella and biological development, or embryonic development. When these two stories do so. The mistake they say in the chronology is that the bones are mentioned
on our Conan,
Conan mood boards, are you on?
I see this is something which is problematic. Now.
First of all, let's take a look at what the latest cutting edge. You know, kind of research is saying on this. I'm going to read this from directly because this is not my area of specialism. So I'm just going to be doing this data or using this book, which is the fundamental of human embryology by john Allen and Beverly Kramer. To inform the discussion today let's start off with what they say. But the development of limb limb musculature says For many years, and it's very interesting because science as we always say, is a transient and dynamic and developing thing. And so when maybe 20 or 30 years ago, they were using these kinds of interrogations against the from the
fact that science has developed Okay, actually shows us that we have to be a bit careful making judgments about the Quran using science either positively or negatively because this is what they say. She She says, He says because you don't know who's rising ahead. For many years, it was believed that limb muscles differentiated Institute from limb met and mesenchymal. It is now known that myogenic cells invade the limb buds from the soul mites at the roots of the bots however, it seems that tendons and other connective tissue elements
of the muscles are formed in situ, from the limb bud missing time now that music time is not yet actualized or it's not really developed into a one of the three main types of cell which would either form a skin bone or muscle, but this the point of importance here is is this particular thing. And this is very important here. Soon after the cartilaginous models of the bones have been established the myogenic cells, which have now become myoblast aggregate to form
muscle masses on the ventral and dorsal aspects of the limbs. These muscle masses in the relevant compartments form the flexors and extensors of the joints. rotator muscles are also formed so that flexes and progenitors are related and extent extensors and supernatants are related. Now, basically in lay language, which people like me are more need of that I'm pretty sure are informed and educated audiences. What we're talking about when they say myoblast sorry, myogenic cells so the myogenic cells would eventually become muscle tissue. Okay. So what is being said here is that you've got these cartilaginous models right? And the cartilaginous models will eventually become
ossified through a process of osteogenesis or ossification, which actually continues until puberty and this basically forms the bone that becomes
ossified. So these cartilaginous zones basically, you have these myogenic cells coming now forming over the cartilaginous zones now, what are the cartilaginous zones or models? They basically form what would then become muscles after the person also sorry, bones after the poses of ossification. Now, the question is, can cartilage in the Arabic language be used to describe bone or our bone a type of story arc is cartilage a type of bone in the Arabic language? Because if it isn't the whole issue from a scientific perspective
Become a becomes an issue straightaway. And the answer is yes. The answer is the word hold roof in the Arabic language, which means cartilage, the word will drop in the Arabic language, which means cartilage, according to Pharaohs, Abadi in his book in his dictionary. And of course, lesson Lara, which is one of the premier gold standard, you know, reference points from a dictionary perspective on the Arabic language. And when they describe or drove it says, you know, album laden or something like this, or basically, it is bone, which is very smooth. In other words, cartilage is a type of bone in the Arabic language, so couldn't be the case. Could it be the case that this verse is
talking about this process of the myogenic cells migrating to the cartilaginous models? Yes, it could very well be and if it is, the entire contention is completely solved. Well, of course, does it mean does I have to say focus on that alive on my left LACMA? Does this focus on irama necessarily entail that creep, or chronology or sequential ism? It also is not really, it could be conceived that the fact here is not necessarily chronological. And we can bring evidences all over the Sunnah to evidence this case, but suffice it for me to say that that is not necessary at this juncture, since the whole issue has become a non issue, according to the current scientific
information that we have. But no, definitely, it could be that the fact is not attacking it could be and also you have to remember one other thing that it says for casona like with all my llama, it doesn't say for Hala canalys Llama Llama, it says we have close the Ivonne with meat or with flesh, it doesn't say that we have, he has created the flesh. In other words, it may be the case, it may be the case that the meats also the flesh, whatever you want to call it, that it was already there, but it was rearranged because l Kisu is different from a Hulk. So clothing, something is different from it being created, especially from non emergent properties. In other words coming from non emergence.
There's a difference between those two things. And in fact, that by law is something very interesting in his tafsir, who is an early professor, he talks about the stage which is referred to in sort of hijas molekulare mohalla. He talks about when it's formed and formed the model, which is another really interesting descriptive description because madhva is literally mean something which is chewed a chewed like flesh or chewed like thing. And this is what the dictionary is all the dictionaries will say to the Arabic dictionaries. So Mozart really, Mozart, really, it could be very well corresponding with what is referred to today in embryology, as some somitogenesis
somitogenesis. There's so mites being formed on the India on the embryo. And the fact that wala coherer, maharlika could be talking about the cells migrating in different ways and operating or operationalizing and functioning in different ways. This is very possible. But if suffice it for me to say once again, that if we accept the premise that the cartilaginous models or zones, which have not been fully ossified, and will not be fully ossified, by the way, because this is the assumption of the the attack, sufficient to be named as IBM the Quran that according to the latest science that we have, this becomes a known issue straight away. And hopefully the answer to the question was
Santa Monica was alive.
Today, inshallah, we're going to be talking about one of the most spurious and specious claims that I've actually ever seen against Islam, that it beggars belief that people are actually using this as an argument against Islam. It's such a blow to the credibility of those individuals, that they are making arguments so desperate and so pathetic as this, what is the argument that we're talking about? So this is one of the arguments they say that the Quran says that there's so many as wedge that there are eight types of as wedge or pairs, and with that is talking about that.
And that there are four types of mmm and I'm is loosely translated as cattle. And the Quran says, you know, middle minute darkness, Nino, middle mass this mean that from the from the sheep, there are two pairs and from the math that goes there are two pairs from the back had his name from the cows, there are two pairs and from the English name and from the camel 02 pairs, and they say, look, this is from what I've understood from their contention because it's so pathetic die actually beggars once again believe. If you take for example, the Collins dictionary definition of the word cattle, what I've seen is that it says For example, bovid mammals of the tribe of bobbins,
especially those of genus boss, and then you go to boven bovid. And potentially This is what they're referring to here that can relate to a family of hollow horned mammals, including sheeps, goats, capital, antelopes, and buffalo. So, my understanding of their contention is that they're saying that the word and the arm is cattle, loosely defined or to try
is limited in the chronic paradigm where it should be more expansive. A question is, why should we accept this definition? If this is the definition you want us to accept. This is clearly a case of the fallacy of equivocation.
You're forcing one language into another language paradigm. This is ridiculous behavior. And in fact, it actually assures me that you people, anti Islamic apologists have no understanding at all of the Arabic language, and that you're relying heavily if not entirely on translations. Because if you just looked at the top end of chapter number 16, verse number five, and he mentions what the word that means. He mentioned that it means those four things the word Anam itself means those four things that sheep and goats and cows and camels, you could do better than this. This is embarrassing with Santa Monica Mountains.
Today, inshallah, we're going to be talking about a verse which is littered all over these kinds of anti Islamic websites. This is in chapter 86, verse number seven, weight loss of power rotala. He says fandangle in salmon mahalik. Haleakala in Delphic Roger remains to be tolerated. That human being see where he has been,
from what he has been created. He has been created from a secreted or gushing fluid that comes from or that he comes from, and we'll talk about the differences in translation veinous will be authorized between the backbone and the ribs. And obviously here supertype is translated in more than one way. And we'll come to this. The contention is that this is actually unscientific because we know that spermiogenesis happens in the testicles, and it doesn't happen between the backbones and the ribs, for example. And the assumption obviously, is that what is being referred to in the verse when it says Matt and Daffy Duck is sperm, and therefore this verses out of line with
observable reality, and it's a proof against Islam. This is the this is the contention. So let's deal with one thing at a time. First and foremost is the word what does the words soba Antara actually mean? So, there are three opinions which are represented in the classical literature and the dictionaries, either we're talking about the backbone and the ribs of the man.
Or we're talking about the backbones of the ribs, and backbones of the man and the ribs or the woman.
Or we're talking about the backbone and the ribs of the woman. And we're not talking about the secreted liquid or The Spiritist fluids. But instead we're talking about the insan the human being himself, because that versus for Leon's oral insan mahalik let the human beings see from which are from that which has been created. All the common man definitely has been created from a gushing or secreted fluid. Yeah, hello, Julian very nice to be with Roy Wood which comes from between the backbone and the ribs. Now could it mean that the human being Jani fell younger in San mahalik let the human being see which way is being created from holy combat now in Daffy Duck and duck deer here
is holy cow insane man definitely the insane was created from Mountain def up secreted fluid. Yeah, rojo membrane effulgent insane Jani membranous would be arrived at the enzyme he comes from Venus will be arrived. So, the the opinion that says the classical apologetical approach or apologetics approach, for those who take the view that is talking about Venus will be the backbone and the ribs of the man is to say, Well, actually, this is saying Matt in death is saying secreted fluid is talking about glass gushing fluid. And we know that
yes, spermiogenesis happens in the testes, but it goes up the epidermis. And actually, there is something called seminal vesicle and it collects seminal fluids from that and it comes back down the urethra and then when ejaculation happens, what then takes place is obviously the emission happens. And so the the seminal fluids, right, the femoral fluids are collected from either the seminal vesicles and or the prostate that's opinion wine so they say that it's been assumed water IPM is anything above the COC six and was parallel to it because the COC six or agbor, then I've been the Arabic language is where the backbone ends being this would be the what type between the, the
backbone and the ribs so that the backbone ends at the edge edge, but then up all the toxics. So every part of the intersection there and that means to say from a human reproductive perspective that anything would
Above the penis, because the penis is parallel to, from an anatomical perspective to the COC six. And we know that the seminal vesicles. And we know that also the prostate is above the penis. And so they say this is a In fact, most BCA is famously said, this is a scientific miracle of the whole, but we're not going down that route. We're just saying this is one apologetic approach of answering the question. And it may be satisfactory to some, it may not be satisfactory to others. And the language actually is facilitative of that. Now, the second approach where we say that it's talking about the backbone of the man, and the ribs of the woman, they say, this is sort of our Genesis,
because we're Genesis happens in the ovaries of the woman. And this is where the eggs are basically being formed. And so that happens above that, once again, the vagina which is parallel to the COC six. And so the same kind of argument is made. And they say, so this is talking about the fluids, because there's a fluid that carries either the egg or the sperm for both man and woman. And so they say this is not talking about because the abiqua modifier is not used here, not for cats, cats, is categorized as teletoon min max, a minute quantity of liquid. But the phraseology used here is Matt and deaf, a gushing security fluid, so that someone would notice the differentiation between the two
kinds of words that I use. That's the first thing that that is said. So, yes, this is one approach the other approach, but one other approach which has not been highlighted as much, which also has classical precedent, and is mentioned by him in his tafsir and also biocote, to be in his as one of the one of two main opinions that he mentioned. This verse is that this is not talking about the secreted fluid at all it's talking about the insane because it says valiant insanity, mahalo Collette the human being see what he has created from Holika Mima and therefore Kyani holy hell insane man, definitely human being was created from a security food. Yeah, rojo. membranous will be
authorized. He says, yeah. taqdeer Oh, whoa, what is understood in the language here? And the subtext? Is that Yeah, cultural incentive, and being sort of a human being is comes from being sort of a tribe. And this is talking about pregnancy and birth. And this will be completely uncontroversial, because obviously the baby is in the intersection between the backbone and the ribs of the woman.
And so these are three very legitimate ways to, to answer the question, and three very acceptable things no one can read, especially with a third opinion. I see no way. I see no way anyone can say this against observable reality, and therefore to try and use this verse to indicate that only sperm which by the way that the word sperm is not mentioned in the scientific census in the Quran, the Hywel men are we wish the Arabs have now invented and put into biological textbooks is created between the backbones and the ribs. This is ignorance and it's not a comprehensive understanding of the Quranic discourse. salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah America.
Today inshallah we're going to be refuting, debunking confusing, and rejecting a claim that is made by the anti muslim, or anti Islamic apologists, which is actually quite a weak, weaker than a spider's web type of claim, which is, they say that the sky or the heaven or the universe is presented in the Islamic cosmology in the Quran, in particular, as a solid object. And they, in order to kind of strengthen their case, refer to two different verses of the Quran, one that is mentioned in chapter number 22, verse number 65, where lots of panatela says that he holds a similar tool, and tuck all of that he holds the heavens and the earth. Sorry, oh, yuck. and tuck all of that
he holds the heaven that falls on the earth. And they say, look at this, this, in order for that to be the case, that the you know, the heaven has to be a solid object, and therefore the presentation of the Quran is that the heaven is a solid object. And the other verse that they mentioned is in chapter number two, chapter number 35, verse number 41. Well, Allah Subhana Allah says, that he uses a semi to love and Tesla, that he holds the heavens and the earth that they will fall out of their place, they will come out of their place was that they will be moved out of their place. There were admins earlier and from from the words LA is zero means like zone something to be moved out of his
place, or move, move away in general. So these are the two verses that they do is to shed with all their trial evidence to suggest that the current picture of the cosmological picture is one which is that the heaven of the universe is a solid object. Now this is false for two reasons.
And the second of which I think really is an undercut and by the way, so I don't want to hear this again. I mean, only an embarrassed person after hearing the second of my set of two or three points I'm going to make would dare to challenge this point. It's just so embarrassing, to be honest. The first point is this. Sometimes Allah subhanaw taala. When he refers to something, as a whole, he can refer to a part meaning the whole and this is part of the kind of phrase theological mereological terminological usages of the Quran. So mariology is the parts of whole lemma poke holes and parts are lots of parents had for example in the Quran says he mentioned so it's a new chapter 71 he had a
Luna Saba on Piazza and he was Sasha Theobroma sobre was like Bostick Bara that people have no idea that they put their asabe Yahushua then he him that they put their fingers in there is now really that they put the tight Look at the size of the finger. You put the title it's impossible really to put the entire finger in the air. So what is intended here is their banana enamel, the enamel, the the fingertip and you put it in the air, but here you see the fingertip which are referred to an abacus enamel are not this is not a year gentlemen and emila home he didn't say that. He said they put their SRB at our home even though the enamel the fingertip is that which likewise now with this,
what Allah says you you I'm sick a summer, it doesn't necessarily have to mean everything in the heaven, it could mean as part of national he says in his tafsir that is referring to certain things like mutual is referring to snow which comes from above and below is referring to rain is referring to this referring to that all of these things that are above us can can do support either can from our anthropological phenomenological perspective fall on us Yes. Including what's the problem and this is a linguistically acceptable for the reasons aforementioned understanding of the verse But let's move a little bit further. If really and this is the undercounter has a wait for it, wait for
it. If really
the Quran is a picture of the heaven This is that of a solid object. My question to you is this how could the program's Aslam do a solid Maharashtra solid object? See how embarrassing that must? I mean, as I say this to you now, how embarrassed you feel as the anti Islamic apologists very embarrassing, isn't it? And the Quran even says is mentioned in chapter number six. You know verse 125, he even says is talking about oh my god the law yeah below whoever Allah wants to misguide. Yeah, john So who are you can Hello, john. He makes his chest constrained can nema yesod have a summer? It's as if he is ascending in the heaven. Houses can themer conceivable if the sort of the
heaven is a solid object I respect case girl is you gentlemen? Well, I Iris that I rest my case Yanni sorry, say this should never be heard again. Now it's so embarrassing. They are saying that the Quran says that the heaven is a solid object, when one of the most
central things in the Prophet sera biography is that he does. And he does. It's a mirage. He went up the heaven. How can you go up to heaven? When there's a solid object? Come on, please, really, really, these people do not employ critical reasoning when they're dealing with the product. Now, another issue, that somewhat problematize thing that someone can say is that how come now, if we take on face value, and we're not saying it's a part of the heaven that falls, can we still understand it to mean that the heaven is some kind of the fabric of space is going to implode upon itself was going to create a black hole or something like that, and that it would appear to us as if
it's falling, if that is the case, God knows best, the K fear or the hollowness of how such
how such a thing would take place and how it would look from our perspective. If it wasn't as for example, the initial phases, or if it was in the end phases is something we cannot speculate on. But we should remember that Allah when he's speaking to the human being, he is speaking to him in his own Anthropocene, an anthropocentric phenomenological perspective. And that means from his his perspective or his from his perspective, and I was my case, I don't think there's anything more to be said about this was Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah.
Today, inshallah, we're going to be talking about a Hadith, which is all over the anti Islamic apologetics type websites, and it's in their publications and their videos online, which is a hadith which says that the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, mental Sahaja Samadhi bisazza Murat Agia layer guru who?
Someone who has a holla whoever wakes up and consumes seven dates of Agile kinds, that poison will not afflict him and set him which is magic will not afflict him. This is a this is an unscientific type of Hadeeth because
They say How could it be the case when the chemical agents or properties within the within the dates? There's nothing within them that would indicate to us from a scientific perspective that they could be immunizing to things as, as chemically destructive as poison. So why how can you understand this Hades? And this doesn't this hadn't fly in the face of 21st century scientific discovery. Now first, in order to answer this question, let's take a look at what some of the commentators of this hadith of full time have mentioned. So for example, I'll have Bobby who is a scholar of the fourth century died 388. Ah, he says, actually is not because of a specific property within the dates. He
says this, there's nothing within the date that actually has that immunizing capacity says Lally, horsea, photometer is not because of a specific characteristic or attribute is a date where enema is because of the Tao of the Hamza salam, or the the blessings of the Tao of the Prophet Mohammed Elias, and many of the scholars have have looked at this hadith in this kind of way. It will, Kareem said, knows first person a special time in a special place, and it's not applicable to us, to be sorry, can only be seen to be applicable to us, if it goes through the experimental method, and succeeds in the sense that we can actually prove that the days are, in fact, in line, immunizing to
poison. And this shows us that the the the commentators have had it had a very sober approach to science, and Hadeeth and science and crime. They understood that sometimes, these are two separate areas of jurisdiction if you like, and sometimes they have an overlap. Now, before we continue with this, how these the opinion of her party which says it's not a specific property, and the date seems to be well represented, if we look at other hobbies, because there's another Hadith, which the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Sallam he told us in the what he called the evening supplications of Carlos masa, which we should all be making, by the way, I've got a Sabah called masa, beautiful
supplications we should be making in the morning and the evening that will cause protection for us and so on. One of these words of protection is, is out we can imagine later met Michel de mahalik, the icy refuge with the perfect words of God, from the evil from what she created. And the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam he said about this, he said, Whoever says this lemmya Dora will shake. He said that whoever says this, nothing will afflict him, or no harm will afflict him. Now wait a minute, if the day Hadees was intended to be an immunization, a physical or chemical immunization, that how comes we find similar or even more generic, even more generic types of
terminology, used another Hadith if you think about this, this cannot mean it's a physical thing, because this is a supplication, which doesn't necessitate any consumption of anything physical at all. So this Hadeeth of the dates from that perspective, it follows that it wouldn't be because of the properties of the date but it's because of the bad that although worship of doing eating seven days so it's a worship just like drinking exams on waters is a worship just like doing will do as a worship, just like making God is a worship. And yes, we believe if you do that particular worship, Allah will protect you. Yes, from some from poison. And yes from salmon, yes, you will, unless there
is a manner and the marijuana or the preventers can be many. Like for example, to give you an example, there is a hadith which says that if you make dire if you supplicate to God, but then your actions, your income, and your consumption is all Haram is all impermissible, then an affair Anastasia. Bella, how can it be that your supplication will be accepted? Even though the Quran says like I read the Annie for India, Kareem huji Buddha to die their dime, that if my slave asks me about me, then say I am there, then I am there. I answer the call of the caller when he calls. So ally selling us is going to answer a blog. But in other parts of the Sun and the Quran, he indicates
to us that actually the millennia to do AI, which are for example, if you have haraam income if you have haram if you commit sins and so on and so forth. Thus, the same kind of principle can be understood with this Hadith of the dates, which is that in general, yes, you eat the seven dates. And yes, you will be protected and immunized from these things by Allah will so long as is no manner so long as there's no preventer in much the same way as you will ask Allah for whatever you like so long as it's halal, and it's not doing haram and Allah will
Answer you so long as there's no manner. There's no preventer and that's impossible to disprove from a scientific perspective. And I hope that answers the question was Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah catch.
trench Allah we're going to be talking about one of the most species claims has come out of this science narrative science era narrative, which is this claim that there's a Hadith of the Prophet, which supposedly says that the earth is on the back of a whale and the whale is on the back of his balancing on some kind of a rock or something to this effect. And this hadith is fabricated. I mean, I don't want to waste too much time with this video and just be honest with you, this head is absolutely weak, weak and his Senate is chain and weak in its content. It's what it's saying. If you look at the Senate, let's start with that the chain of narration will know that has an Abdullah bin
Webb it has in the unbeliever Nyasha hasn't challenged him as a man hasn't Abdullah even saw a man a toil and all of those individuals, all of them, without exception are weak narrators and a fact of Nicosia mentions in his widow and hey at the beginning of the end, that this is a fabrication that is taken from the SI aliette from the kind of Tales of the Judeo Christian tradition of those individuals from that tradition. So this is something which is absolutely fabricated is weak in in chain. It's weak in narration is weak in content. Because no doubt this is some kind of a mythological hubby's. But why can't you find something like this in the Quran? It's really
interesting. And it's so easy for everybody. I think that the access is this kind of Hadith to note that this is absolutely unscientific, and whatever you want to say about this, you can't read it if it's indefensible. Really this the meta and the content of this series. And why can't we find something like that so glaringly? Obviously, against the observable reality in the Quran and the authentic Sunnah? Why do people have to resort to getting something which is fabricated in order to make a case against Islam? You think this is another issue, when you look at one of the compendious, exegetical works of debris and other individuals, where they actually intentionally put all the
material in there, including the weakened fabricated material, so that the scholar who is trained and able to distinguish between the weak and the fabricated narrations on the one hand, the more talk, the more that I Eve and so on these kinds of varying levels of inauthenticity. And they also put in there the authenticate, if you think that as an unqualified personnel that you are the detractors of Islam coming into some Tafseer, just because it's narrated from that def See, and that has somehow become authentic. No, this is not how it works. And this is why the, when the untrained hand reaches into the scholarly works with the Muslims, this is the kind of blunders that they made.
But in fact, what this show is that they have to resort desperately resort to these kinds of fabricated narrations that nobody accepts is absolutely embarrassing narration but why can't you find something so glaringly against your observable reality as this there's nothing that you'll find in the Quran And once again, the authentic so that is like that, but Nice try. No cigar this time was said I'm Ali Kumara masala when I get
today, inshallah, we're going to be talking about a contention and misconception, a misnomer, something which you'll find in some of the anti Islamic websites or in anti muslim or anti Islamic apologetics. The claim that look, your religion, they say, is a religion which says that you have to go and drink the urine of camels, and the milk and urine of camels, what kind of medieval practices this, we have come a long way in, by way of pharmacology and medicine and look, your religion wants to bring us back. Your religion wants to bring us back to the Dark Ages. This is what they claim. But is this a true claim? And what are they basing this claim on? they're basing this claim on a
hadith in Sahih Bukhari where some individuals came to the Prophet man is our solemn,
having some kind of a disease and complaining of severe pain and torment from that disease. And they came to him and he advised them to go and drink the camel, the urine of the camel and drink the milk of the camel. Now one might argue that this is completely you know, unscientific. And it's why would he do such a thing? Why would the Prophet Mohammed Salim do such a thing? Is there any kind of scientific backing for this at all? Well, first and foremost, we need to understand that this hadith is not on its house. It's not General, but specific. It was specific to those people in that time in that place. I mean, if the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was in this time in the 21st
century, I'm pretty certain that he would have referred those individuals to the hospitals or to the pharmacies, but you have to remember that this was situation specific. So those individuals I came there The question is what my
They have had, what kind of conditions might they have had? No, we can speculate we can say that they might have had edema or some kind of fluid buildup in the stomach and in the liver, we can we can make those things because can we urine is rich in potassium, potassium, and it's also rich in albumin. And quite frankly, urine is something which we find in some medication. Um, in Premarin is a medication, which takes in, which takes in as part of it's
one of the components of this medication is the urine of mare pregnant may actually pregnant mare urine. So this is not a foreign concept of using urine for medications, even today in the 21st century. But it's not to say that we as Muslims, when we're not suffering from anything, and we have all of the facilitation by way of medical advancements 21st century should be going and drinking camel urine and going to drink Remember, the urine, or sorry, the milk of the camel as a way to try and alleviate our illnesses. And the evidence of this is so so clear in the Quran, that the victim couldn't let alone going after people of specialism if you don't know the Quran says, thereby giving
authority to doctors. The problem Hamza Salaam tells us to go to those reputable doctors and even says those mental Tabata Well, I'm here to borrow for whoever tries to be a doctor and is not someone who is known in medicine, or as a practitioner of medicine and his and he harm somebody or kill someone that he will be punished for. So doing. So there was clear direction redirection from the Islamic paradigm of move of going to those specialists, those medical specialists for our needs. So no, this is not a general
kind of directive from the prophet or prescription of the Prophet. In fact, even the medieval scholars like Kamal, Josie, I make this very clear on their tracks, and their kutub and their books, about the prophetic medicine and so on. And so that this is a specific kind of remedy for a specific kind of people a specific kind of context. And yes, we can try and speculate as to what these individuals may have had and what that prescription that's so good, if you want to pull it in as a prescription would have had it by way of relieving effect to those individuals. So really, there's no, there's no way you can go in this criticism, because what can you say that potassium and albumin
and or calcium, whatever is, in the cocktail of prescriptions that are pronounced are seldom sold, those individuals would have had no relieving effects for absolutely any disease that can come in. And you can't make that claim. Unfortunately, you'd have to be making that claim, you'd have to say, for you to have a kind of valid scientific argument here, if you want to call it that, you'd have to say that this cocktail of prescriptions that the Prophet gave to those individuals would have been useless in any disease that those individuals would have had. And that's an impossible claim, because we know that there are nutrients, they're nutrient rich, those things that cocktail of
things that we've just talked about the camel urine in the milk as potassium albumin and other things. So unless you want to be brave enough to make a claim like that, which can be easily refuted, and has been really if you think about what I've just said, then I would say stop being in mature if you're in as part of the drugs that we take consume in the 21st century. This is not a way of disproving the Prophet, Prophet Muhammad Rasul Allah, really what this is, is a cheap way of trying to mock the religion of Islam and the prophet of Islam. But the joke is on you or detractor, because the truth of the matter the reality of the situation is that the prophet and Islam gives us
clear directives to go to those who are specialists in the field including, of course, medical professionals are Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.
Today, inshallah, we're going to be discussing the issue of geocentrism in the Quran, or the suppose a geocentrism, that that attractors had supposedly found in the Quran all over the verses in the Quran, that it's so glaringly obvious for us that we have not been able to detect it. But let's take a look at this claim and see how honest it is. Whether it's actually identical or exegetical in nature. What is the claim? The claim is that in the Quran in those verses were the orbits of the sun and the moon are mentioned that this indicates to us, at least, it implies to us maybe an implicit reference, or inference that the sun is going around the Earth, this is their claim. So what kind of
verses do they use? Before we get to what kind of verses they use? We should point to the fact that we've done an entire video on the Hadees of frustration of epithelial havarti. And this can be found in the description box below. And you should be looking at inshallah, also if you have your time, all the other videos we've done in this series, because potentially, we have other answers, because a lot of these videos are actually intertwined in terms of the themes and content of these videos. So let's move on and talk about where in fact, they're talking about
This, these geocentric references in the Koran. So they'll they'll mention for example chapter number 39 verse number five, you call will lay land on the heart We call them the heart I laid was a hollow sham. So we'll come on cool lunia Jerry Lee agilely muslimah he rose the day into the night, and he rose the night into the day. And he has made the sun move subsiding for you, and each of them are running in an orbit. So does this mean to say, from this verse, or other verses? Well, let's go with this verse verse, that the sun is going around the Earth. Now there is no such indication at all. The only way in this verse and we'll see in other verses that they quote, that you could come
to the conclusion that is saying that the sun's going around the Earth is if you impose you superimpose that understanding, you have already had a preconceived understanding of geocentrism in the Quran, and now you're trying to force that interpretation onto truth, right? You will not find quite frankly, you will not find quite frankly, any verse in the Quran, which simply states the sun goes around the earth and how easy would it have been for such a verse to be there? Look at sort of a sham sort of champs, chapter number 91 of the Quran, which shows you a little haha will come in either at Allaha when the heavy evangelia will lay leader yaksha
the sun as it illuminates the date or the rays of the light. Well, ships well Haha, well Comrie either tele and as the moon follows the sun. Now does this mean is following in in a in a geocentric orbit? No, it doesn't have to mean that because in Islamic cosmology, we know that the day follows the night and the night follows the day. And that's the anthropocentric phenomenological perspective. We see that the night. These are sequences that we see from our perspective, but actually, quite frankly, the sun, the moon doesn't actually follow the sun. I mean, a lot of these individuals have not even touched have not even touched the basics of cosmology.
I mean, it's very surprising that they're making all these scientific claims. And they don't realize that the sun is not just stationary, is revolving around its own axis. And it's running through the fabric of space, taking with it, all of those planets around it. And of course, all the moons that exist within the solar system as well. So, in reality, the moon is actually following the sun. And also from our perspective, the moon is following the sun look at the beauty and the brevity and the conciseness of the Quranic expression, such that an individual doesn't have to do hermeneutical, acrobatics, or how many people have Gnostics in order to come to a conclusion like this? We're not
trying to force things into the book. They also mentioned chapter number 21, verse number 33, where it says that what we're calling frolicking is behind the sun and the moon is is that all of it is in a phallic? Yes, but but that's true. The sun does have a phallic, the moon does have a phallic. How is that wrong? From a heliocentric perspective? Once again, the argument is so lacking quite frankly. So lacking is actually I was contemplating whether or not to dignify this with a response.
I really was because it's so weak.
Now, what is the strongest part of their argument? Let me discuss it with you. The strongest part of their argument, which is not strong at all, but let's just go with it. Is those parts of the argument where they mentioned for example, the kisser or the story of Ibrahim alayhis salam and his interaction with the North, which is chapter number two, verse number 258. Well, we're allowing the rates that Ibrahim alayhis salaam says in the lie, it shows him the Mashiach, effectively having a Muslim for both utility cover that Allah brings the sun from the east, so bring it from the west. And so this Nimrod, this king, that he was having a conversation with the interlocutor was not able
to do so and that he was dumbfounded and be dazzled.
And he realized, you know, he was dumbstruck, if you want to call it that, whatever it may be, for boy hit a leather cover, the one who disbelieved, let's say look is saying here from the eastern from the west, and therefore, the assumption is a stationary Earth and that the sun is going around the Earth. Really, because let's look at chapter number 18, verse number 17. What Allah subhanaw taala says will tell us shumsa either thought as our own caffee him that only a minute, wait taccone boom data shimelle on federal admin,
that you see that when those individuals on the cave, you see the sun, when it has rise, it goes to the left of them.
And when it sets it goes to the right of them is Taka,
Taka boom that shimmer when is when is when is certain is going left so it's right when it's when it's rising and the left one is setting Now, what is right and left. Take on this for a second, right and left will be absolutely useless references unless there is a point of reference. What do you mean by that? Even on a stationary earth model or a stationary, stationary flat earth or stationary round Earth whatever you want to say that
The right and left have no meaning unless we're talking about a specific reference point. And if the Quran is talking about the right and left of them, yes, then this is perspectival. There's no doubt about that there has to be but through the perspective of those individuals there, and what and what perspective is, is the anthropocentric phenomenological perspective has to be like that. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense. It would be meaningless statements from the left and the right.
Because if you don't understand this, well, I this shows illiteracy, intellectual illiteracy, intellectual
clear clearly is from the anthropocentric perspective, from the human perspective as the reference point. So if you look at all of those verses in the Quran, something quite interesting for your information.
If you look at chapter number 36, verse number 40. And that's actually funny enough, Funny enough, and interestingly enough, that's something they also mentioned, chapter number 36. Number 41. Couldn't refer liking as the one before and even the literalist are literally scholars like, you want to call him a literalist, or whatever you want to call him as Bernie.
He looked at this verse, And he says, it starts from, I think it was verse number 24, something like this one that last monetizes? Well as long as we made
that, a sign for them, is that the dead Earth, so he moves from the earth. And then he goes to the sun, which ships with a Jedi Master controller. And then it goes to the karma, karma condemnor human as ILA. And then he says, we call Falcon Yes, behind, showing he makes the claim that and linguistically this is possible. lingos is absolutely possible. It's conjunctive. So it could absolutely be the case.
That the earth, the sun, and the moon, all of them are in orbit. And that is linguistically possible. We're not going to say Jasmine, like, absolutely, this is the case, but it's a possibility. And from all of those perspectives, and more, we show that the Quran is a timeless book with multi layered facilitation, meaning that if someone from the seventh century were to look at it, and approach it with their naturalistic understanding and outlook, they would not be confused. And one when someone from our from from our century, 21st century looks at it, we would not be confused, and we don't even find it, quite frankly, against the cosmology of, of today or the
popular cosmology as of today. So from all of those perspectives, and more, it would seem that they are clutching at straws, trying their best really trying their best to force an icy Jesus of the Quran with the super impositions and contriving the pretextual contriving into the verses of the Quran. And I would say that this is a fool's attempt, and it has been disproven and debunked and it should be left in the dustbin of history. And I hope this answers the question are Somali Americans?
Today insha Allah, we're going to be talking about another claim that is made by the proponents of scientific miracles. And we're not saying by the way that all of their claims are false, we're saying that the method itself has limitations. And we've discussed this the limitations of the methods in the in the video about Big Bang, and there will be a discussion, another video about the multi layered approach, which is, we believe, a more sophisticated approach to dealing with naturalistic verses in the Quran. But in terms of this now, the, the claim that is usually made when trying to prove Islam is scientific, is a claim in chapter number 79, verse number 30. Well, lots of
panatela says, we'll have the bada Delica haha. And they said, well, they translate this to mean, and the earth, we have made it into an ostrich egg egg. Now, this is a false translation, with all due respect to all of those who are making this or saying this is a false translation, which is why, to my knowledge, I don't think anybody has ever translated that into the English language in this way. And not only this, but we would see that all of the extra gtes of all time in the medieval period, practically all of them or none of them had said anything like this. So this is probably one of the worst examples with all due respect, once again, of distortion and super imposition and
contriving meanings into the verse, which are not actually there in any way, shape, or form. So what does this verse actually mean? It means that Allah subhanaw taala has smoothed over the earth. In other words, he hasn't made it craters in such a way as the moon is, for example, we can move around the earth, and there are flat surfaces all over the earth. Now, why do these individuals or what potential tenuous link could individuals make between an ostrich egg and this verse, while an ostrich egg is referred to not even the ostrich egg By the way, sorry, the place where in which and this is the degree of tenuousness in this in this attempt here, the place we're in
Which the ostrich lays his egg is called a mod hat. This is cool that not not the ostrich egg the baileigh itself of the Nana, not the ostrich egg itself, but the place in which the ostrich puts his egg is called and what Hannah this isn't the noun but this verb in the sorry this verse in the in the in the area is not mentioning a noun so how can you translate as a noun? Because the verse is a verb the haha he's under had to it her is it they loved yeah is because there's more aneta is fee is feminine in the Arabic language well Alibaba Delica haha so Allah has smoothed over and is kind of removed the craters or has made it not removed the craters hasn't made it craters in such the same
way as maybe the moon is or has put so many mountains that would be find difficulty to move around in the environment. This is what is practically all the fuss you won't have set from a pub or even Cathy's tarazi to I haven't seen anybody quite frankly, who has understood this meaning to mean that it's a place whether we're the air or sorry, the earth has made it today. Now this doesn't mean that the earth is projected in the Quran as being flat. As we've said before, there's there is precedent using verses from the Quran using verses from the Quran that indicate the relativity of the redundancy sorry, or the roundness of the earth. And we have actually an entire video which you can
see in the description box which elaborates upon them. But briefly, I'll just mentioned that this is chapter number 39, verse number five, you call with Layla and the heart, we call them the heart. Laila was a harsh and swell cover, he rose the night into the day, and he rose the day into the night. So the query Here comes from the Arabic word Cora, which means ball. And this is what even hasn't. In his book official, he mentions, he mentions that this and by the way, he was like fourth century or fifth century. So he is a medieval scholar that came before, you know, the scientific revolutions. And he said, he used this verse, he used this verse in Surah, tzoumaz, chapter number
39, verse number five, to indicate that the earth is round. And this is not just him, we talked about even taymiyah mentioning tether is like even moneda, who say that the earth is round. And in fact, he says Matt is a consensus. Not only this, but even Josie, who we mentioned in the previous video about the Big Bang.
Even Josie also mentions of the redundancy of the earth, many scholars and faculty in Arras he does, and his Tafseer and many other people do. And they can do this, like I've just mentioned with him hasm by looking at verses of the Quran, which linguistically indicate the rotunda to the earth. Now, having said this, okay, we've said that there was a difference of opinion. And we're not saying that no one in Sonic history has ever said that the earth is flat. And there have been individuals that have tried to use the Quran to indicate the flatness of the earth, that might be true as well. But we always say, that is definitely not the only interpretation. And Islam is quite unique, quite
frankly, in that it has extra gtes, who use verses from it to indicate the autonomy of the earth. Whereas you'll find
in other scriptures, like, for example, the Old Testament, and the New Testament, the patristic scholarship, all the way up to probably Augustine that have done exegesis of the Bible on these matters. None of them, probably up until the time of Augustine believed that the earth was round anyway. And those who did never use verses from the Bible, including that tenuous verse in the book of Isaiah, chapter number 14, it says, the circle of the earth, no one understood the circle of the earth as mean the ball of the earth, and therefore no one used the Bible is in patristic scholarship, as we see, as we can see, by looking at all of the extra Jesus's in the first few 100
years of Christianity using the Bible, or even the Midrash, the, the the Jewish texts, which are that which were written quite, astonishingly, interestingly enough, sometimes after the patristic texts were executed.
They don't use the biblical verses to indicate the authenticity of the historical nature of the earth. If they do believe it, it might be due to the fact they had Greek influence. And this tenuous verse, the circle of the earth does not, and has not meant for the, the authors of midrash, meaning the, the exegesis of the old testament to mean or authenticity. And there's no scholar that has ever used in the first few 100 years of Christianity, or even in the Midrash, any verse to indicate that the earth is round in the Bible, but there have been scholars who have used verses from the Quran, very early scholars to indicate that the earth is round. Now, why am I saying this? Because I'm
offering a solution. But what I don't, what we can't induce with all due respect is super impositions on to the next I actually believe a retraction is necessary here. Because there's no precedent for this. There's no precedent for anyone saying that this verse means and we have made the earth ostrich act. No one has said that
virtue respect and therefore we have to be humble and we have to be sincere. And we have to make a retraction here because this is the Quran we're talking about. And Allah subhanaw taala says will enter Kudo Allah Allah He may Allah tala moon, he mentioned many things and of the worst things that you can do and he says at the end of the verse and will enter kulu Allah Allahu Allah tala moon, but you say about Allah what you don't know. And so this is not what Allah has intended because it's not facilitated by the language. And there should be a healthy retraction by those proponents of the scientific miracle narrative. Who have said this, who have said this ostrich egg we should there
should be a retraction because we can't be demanding from all of those scientific era people, okay, the anti Muslims, anti Islam, apologists, all these retractions and not be introspective and self reflective in our own communities. And we have to try and get Yanni sanctify the words of Allah subhanaw taala as much as we can. And these are the dangers of the scientific miracles narrative, where you almost forcibly superimpose meanings of science into the into the text where there's no requirement to do so because there's actually healthy alternatives with great precedent and which are facilitated by the language in the very poor and we believe in so this, one of the weakness,
weaknesses of the scientific miracles narrative, but as I've said in the beginning of this video, that we will be talking about the multi layered approach and how it solves these problems and more. And it's much more sophisticated, and it doesn't fall into the pitfalls of the scientific miracles narrative that we've seen for the last maybe 20 years. And I hope that answers the question was Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah.
Today, inshallah, we're going to be talking about the Big Bang, and whether or not the Quran talks about the Big Bang, or actively teaches the Big Bang. And of course, this is a ubiquitous kind of claim that you find with those who espouse the scientific miracles narrative, both in the Western world in the English speaking world, and, of course, the Middle East as well, I'm sure in other parts of the world that I don't have access to, unfortunately, because my language skills are limited. But let's say, let's answer this question. The question of whether the Koran or not actively speaks about the background. Before we do this, though, I think it's very important to note
that here at Sapiens Institute, we think that the most sophisticated way of dealing with the Quran in so much as it talks about the naturalistic phenomena of the world, is to apply a multi layered approach. And this approach really says that the Quran speaks in a simple and concise yet powerful, rich way, which communicates with different audiences from the seventh century, all the way through to the 21st century. And it also says that when we looking at versus when we're looking at versus we need to allow ambiguity is to remain as ambiguities. In other words, picking one of many different interpretations and claiming that this is a scientific miracle is a limitation. Now obviously, this
method requires of multi layered method requires a video in its own right, it deserves more attention. And of course, we're going to we're going to do that. But for the purposes of today, we're not going to be going into much depth. However, there's one more thing I think is important to put forward in terms of conceptual analysis, which is David shots, his conception or compartmentalization of quarters into two different types. What is conservatism? conservatism, loosely defined is the propensity of a scripture whether it's the Bible or the Quran, or whatever, to be in agreement with science or to actually actively teach science now David chats divides it
into two different things. He refers to as bold Concord ism and modest Concord ism. So bold Concord ism is really the postulation that the Scripture is actively speaking about said scientific phenomenon. And modest Concord ism is that the scripture may not speak about it in such explicit terms, but indeed, is not against it in such explicit terms, or whatever said phenomena is, I think, the modest camcorders position is much more tenable from a hermeneutical and exegetical perspective. Now, let's move on to this, this big bang, example and look at the versus obviously, this is chapter number 21, verse number 30, where Allah subhanaw taala says, you know that the heavens and the earth
canada.com for dotnet, Houma, they were both one piece, so we separated them. This is a loose translation. And it's a very legitimate translation because if you look at the extra G, it's like a tabari, and even Kassir and go to be an all of these major kind of exegesis of the past. And obviously, also the Arabic language or not, and fatca literally just means
for something to be together and fatca for that for them to be separated. However, when you look at what these exegetes say they do actually
expound on different types of meanings. So for example, yes, it does say that the heavens and the earth were together and then we clip them asunder Or have we separated them or whatever you want to translate it, but they also say that
This could mean that this is when the summer or the skies started to rain. And when the grounds started to produce vegetation, this is another extra Jesus that is of the same person, many of the Salah for many of those medieval commentators to exist as the as the primary meaning in fact, and that is why the next verse talks about we have made for more to every living thing that says it makes more sense in that sense. But we will leave both of those interpretations as valid interpretations. Now, those interpretations and more have been said about this verse. So to choose one of them, are we justified in choosing one of them, because the dominant scientific theory of the
day is espouses or is closer to that one of them? I think we should be more reserved and conservative with this, because quite frankly, of all the different kinds of sciences that are out there, you could argue making a strong argument that physics and especially astronomy, is the most volatile in terms of change, I mean, paradigm shifts, we know not only the Newtonian to Einsteinian shift, but all kinds of theories have been elaborated upon, in the last 100 years in science and astronomy, I mean, string theory, oscillating universe, eternal universes. I mean, you can see from the, from the writings of some of the most prominent scientists that were like Roger Penrose, for
example. And in 10 or 20 years, he changes his mind on very foundational issues when it comes to cosmology, therefore, to pin, you know, a verse in the Quran on the changing and corrigible and chain. Moving, if you like, scientific discourse, I think is quite dangerous. Because what if, in 50 years and 70 years or 100 years, the dominant cosmology is different. And that is a very plausible scientific possibility. It's extremely plausible for the dominant cosmology to have shifted. And for this reason, this for me defines Another limitation of saying that the Quran talks about the big bang theory, which is that, okay, if you, if you're saying this today, let's see, if you remain
consistent, maybe if your grandchildren remain consistent, I have the same methodology, where all of these Western scientists are now changing their minds, and it becomes an oscillating theory. And then maybe you go to another interpretation, but this movement of science, and also the fact that there are different interpretations, kind of says to me that we shouldn't be cherry picking verses and trying to make them match, you know, the interpretations match with modern day scientific phenomenon. Because if we do that, we're actually outlining a failed hermeneutic. And we're actually justifying for those individuals who are attacking Islam, that attractors of Islam, who use one of
many interpretations, which might be unscientific and legitimate through the language, that this is a legitimate recourse. So if we're saying that we will, we'll take one of many different interpretations. And now we're going to elaborate upon that, then that what that does is it opens a can of worms because now the the the tractor anti muslim apologists is well justified in saying that according to the Quran, the heaven or sorry, the earth was created before they haven't, for example, and this is the opinion of this person and that that person, well, we'll talk we'll come back and say, Well hold on the opinion of the other person and that person is opposite to that. Well, they
will say, Well, hold on, you have justified to yourself, taking an ambiguous verse and and saying that means this when there are these other alternative linguistic alternatives, and exegetical alternatives. So why are we not within our rights to choose unscientific interpretations and say, This is what it means, when in fact, this whole idea of using ambiguous verses which have more than one interpretation, and running with it is exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite of what las panatela tells us to do in the Quran. Meanwhile, he can imagine who normal keytab welcome with a shabby hat. There's chapter three, verse seven, it says that this book has verses which are
foundational and others which are ambiguous than melodien. If equilibrium 01 for that matter, Shabbat, I mean, for those people who have swerving in their hearts, or some kind of deviance and outs, they will choose, yes, those interpretations that they which are ambiguous, and they don't know what the verse goes on to say they don't know what these interpret no one knows what these the interpretation actually definitely definitively means except for Allah. And some say what rasuna film and also those who are very grounded in knowledge, and some say no, not even those because the sentence starts and that's another discussion. But the idea is that choosing one of many different
interpretations and insisting that this is what the Quran says, is not the the sophisticated hermeneutical method. And in fact it can go into what enter call Allahu Allah tala won't and that you may say about Allah, which you don't know, it may go into that, or it could go into what the prophet says Moncada Bala Mohammed affiliated with Mercado manana, whoever lies about me intentionally the lamb prepares seeing the hellfire. Well, you know that there are other interpretations, but you're intentionally choosing
So you can fit it with a particular narrative. And so this is problematic. So from all of those perspectives, and that you have changing science, that is a cherry picking approach that you know, is limited. And you know, you could even say one of the possible assumptions and most things that definitive ism is that if it is talking about the Big Bang, if it let's say that chapter 21, verse number 30, is talking about the Big Bang, if it is talking about the Big Bang, does that mean to say that those people in the seventh century who had no knowledge of astronomy would have had this verse or the meaning of this veil to them, like they wouldn't understand the implications of the Big Bang.
And so this verse would be meaningless or very, very close to being meaningless to them. So that would be Yanni this, this could be something which is also damaging. The truth of the matter is, this verse does indicate to us that there was some kind of separation, but we don't know well, what exactly cosmologically it's talking about. And similarly with snapping Bernina, happy Aiden, we're in the limo zone, you know that they haven't. We're in chapter 51. And they haven't we have created it with power, and we are steadily expanding it now. Yes, there are some people even tabula is I've looked at the data sheet in the exosuits that say that more sound does mean expanding. There are
some times I should say that, like for example, there are many bin Zayed even Aslam, and I've read this in there,
even Josie is kidnap Zen master. And so this is definitely represented in the literature. I'm not taking that away from from that. However, there's a few issues. It says what summer when in the heavy it is estimated dunya, for example, and we know and we've talked about this in other episodes, that so that means all that is all that is above. And so this does not necessitate that it's just a worldly dunya that we associate with the universe. So this might be talking about something which is completely above and beyond our understanding, because we haven't even accessed the other six heavens for example, and it could be talking something above the six heavens because summer could
involve the course the and the arch technically. So why are we getting ourselves okay? It's talking about the expanding universe for sure. We don't know Allahu Allah is talking about the expanding universe for sure. Because quite frankly, the majority of exegete says in their mo Xian, a in that accord the rune mu sound means we are able to do so like we are confident we're able to do so Allah, we created the heaven with power, and we were able to do so. And there's no contradiction between the two minutes. And yes, it could mean both. But to insist it's talking about the expanding universe in redshift, I think it's a bit, it's a bit much, and if you do insist, is definitely
talking about this. And it's how we should understand the verse, Then once again, the cherry picking approach, and the inconsistency of it, you'd have to afford for the Husson for the interlocutor, which in this case, will be the anti muslim apologists, who is going to use unscientific interpretations in much the same way as you're using scientific ones. So what needs to be done here is we need to remain consistent. And we really need to understand the limits of using this kind of evidence. And what quite frankly, in the last 20 or 30 years, we've seen the, the strengths and weaknesses of this, the advantages and disadvantages. The advantages, if you from $1 perspective,
quite frankly, if you try and bring people into Islam, because of this, those people that you bring into Islam, because of this will be most affected by the anti Islamic apologists when they provide for them, for them equal or similar types of argumentation using equal or similar methods. And so it could and we have seen, we have the evidence that it could increase apostasy for those particular individuals who have been convinced of Islam because of that reason. So one has to exercise extreme caution here. And they have to be consistent, and they have and they have to do justice to the Quran. And leave that which is ambiguous as ambiguous and speak with.
Speak with with a sophisticated tongue, not when when when ambiguous verse because no one knows really what this verse exactly is talking about. And I hope that answers the question. But finally, I will say as Muslims, can we believe in the Big Bang? And can we believe in the expanding universe and redshift in the beginning of the universe? Absolutely. I don't see any problem with that. And in other videos, you see that we're talking about, for example, the the days meaning something which is longer an epoch or generational time period, so it doesn't need to mean a 24 hour period. So from those perspectives, I see no harm in believing the Big Bang Theory, so long as you believe that
Allah is the one who created who initiated it. Yeah, I don't see any issue with believing it so long as Allah is the orchestrator of it. And he is, this is part of his help. But you should, from a scientific perspective, be a little bit more, less eager, and a bit more. Use the word agnostic really, because we don't know for sure how far this big bang theory is, is true, because quite frankly, is under determined from a philosophy philosophy of science perspective. There's like maybe 16 or 17 different models with very similar epistemic weights. And so this underdetermination should allow us to realize that from an Islamic perspective avani
And it's not that I Delilah, and therefore we should not, which means is speculative and it's not something which is certain. And so we shouldn't need to feel the need to really overcompensate here with this issue. And I hope that answers the question was Salaam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.
Today insha Allah, we're going to be tackling a contention that some of these anti Islamic apologists have tried to put forth one that stipulates or that asserts, we could say that the Quranic presentation of cosmology is one that says that the sun, it sets into a murky water spring. And why did I say that because of a versatile sort of chapter 18 of the Quran was her name one of the protagonists, one of the characters of the Quran, he goes to a certain destination and he says that he sees the sun whether they have to have roofline and hammy either he said he saw the sun setting in a muddy spring and they say this shows because it's very clear in the Quran, they would
argue that this shows that the sun according to the Quranic cosmology, yes. Setting in a spring of
murky water Now let's look at what the professor on the exegesis of the Quran a full time have said, Okay, bye boy, okay, because he looked at even taymiyah even though he didn't do like a, you know, a Tafseer of the Quran, but he mentioned this by mentioning that all of the spheres of the the phallic, almost Madeira, or spherical, and according to be actually mentioned in his tafsir, this way Yani because obviously he was preaching, or he was his homiletic type of exegesis was also being preached to a non Arab audience and a lot of individuals doesn't understand that the word whether that could actually mean his perspective, less from the perspective of the individual. He said, It's
obviously not talking about the sun, which is many, many times bigger than the Earth in which we live in sinking into the Yani The, the spring of, of murky water in that literalistic sense. And what is the evidence of this from the Arabic language the evidence of this is the word wedge or that word Jetta, which is what the word the operative word that is using this verse, it means one of the key meanings of it, according to Alyssa Harney, who wrote obviously one of the most authoritative dictionaries for referencing the Arabic language of FAMU, Florida, hold on, he says in it, that this could mean anything from the five senses for those perspectival something's in the five senses that
is experienced from the person experiencing them. So this wedge is clearly in the Arabic language perspectival and it's the anthropocentric phenomenological perspective. And so from this perspective, it seems to me that this is really flogging a dead horse or trying to put into the Quran what they wish, really was clearing the Quran, and that they hoped was already in there. Now you imagine sometime after today, maybe 100 years from now or 200 years from now, some atheists that live on if they will continue. So that's that that period of time, as they say, look at these fools that lived in the 21st century, they used to say that the sun sets but we know from modern science
that the sun doesn't set. We say that these people are foolish, they don't understand how language works, because sunset in the English language because it's not something foreign. sunset is obviously from our perspective, it's a linguistic kind of, if not idiom, but it's something which is
common speech, and it's not intended in that naturalistic way. So, we will be saying that to them, obviously, why can't you apply the same kind of common sense with the Quranic discourse is because you're begging, you're desperate to find some kind of thing, an entrance point for your narratives, and this is weak. Another thing that I would add, or that they say is that what had there's another Hadith which corroborates our understanding, which is the Hadith when the Prophet was asked supposedly asked, What is the sunset and he says, terrible, fine, and hammy as it goes into a spring of muddy water. Now, this loves of the Hadith, this particular phrase, the owner of the Hadith was,
was narrated by one individual called attacking not Tabor, who is seen as Mr. Dallas, which means that he's weak basically, this individual does something good, which means that he doesn't tell us where he gets his information from. He doesn't tell us who his teacher is. And so this manner is a form of disqualification from the heavy science perspective. And so this particular phrase urology is not to be understood as strong, the MS. That's why it's not mentioned Bukhari and Muslim. In fact, the Hadeeth, which is mentioned body is the one that we talked about the other in the other video, which of course, you can watch in conjunction with this one if you want more information that
had these have prostration. Now if one argues that even though this is the case, we can do a scene of the Hadeeth or some kind of strengthening of this hadith. And there are some scholars that say this hadith is strong, and so on and so forth. Well, we can say that if you want to play with weaker, decent, weak narrations, we can also bring forward the parallel humaneness out and drive him that best which is actually weak. We can be argued to be strong in the same or similar senses that this one where it says we're Sham surgery, LED MR Corolla that the sun runs and it has no space of setting it's actually something which is
attribute it to both even our best and even the muscles. Now one can argue if we do take this on board, wouldn't this run counter to what the Quran says was shameful certainly Mr. khatola that it runs to a place of appointed for it well actually, the JAMA could be made or contra distinction can be made between or harmonization can be made between the two in so much as that we can say that one is talking about time or the day of judgment in the case of the Clara which is well known and the other one is talking about Plex. And of course, we can make those arguments but I won't make those okay, because we have to stick with the integrity of the Islamic tradition of authenticating that
which is authentic, and leaving inauthentic that was inauthentic that does not have the the operator's for being something which is an authentic idea that should be taken as gospel if you like, or in this case, put on white for the Muslim. So I would say that if you want to play with we can if we can all play with we can listen we can narrations and with color. And in fact, the one that I have is much clearer in by way of trying to prove the heliocentric model than the one they have, by way of trying to prove that the sun actually is literally set in the spring of muddy water. This of course runs counter to the Islamic understanding or the Quranic reading, where it says that
the sun is in his own orbit in chapter number 21 verse number 33, in chapter number 32, verse number 40, in chapter and many different chapter number 35, verse 39, verse number five, nine different places opera. So in summary, therefore this is a weakened feeble contention, a specious claim, which I hope now has been completely and utterly refuted. And hopefully that answers the question so that molecule mirandola
today in sha Allah, we're gonna be talking about a contention, which is put forward by some of those detractors, namely one that talks about the Noah's Ark narrative. Now obviously, we know this narrative is also in the Bible. But this specific narrative or this specific contention, I should say, is leveled directly at the Quran particular level that chapter 11 verse 40 of the Quran where Allah subhanaw taala says that bring on it mean colons or Janie's name from every pair or every kind a pair from every kind a pair male and female so let's say it's virtually impossible to fit all the species of the earth all the species male and female on this ship what kind of ship would this be
anyway it's virtually impossible to put all these animals and when we say pair I mean the same from every slave and saying animals here is me Colin xo Jane is men from every kind or admin Colin anything that can have a pair really xo Jane his name.
Now do we understand this literally mystically? So the answer to this question, is this. The operative words here? Min coolin, zoji. Anything Oh cool. The word cool look in the Arabic language which literally means every in one of the translations of this term is what is the source of confusion, because some people read this and have a very literalistic interaction with this word. This word does not only mean this word cool in the Arabic language does not only mean every single thing. It can also mean many things. And what is the evidence of this? The evidence of this can be found in the Quran itself. Were in chapter 46 and sort of half the Quran. In verse number 25. Allah
subhanaw taala says to them miroku leshy can be amblyopia that destroys everything with the command of your Lord is talking about a wind for us by Hola, Euro lm si Aquino home so they could not be seen except for their places of inhabitation or residents. So in other words, it's not talking about everything because this versus being very clear that this wind destroyed many types of things it's destroys, collect shading everything the same words, color shading the word cool is there meaning every right
it destroys everything. So nothing of the them were seen except for their homes. For us What about Hola, Euro Illa we can't see anything except for their places of residence Yanni their homes. So clearly, this is not talking about everything. This wind didn't destroy the universe, the cosmos and this and that, and almost every or solely.
This is a branch of Islamic sciences called or soul alphabet, which is the principles of jurisprudence. They use this in that tracks and their treatises the word cool and it's called it's actually a category of thing called a LAN. Lead you rob Bell whistles or house, that it's something which is general and what is intended from it is a specific thing. So it's a kind of usage of the land
language which was understood by the scholars of Islam, one of the scholars of Islam as silty who died 911. After hijiri. He, in fact wrote a book about this word cool.
Al kumala. He, this is the name of the book. and in it he shows that there are usages of the word coral, which is lit, realistically translated as every wish cannot mean every single such that nothing is excluded from that particular genus or circumstance, whatever it is, we're talking about universal, whatever it is we're talking about. And so with this, I should say one more thing, that, as I started this discussion, a lot of people are taking the Genesis narrative and putting onto the Koran, there are some very many differences. For example, a literal reading, not a literalistic one by literal reading of Genesis may take someone who's an evangelical, who takes a literal
understanding of the Bible, like Answers in Genesis and those individuals to the conclusion that the whole world was consumed by flood, and that all individuals had to be put on the ship, or and animals everything had to be put on the ship. That is a a an interpretation for the Bible. We are under no obligation to believe there was a worldwide flood. And we are under no obligation to believe that all the entire world animals and species that we put on the ship for the reasons are for mentioned, my hope with that the contention is cleared. And with that, I end this episode was Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.
Today, we're going to be responding to a contention, which some people anti Islamic apologists have used. And even it since on their website, about a Hadith, which talks about the black seat, and if you wanted to translate it literalistic Lee would read that it's a cure for every disease. But is this the case? How could it be the case? I mean, is there a cure for cancer, for AIDS, all of those things? Do we not need hospitals any more cancer research needs to shut down because now we have the black seed No, the Hadith does not mean all of the diseases, barring none. This is of course, a literalistic reading of the Hadith, which has no bearing on the actual meaning of that if, and this
is not even how the medieval scholars, the short raw, the commentators of this Hadeeth have understood it even from as far back as in hajah last colony, and others in other individuals like even payment Josie and his GitHub set and God and others who spoke about the black seed, and this hadith in particular, all of which, who I've read anyway, specify that it's not talking about all the diseases,
but it's talking about many different kinds of diseases. And this is something which we know from the usage of the word cool, which is in this Hadith, which is also used in the Quran, where Allah subhanaw taala mentions in Surah Allah calf chapter 46, verse number 25. Well, last part, Allah says to them, miroku, lashay and B, Emily, or B have asbo, Euro il MSI kinome, that it destroys, there's a wind that destroys everything with the command of its Lord. So they came to be not seen, except for their in dwellings. And of course, this does not mean that this wind that Allah subhanaw taala is talking about is a wind that destroyed everything, including animals and the earth and the
cosmos. Even though there's the exception there illumise I can have them except for they're in dwellings It doesn't mean everything was destroyed, except for the dwelling. So the cool here is not intended by any means, or any stretch of the imagination, to mean every single thing on the face of the earth, let alone the entire existence of entire universe. This is impossible to extrapolate from this verse and that is why many of the scholars have actually written books and criticizes about this word cool, because many people that employ literalistic understandings of the Arabic language do not understand these kinds of usages. So silty wrote a book alcool omala. He said, the word cool
and what it implies what its
evidence is or shows. So this should be very clear now that the
the black seed is not actually a cure for every single disease except a death.
It's not a cure.
Every single day is because the Prophet Mohammed Salam himself told us that Allah has not sent down any disease.
It was Allah who Dawa and except that he sent down with it or chemical sallallahu sallam, the except that he sent down with it, you know, a cure. In other words, for every specific disease, there is a level, a spa level, he, Allah has prescribed for it, a cure specific cure. And thus, if this was not the case, and blackseed could solve all of our problems, then such ahaadeeth would Indeed, indeed be a few times one and would not make any sense. So that is why we have to look at the entire corpus of Hades before we rush to conclusions, in summary, therefore, those individuals who try and use this Hadees and others to try and mock Islam and Muslims, but surely lost in their own ignorance, and
indeed, have a very superficial understanding, newspaper understanding cursory understanding
of the Hadith tradition, and I hope that is intellectually satisfying is for you, as it has been for me, was Salah walakum wa rahmatullah wa.
Today inshallah, what we're going to be doing is dealing with a very prominent Hadith that you'll find in many of the anti Islamic apologetics, and anti Islamic websites of those individuals who are trying to attack the deen the religion of Islam. So this is a famous Hadith, really a cosmological Hadith, which is mentioned by abuse of authority. And the contention is that this hadith fully supports without a shadow of a doubt, a geocentric model. And in fact, some add to this and say, it shows that the Quranic picture that the Islamic cosmology generally is that of not only a flat earth, which they've said and spoken about, and we have a separate video on, but one which is flat
and stationary, and where in which the, the sun is going around in a geocentric way. And thus, it's confirming the seventh century, you know, understanding of cosmology, and this is an evidence that it's false. So as I've mentioned, the discussion of flat earth versus round Earth is in a separate video, which you can find on this series. So if you want to see me talk about that, you can pause the video now watch that video and come back. Now in regards to this particular video. Let's read the Hadith in question and move on to what the specific contentions are. So the Hadees is narrated by Abu al Rifai. May Allah be pleased with him. And he said that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa
Do you know where the sun set?
Do you know where it goes?
I said, above our says, Allah and His Messenger know best, he said, it goes and prostrates beneath the throne, then it asked for permission to rise and permission is given to it. Soon it will prostrate and it will ask for permission to rise, but permission will not be given to it.
It will be set to go back to where you came from.
So it will rise from its place of setting and that is what Allah May Allah be glorified. May he be glorified, refers to in the verse and the son runs on its fixed costs for a term appointed, and that is the decree of the mighty, the old knowing he's mentioning, the Prophet Muhammad. Allah was mentioning in a sort of trc in chapter 36, verse number 38, was shrimps potentially, he must have heard that the sun runs on on a fixed
term decreed. So let's talk about what the contentions are. The contentions really you could say, are three in number three main contentions? The first one relates to this prostration of the sun. What do we understand from this hadith when we're talking about the frustration of the sun? Is it to be suggested that this is an anthropomorphic or personified picture of the celestial sphere that is the sun? And isn't this more in line with mythology and ancient legend than it is with the scientific contemporaneous reality that we know from examination? And from advances in science, that's number one. The second thing is about that the going How could the sun be going underneath
the throne? And this shows they say, the fact that the sun is going somewhere in sunset that it's confirming they say, the geocentric picture. Thirdly, they say that
Time of sunset. So why is it that the time of sunset is in any way significant? Knowing that sunset is at different times at different points of the round Earth?
I know there may be some flat earthers listening to this. And as I've said, there's a video for you guys, or for other people about the flat earth. So that's these are the three main contentions. So let's deal with them one by one. And in terms of verses of the Quran, we'll be discussing those verses of the Quran which people try to use to refer to geocentrism in an entirely different video. So the first issue that people have is in relation to prostration. They say what is this prostration the Quran says in chapter 17, we're in Minsheng in inla u sub B, how be handy? Well, I can let f Kahuna test be home, that everything in the heavens and the earth, you know, glorifies Allah, and
in the heavens in the earth does anything but glorify Allah, but you do not understand the way in which that takes place. So this verse shows that the celestial bodies, the inanimate objects, all of those things in the world, whether living or not, has a means of glorifying Allah. And this is actually in the realm of the metaphysical. So science does not tap into this, and it has nothing to do with science. In fact, the Quran explicitly says, Well, I can let off Cahoon at sb hakam. In other words, the sun and the moon and or the universe, it has a way of glorifying Allah subhanho wa Taala, which is distinctly different, distinctly different from the way in which we do so. So to try
and impose and anthropomorphize represent defied, understood understanding on the celestial spheres or the inanimate objects is nothing but going against the Quran, and a misunderstanding of the entirety of the Quran. So the frustration is not a frustration like you know, where you put your head on the floor, or the fact that frustration requires stationary action from the human actor, in fact, with different
species, different animals, different inanimate objects, different spheres. The crustacean does not in any way need to be correlated with such human prostration. It's not like the sun is growing arms and a forehead and is throwing itself on the floor. This is not the understanding. In fact, the Quran refutes this understanding very categorically. So this very literal, it's not even literally the literalistic reading of the Quran. The Hadith is the first point is the first point of confusion for those individuals who try and ask about the frustration. So clearly hear, the frustration is referring to something which is metaphysical and untouchable by the scientific method. And one can
say that, you know, the frustration, not just the frustration, but the submission of the sun, there is the slum, and the sujood of the Sun is expected since Allah subhana wa tada talks about, that the heavens and the earth will obey Allah, po and okara willingly or unwillingly. In other words, they obeying the laws of Allah subhanho wa Taala. Now some individuals will say, so why does the Hadith say that the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Sallam is saying that the Son is going somewhere, or to an appointed destination in the first place? Now, I want you guys to understand in the Arabic language, there's two things something called love as a man and Verve McCann, that basically, when you're
referring to destinations, there are two types of destination, time bound ones and place bound ones, as we'll come to know, with this particular Hadees, and the area in which links with this particularly wish the prophets Allah mentioned itself, the sun, we know from Tafseer is going towards the Day of Judgment. And this is the Tafseer of chapter 36. Number 38, where it says
we're shamsul toji. Really Mr. Padilla that the sun is running to a destination? What destination? Is it? Is that a time bound destination? Or is it a place bound destination? So the exigencies of Islam, the medieval exit routes, talking about the end of day so this is eschatological in nature. It's not talking about a particular place we're in which is going whether this those who espouse the scientific miracles narrative says the solar Apex and those who want to talk about the,
you know, the scientific errors narrative are going to say is beneath the earth, both of which are not indicated by the primary texts, and what's the evidence of this? The evidence of this is the exact phraseology, the exact terminology of the the hammer of going is mentioned in the Quran. Where is it mentioned as mentioned in chapter
37 and verse number 99. Well, well whether Allah subhanaw taala narrates that Ibrahim is saying in Nisa, he Bonita Robbie said, then I am going to Allah and He will guide me the same exact phraseology there. In the the Hebrew, I am going. Now what does this mean? Does that mean that somehow Abraham is doing a slot on Mirage, you know of his own? No, it doesn't mean that it means as Katerina says that this is in many ways, a figurative kind of going. Or if you don't want to say it's a figurative kind of going or something which is metaphoric, then you can say he is going with his as potat essence who is part of the self of the processes. He says this means that Ibrahim is
going with his Amel with his Nia with his pulp with his near meaning with his intentions with called meaning with his army. This is the hab or this going, it's not talking about a place bound going. Now bear that in mind because there's another Hadith which is extremely important. Maybe ironically, but definitely interestingly, narrated also Bibles are the following. I'll tell you why this is important. He says that the Prophet Mohammed Al Salam said, the seven heavens and the seven Earth in comparison to the corsi is nothing but a ring thrown in the desert. And certainly the hugeness of the arch over the course he is like the desert over that ring, Allahu Akbar, Allah, Allah subhanaw
taala, the, the, the magnitude of the Hulk of the creation of Allah subhanho wa Taala. Look at that, that the entire seven heavens is like a ring thrown in the desert compared to the corset. Now of course, he is roughly translated as the footstool of Allah subhanaw taala. But it's something which is not it cannot be imagined. And then that compared to the arsh, which is the throne, and also the ceiling of creation, is is insignificant as well. Now, why am I mentioning this? Because the question is, is there something that the sun does? Or could there be on the Islamic cosmology, something that the sun does, or somewhere where the insignificant sun, which is placed in the summer
dunya? In the worldly heaven? How do we know it's in the worldly heaven? Because Allah says Lufthansa is going to be wasabia. room in the Sheltie in any way with the celestial objects in chapter seven, verse number four, that is so Macedonia, so one of the seven heavens. And then you have the corsi, which is like a rain compared to that the movement of the sun. In this context of the grand scheme, the cosmological grand scheme of things, is completely insignificant. Does it mean to say that, and this is another question, does it mean to say that, if it's going under the harsh is the assumption, the false assumption that it wasn't under the arch in the first place, or the the
throne, it must have been under the ash because according to this hadith I've just mentioned, and other things in the Quran as well. Other I get a shot, that the throne is the ceiling of creation. So there's nothing that can be contained within the creation that would not be in any way under the option the first place from the Quranic cosmological perspective. Thus, the sun was always underneath ash in as much the same way as Abraham was always on the earth. When he said in the there, he wouldn't be sad in. And so it's not insignificant to say that I'm going somewhere or that someone is going somewhere or to some time,
when in fact, they are staying in the same course that they are on a physical trajectory level. So this question of going somewhere, that the hab the going of the sun, is one that has been confused by the compounded ignorance of those who fell to look at the entire corpus of the Quran and Sunnah, especially in the phrase theological usage of the key terms that we have just mentioned. Also to add it's very important we said we started the segment off by talking about that there are two kinds of thoughts the man and McCann are placed in time, okay, in the Arabic language and both of them have all intents and purposes exactly the same grammatical and usually the same phrase illogical and
semantical structures. Now here, we said that the hab of the sun or the going of the sun is not in reference to the actual going the physical going by In fact, it's about it's a time bound valve.
The men Nava McCann restriction and what is the evidence of this from the Sunnah? The evidence of this from the Sunnah is that the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi
sallam, he ended the Hades with the victor or the mentioning of West shamsul. He really musta karela. And the sun runs through and
determined to a place slash time determined it can be either. And we said here, that almost all the extra G's agree that it's an eschatological referencing, meaning it's talking about the end times and the Day of Judgment. So this shows that when he was referring trouble thought about the health of the sun, it was for eschatological reasons rather than cosmological reasons. Now, this is where probably the biggest issue that people have with this hadith lies, which is in the understanding, that is it. Why did the Prophet Mohammed Salah, Salah mentioned this at sunset time? And they say this is probably the biggest indication of geo centricity or geocentrism. And the answer to this is
actually ironically, that this is probably if you want to use anything if you want to mention cosmology in this, this, this sense, would would validate the heliocentric model, how is that possible? It could validate the heliocentric model saying this is Saudi is heliocentric, but that's not my claim. Just to be clear, just as I would say, it's not right to say is talking about geocentrism. But why is that? You see the Prophet sallallahu alayhi salam, he mentioned this hadith at the time of sunset. Now, if the assumption is, since he mentioned that in the time of sunset, that has to do with the movement of the sun, because the sujood he says that the sunset and then ask
for permission to rise again from last month I goes to the throne and ask permission to rise again. Now if you think about it, there is a verse in the Quran, which is very powerful and telling, isn't in chapter 22, verse number 18. Well last panel, autolysis, lm tala and Allah yes to do level. Memphis mo YT women fill up diva shamsul COMM And then the verse continues, do not see that to Allah prostrates all things in the heavens and in on the earth and the shunts the sun and the moon, wait a minute, wait a minute, why is this significant? Because if there is an inextricable link, that is to be made between the sujood the prostrates, the prostrating to under the sun, so the prostrating of
and the sunset Horeb if there's an inextricable link, the Quran says, yes, you do allow and it's mentioned in federal mobile app, which means is a continuous present tense. Wait a minute, what does this mean? It means to say that the sun is always prostrating to Allah subhanaw taala is not doing it in the past. It's not Sajid. And it's not doing it in the future or is going to do it in the future. So yes, Judo was so fast to the level, because these would be the things you'd have to put proof in the prefix of the word is saying yesterday level, which means it's happening continuously, in the present.
Wait a minute, if this means what it says that it would say, it would suggest that so long as the sun is frustrating, it's also setting. And obviously, if we now want to introduce the Flat Earth, stationary Earth cosmology, which those detractors of Islam are insisting on their websites and on the anti Islamic apologetics that the Quran depicts
a flat earth stationary Earth cosmology with the sun going around it, wait a minute, but on such cosmology, the sun would not be setting at all times. Wait a minute, wait a minute, yes, because if it was a flat earth stationary of cosmology, the sun would go underneath the earth. And there would be time periods where in which it's not setting on any body at all. There would be no such thing as a constant robe or a constant sunset.
So this, in fact, ironically, it actually takes away from the cosmology that they are trying to build in their scientific error narrative. And in fact, on the heliocentric model, and this is definitely the case where in which the Earth rotates around its own axis. It's always setting. It's always setting on someone. The sun is always setting
Someone why because the earth is continually spinning around is on axis. Thus, if sujood prostration is connected with wardrobe or
setting of the sun, then it must always have be setting, it must always be setting and this would in fact, negate the flat earth stationary, flat stationary Earth, geocentric cosmology, which these anti Muslims are trying to project. Now, they could say, well, this is a contradiction between the Hadees and the Quran. And if this was the case, then we'll have the scene would have rejected it, and it would be seen as I love the Hadith, the hidden defect of the Hadith, just like Hadith torba, for example, was rejected on similar grounds as a Muslim. So it was a contradiction, it would have been rejected because of meten criticism, or the criticism of the content of the Hadith. But the
alamat did not see it as that. So it's not something is, as we have just done now. We have reconciled it with the Quran, we have reconciled it with a heliocentric model. I don't think there's an issue here. And so, with all of this, having said being said, we can conclude quite safely, that this hadith is not talking about the sun, going under the throne. And it wasn't under the throne before that, or it's not talking about the sun going under the earth. Because if it was if it's flat stationary earth it would not be setting and we know from the Quran is the sun is constantly frustrating. And if it's constantly frustrating, it must mean it's constantly setting, and therefore
the boomerang, the intellectual Boomerang has hit them once again. It's always ironic, that when those individuals that try and attack Islam, the very evidences they use are usually used against them. What's Annamalai Kumara masala? Well, I guess.
inshallah, today what we're going to be talking about is something which relates to the subject of Quran and embryology and a particular contention which people have, which is that the Quran allegedly says, according to these attractors, that I've seen their material on anti Islamic websites, that the Quran that the human being is made up from a congealed that clots of blood, and we know from embryo logical study, that that is not the case. And they say, the word alika, which is the operative word, the important word, it doesn't mean to cling, or to be attached to something, which is what many Muslims have today, say, which they say is a super imposition of modern
scientific jargon into the vocabulary of the Quran. So let's deal with these two contentions one by one, the first thing I'm going to be dealing with a child lies the second thing I've just mentioned, which is the fact that this word Allah car cannot mean
something which clings or something which is attached to something else. And that in the vast commentarial tradition, and the vast exegetical tradition, 4400 years, this meaning was unknown to medieval scholars. And this meaning was not used in this way to indicate attachment or connection. The truth of the matter is that is false. That in fact, medieval scholars from the very early days of Islam, were mentioning, in their treatises in their dictionaries, and in the exegetical, and commentarial works, that in fact, alaka does mean to be attached to or connected to. So I'll give you one or two examples. Even the Josie he says this. And he was a sixth century scholar, Alaska,
Harney, who has a dictionary, talking about them for that of the Quran, or the single words of the Quran. He also mentions that one of the meanings of the word Allah is something to be attached to sahoo to its companion, so something to be attached to something else to be connected to it. So this is a specious and uninformed claim, quite frankly, I'm quite surprised, I'll be honest, that these individuals are making these claims didn't do themselves the academic justice of looking at these medieval books, or they were foolish enough to think that we were not going to do that. Indeed, these meanings are there, they are codified, they are written and they exist. Now the second
contention is they say, well, we Okay, let's give it to you. It could mean to be attached to all connected to something which will go in line with modern embryonic understanding of the embryo being attached to the uterine wall.
And obviously, remember
liquid cooled and, and others other things.
You know, taking from the nutrients of the host, in this case the mother.
This a fine is in connection with this but this other thing or meaning
is completely unscientific, which is the meaning of congealed blood because they say it's not blood at all.
It's not blood, the composition, the chemical composition of the fetus is not a bloody one. It's not one that is composed primarily of blood. And you see, this is where their argument is going to fall flat on its face, because this again is a weakness of the understanding of the Arabic language. And in fact, a weakness of the understanding of the Sunnah of the Prophet Mohammed Salah is because the man was Arsalan himself said, he said in the Hadith, that two things have become allowed for us, or two things which
may or may it or dead, and two things and he referred to the word demesne. To blunts the word them in Arabic means blood. He says to dem two dems have become
allowed for us. And the two dems in particular, is the liver of cabinet and the spleen. Now, we know that the cabinet the liver, is not something which is composed primarily chemically from blood. But why is it the case that the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, although some of the professors of the Hadith are executed, etc, this hadith is malkuth, which goes back to the Sahabi. If that is the case, which I don't believe it is, from reading the Hadith tradition, and I believe it's more for going back to the Prophet. But even if it is more proof, it's still what you call is to shed locally, it's still something to be,
you can use it as a way in which the language was used. Either way, it doesn't matter.
The blood was being in reference in this Hadeeth
it was being in reference to something which is not chemically composed of blood, but it looks ready reddish. So therefore, we can conclude that something which is not blood, in chemical composition, can yet be referred to as blood, if it has the aesthetic appearance of that. And we know that the embryo has the aesthetic appearance of something which is congealed and bloody, even though the chemical composition may not be so
Someone may say that the word Allah ca shouldn't be treated the same way as the word dem, because that means blood. And it was being used to refer to something which isn't chemically blood, by itself is chemically blood. But this would not be applicable to the word Alico. We will say no, this is not the case, because the Hadith itself talks about two dead things and two blood things. And the two dead things in questions were not actually dead. So this shows that the word can be used in the Arabic language to reference aesthetics. So in other words, something might not be the thing, but you're using it to indicate the aesthetic similarity of the thing.
Thus, this is a specious claim, and a foolish one. The real question is, why use the word Allah? When the Arabs had another word for the word fetus, which actually the Quran uses, which is the word Janine, which means fetus? Why did the Quran specify the word Allah?
This is something because Subhana Allah is true,
is true that the fact that the embryo clings onto is attached to the use Reinwald so it has this meaning, which the word jenine does not have. And in fact, the Quran could have said that Otto Mendham a congealed clot of blood, but the Quran did not use this phraseology. And indeed, it use a phraseology, which is more specific, and more in line with our understanding of embryology. And though this fits in with the multilayered approach, that we believe in here in Sapiens Institute, which is the idea that the Quran speaks to people in a timeless way, people of all times and all places, including us in the 21st century, and that is the reason, well lo alum, why Allah subhanaw
taala use this very specific word was Salam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.
Today we're going to be talking in sha Allah about this issue of the earth being created, or supposedly created before the heaven as per the Quran. This is the claim that many of these detractors make and is littered with
All over their websites. So what is the claim? The claim is that the Quran says that the Earth was created before the heaven. And this is wholly unscientific, something which is primitive and something which is more indicative of a seventh century type of
authorship rather than the Creator, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. So what are the verses that are being referenced with this kind of shubha? There are two main verses actually two only verses in the Quran that they use to make this this claim. The first is in chapter two verse 29, so it'll baccara Well, lots of panatela says, What Hola. Hola Hola como el de Jamia film esta Illa summary first awareness of as Mr. Wet, the He is the one who created
all that is in the earth and then he turned to the heaven and made them a seven heavens. And in chapter number 41, verse number 12. So looking for select, while also pilot Allah says for cada honus Abbas, am I watching fee Khomeini for well have equally summer in our house, that he is the one who ordained them as seven heavens in two days, and he gave to each of those heavens, its affair or their command. So they say look is clear here that in the first verse that we've mentioned, the creation of the earth as mentioned and then after that, the creation of the heaven is mentioned. And therefore, that shows a clear chronology. And that is not a foolish interpretation of the Quran.
Because Aslan as the default position the word Thoma which is critical here,
is usually use as the Arabic grammarian say, little rocky or for
subsequent chronology. So if something is saying, I did this for my this summer, this they're saying that they did this and then they did this afterwards and then they did they did this afterwards. But the reality of the situation is that you find in the Quran itself, examples where format is used conjunctively and not as or not used chronologically. So for example, if you look at chapter number six verse hundreds of before, Allah subhanaw taala says, Tina Mazel keytab tamamen Yeah, yes. And then we gave Moses the book completed
Manila, the Asana worth offseason liquid cliche and from the one who perfected all things and as a detail for everything. So somewhere here even a tablet he mentions in his Tafseer does not mean conjunct it does not mean sorry, a chronologically subsequent it means here conjunctive so it works like well, in other words, it doesn't mean something is happening after something else. Thus, we know now as a principle of language that Thoma can actually mean something conjunctive and doesn't always have to mean something which is successive in the chronological way. But then what do we make of those two verses that we began this video with? Well, that the manifestation of the exigencies of
Islam are in disagreement. So for example, you'll find patata, one of the early commentators of the Quran, one of the most for most commentators of the Quran, in fact, part of the Salah is a tab by himself. He believed that the heaven was created before the earth. And thus, he doesn't believe the word Thoma here indicates a transition or a subsequent movement of chronology. Likewise, many commentators, medieval commentators believe the same thing, even hayyan, being one of them, occurred to be being another and obviously these individuals all lived in the medieval period, what you'll find that patidar sorry, to be taste potat this view and he says, This is the correct view in sha
Allah, meaning he believes that there was a there was no concept there was no chronology indicated in these verses. And that's why actually, many people like First of all, Dean Razi, and his his tafsir, does not believe also that that is talking about something and something else. So here you have two valid ways of looking at these verses. One of them is scientific, and the other one is unscientific. Now, for all intents and purposes, if we're looking at this, just purely exegetically, both of those are fine interpretations. And both of them's both of those interpretations are supported by the language, one can have an unscientific understanding and believe that they haven't.
The Earth was created before they haven't. And one can have the idea that the Earth was created, the heaven was created before the earth. Both of those things are supported. In fact, when a Turner was making his argument, he says in chapter 79, verse 30, we'll have the rather delicate Hahaha, that Allah, He bought the valley after that he smoothed over the earth, He used this as a kind of evidence to suggest that the the heaven was already there. And if we really analyze these two verses that we talked about one in Bukhara, and one in sort of the full set. It doesn't actually say Allah created the heavens of the greater the earth and this is crazy.
Technically, it's extremely important. He says fussa were hoonah savasana wet. So he proportion them as seven heavens. And a lot of people don't realize that a summit, or the heaven is Ash, mellow minister mo it is actually more comprehensive than the seven heavens. Why is that because a summit includes everything that is above, which could include the seven heavens and all of those things which are above the seven heaven. And in Islamic cosmology, we have the corsi and the arch, which are above the seven heavens but are included in the summer. So thus, the summer because in love at large in the Arabic language, it means everything that is above includes the seven heavens, and
includes more than the seven heavens. Thus, if this amount was already created, and Allah proportion them as seven heavens, it doesn't mean he created them after the event of creating the earth. It just means that the finalization process when it came to proportion, had taken place after the earth had already been created. But that's something completely metaphysical to us, because according to the Islamic discourse, we live in summat, dunya The first of those seven heavens, because the Quran says, you know, we created in sort of milk, we made the we put basically firmaments or luminaries in the in the in the first heaven and dunya while at the end of summer dunya be masabi or jalna Haru
mela Sheltie we have created this dunya, the first of those heavens with masaba, which are luminaries, and we have made in pelting things for the Shelton bus,
one can legitimately exegetically have an unscientific approach. And one can have a completely scientific approach, if you wanted to put it this way, because it's not just Big Bang cosmology is almost all the theories out there was suggested the universe or the fabric of space was created before the earth. So one can have the interpretation and one can have the other interpretation is unscientific, but it's unfair. It's really unfair to say that the only interpretation, which exists of these verses is an unscientific one. In fact, that is a historical claim, above all things, because we know that there are people from the self all the way through the medieval times believed
that the the heaven was created. First the universe was going to call the universe you can call the universe, the heaven was created before the Earth and in fact, they use they use the Quran itself as an indication of that. So these are two valid interpretations. One side point, some people use Hadees, which is mentioned in Sahih Muslim, and in the Hadith, it says that the Earth was created on Sunday. And then this thing was created on Monday, Yeomans Nene. And then this thing was great on Wednesday, which sounds like a Genesis kind of narrative. Although this Hadeeth isn't a Muslim, almost all the scholars and they say a tournament the Al Bukhari himself, says this hadith is my
lens, which means it has hidden defects. And this hadith is weak is rejected. And there are some hobbies, a few of them is Muslim, and a few of them is I Buhari, which have been spoken about in those terms. So that Hadeeth now can't be used as an additional kind of evidence for those individuals who want to push the scientific error narrative. Because quite frankly, it's a weak Hadith according to the major scholars of Islam. In summary, in summary, we can say there are interpretations of naturalistic verses which are unscientific, and this is probably one of the best cases to look at that However, one can't just say that and stop. There is also or there are also
those scholars and experts who interpreted the same evidence in a scientific way or in ways which correlate with 21st century science. Thus, the exegete should be left to their own devices. And from an Islamic perspective, this is not a cool free thing, someone cannot be a disbeliever for believing either of those things are two valid interpretations. But this is a specious claim. If the claim is the correct interpretation is one was created before the other because we know the language is more Tamil meaning it's inclusive enough to include both possibilities were Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah light workers.
So let's take a look at what they say they look at chapter 67, verse five, will occur at the end of summer dunya be masabi
juman Michel clean where it says that we have thereby adorned the summit donya the worldly heaven with luminaries and we have made them pelting things for the devils and they say this means or how could this be the case their question, they say, how could it be that you have these luminaries in the sky that are pelting devils? This is a very unscientific they say and moreover, they would go and say that it's probably the case that Muhammad Sallallahu Sallam he confused between the meteors which are very small
size and composition, and stars, because when they may have seen shooting stars, they this they thought that that were that there were actual stars. And therefore they argue this is showing you the unscientific nature of the authorship of the Quran. This is these are really the two arguments are being made. And let's be honest, the first argument is a foolish argument. Because Science is predicated on methodological naturalism. So what they're doing is a category mistake fallacy. They're using something which is predicated on methodological naturalism to detect to attempt to detect that which is clearly in the realms of the metaphysical, which is, in this case, the devil,
the devil, the jinn, the angels, that Heaven, Hell, all of those things are seen as metaphysical things, things which are not meant to be detected or tappable, by the scientific enterprise by the five senses. And thus, the first part of their argument is actually
Shame on them really, for hat for having this limited knowledge on this on this kind of thing, entering an arena of polemics with this limited knowledge, and embarrassing themselves and everybody else. But even more embarrassing is the fact that they are making this supplementary argument now that well, the Prophet Muhammad must have been confusing between the meteors, and the the celestial spheres, the the moon, the moon, the sun, the stars, all those things, all of them are in one category for the Prophet, and therefore we couldn't distinguish between a small rock size meter, and, you know, a huge
star. And obviously, it's the foolish understanding. Actually, it's a foolish understanding of the verse itself because chapter 65, verse five, according to Ibn katheer, he says him Kathy, who is a medieval scholar, and extra g of the Quran was the most prolific Actually, he says, it's not the Misbah itself, it's not the star itself. And yes, he believes it is a star, there must be referring to star even though the word must be is not synonymous with the word stars because masabi means luminary things which illuminate in the sky, which could be anything, anything which illuminates from the anthropocentric perspective, anything from our human Li perspective which illuminates in
the sky could be a spa, because biology is a lamp. But in case you take the view is the new Juma is the stars and he says, He says Actually, that's not the star itself, which is pelting the devil. He says, it's not the star itself, but the soul of flame, which comes from the from the star, and you'll say, Well, this is a long shot. How could he say that? And why would he say that? Well, actually, he was doing to steal Quran the Quran because he was executing the Quran, with the Quran because if you look at chapter 38, verse number 10, it says 11, hot evil hot fat, it's about who she has happen, it says except for the one which follows in course, and therefore it follows it she had
which is really a flame, a third cup. So here this flame Shahab on Falcon is correlated with what is mentioned in chapter 38 of the Quran. Surah sulfat. Why Allah subhanaw taala says, what occurred Xena Sunnah dunya buisiness. collected, we have therefore adorn the heavens with the Xena with the adornment of Alcoa cable collected means, once again, it could mean stars. So here if you correlate the two verses, it would suggest to us that actually is not the star itself, but does she have the star? And you say, Okay, well, I'm not convinced yet. Maybe that is the case. But I'm not convinced, okay, if you're not convinced, no problem because there's another Hadith. This one's in Bihari,
where the Prophet himself, he said law, he says, robot man, it could be the case when he was talking to his companion, that that devil is being pelted by she had once again she had means a solar flame. So even if you look at the Sunnah, the Hadith literature, once again, we realize that it's not the star itself, which is belting the devil. But in fact, it is the soul of flame which is being emitted from the star, which is pelting the devil. And once again, you'll never be able to see this one on a metaphysical perspective. But once again, it shows the shallow research and the superficial reading cursory reading newspaper reading of those individuals to the Islamic literature. So this is an
education for them. And insha Allah we benefit for everybody else was Santa Monica mirandola, but I can't.
Today, we're gonna be talking about the matter of six days. And what do we mean what does the Quran mean when it says six days the universe was created, or the heavens and the earth were created in six days? Does this mean 624 hour days? And if so, how is it possible? How can it be conceivable that the universe which we know has been around for 13 point 9 billion years, or at least that's what science tells us can in any way have
been created in six days? Well, to answer this question, really what we have to look at is what the Quran actually says. And what the Quran what the Arabic words actually mean. To summarize this point, really, the word yom which the plural of is a yam means any time period. And what is the evidence of that the evidence of that is the fact that individuals like lasagna had written in their margin, their dictionaries long time ago, that the word yom is as elemental as mean any period of time. And that is why the Quran has this usage of the term in referencing different periods of time. So you'll find in, for example, sort of the setda chapter 32 of the Quran in verse number 10. Allah
subhanaw taala says, You Deb bill Umrah minute minister, it'll be so Maya ju Li e Yeoman kana alpha Santa Tina meta or Dune that he that God controls the affair from the heavens to the earth. And then it ascends back to him. In a day a fee yo min can at alpha sanity, metal dawn, that was 1000 years from how you count from your reckoning. So clearly hear the word yom is used in reference to 1000 years. And likewise, in chapter 17, verse five is sort of marriage. It talks about the Day of Judgment, it says, For Yeoman kanima kadavu hum seeing that elf Asana in a day, which its length is 50,000 years. So how could it be that you have one day that's 1000 years, and another day, that was
just 50,000 years? Well, even that Bess, the cousin of the Prophet Mohammed Al salam, and the most qualified person after the perfomances, to ever deal with extra Jesus, he actually replies to this question by saying these are two different days. And this has mentioned inside body, the most authentic book after the Quran, he says has any yo mania yo yo Manny book telephony, these are two completely different days. And so therefore, you know, a day in summary could be any period of time, when Allah talks about the creation of the heavens and the earth in six days, it could mean 624 hour days as a possible meaning. But that's not the only meaning. It could mean any period of six days.
So really, oh, six periods of time. Therefore, this contention that while the universe is 13 point 9 billion years, and how could the Quran say six days is a fundamentally flawed question to begin with, because the sixth period of time could mean any period of time. I think, really what's happening here is that there has been a conflation, there has been a super imposition of the Genesis narrative, as per evangelical kind of fundamentalist if you want to call it that will literalist readings of Genesis chapter one, chapter two, chapter five, as well, looking at all those, you know, lineage models that are mentioned in Genesis chapter five, in particular, adding them all up, and
then coming to a conclusion that is 6000 years. And we don't have the equivalent of Genesis chapter five in the Quran, we don't have the equivalent of Genesis chapter five in the Hadith. So this is not our, really our contention, because quite frankly, it's not something we have to deal with. So in some, in some, you know, the day could mean any period of time. And so it's not in conflict with the fact that the universe could have been 14 billion years or could be more than that. It could be less than that. And really, we don't know how long the universe has been around for, obviously, Big Bang cosmology would would bring us to the conclusion has been 13 point 9 billion years. But science
is far from incorrigible, and far from producing of eternal truths. So we remain if you like, happy to accept whatever science says, and there's no conflict at all between believing in a model of the universe, that is 13 point 9 billion years and believe in the Quran. That's fine, but we don't need to be dogmatic on what it is that the Quran says, what it means by six periods, nor do we need to be dogmatic at all about the universe being 13 point 9 billion years. And I hope that answered the question was Salam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa.
Today I'm going to be speaking about something which is actually littered all over the kind of anti Islamic websites a specious argument really an argument, saying that the you know, the Quran and Hadith or Islam, in his primary texts indicates that the earth is flat. Let's take a look at the Quran and the commentaries of the early people because I think that's a very important place to start. So if you look at the entirety of the Quran, from Fatiha until next, you'll find that really the earth is being referred to in different ways, you know, in sort of Bukhara, for example, the very first chapter after sort of sunset I had the second chapter in the Quran, Allah subhanaw taala
says, hola de Jara la Kumar
thirassia was sama Bina. And what ends elemina sama EMA? You know, he's the one who has made for you the earth as a spread if you like, and he sent down from the sky water. And if you look at the 88th chapter of the Quran, Allah subhanaw taala he asks some rhetorical questions. And one of them one of those rhetorical questions is Have you not seen the earth and how it's sort of had how Allah subhanaw taala has made it smoothed it over. For this reason, some people actually in the early times as well as those individuals who are indicating that this is the only interpretation Islam are saying that well look, the Quran is indicating that the earth is flat, they'll leave a look at
chapter number, chapter number 78 of the Quran, we're in the beginning of the surah Allah subhanaw taala says, you know, alumna of the academy head, Have We not made the earth the earth as a bed. And this is another argument is your bed is flat and therefore the earth is indicated as flat enough. This is not the case, because as early commentators have indicated people like even hasn't who was a, you know, fourth century fifth century scholar, someone who was not influenced and could not have been actually influenced by modern scientific discussions. He says in his book and fissile. He mentions that the the Quran indicates that the earth is round and his argument is in chapter 39,
verse five, Allah says, You can't wait to lay land on the heart, we call where you call, we're on the heart Allah lane, where Sahaja shamsul Kemal Colonia Jerry Lee agilely Muslim, the in chapter 39 verse five, God says he rolls the day into the night, and he rolls the night into the day, and he has made subservient for you then the shams, the sun and the moon, and the camera. And every single one of those are running in an orbit, you know, to a time appointed, allegedly masama to a place appointed. So in other words, Chapter 39 verse five, he says that tech we have this tech we're that's taking place could not have been or could not be at a query that takes place on a flat
surface, he says that the queer comes from the airport caught up which means which indicates that by a necessity this would mean that the knight is rolling into or onto a spherical kind of surface. And likewise the day and therefore the earth is round, according to the Quran. So how does he explain and other scholars explain those other verses which we started this this discussion with, which indicate that the earth is, you know, it's been it's been stretched out more debt, or it's been, you know, spread out, and so on and so forth. He says, Well, if you look on a, you know, for example, if you look at a plane of the earth, the earth went up in the first place actually means the ground
below. So as we're looking at the ground below, are we seeing that it's been smoothed over, in opposition to for example, you know, the Craters of the Moon. So if you look at the moon, and look at the kind of the ground on the moon, the craters on the moon is very bumpy, whereas the earth, the second, you know, the surface of the Earth is very smooth. And that's how they're able to harmonize between the two kinds of verses. Likewise, even taymiyah and his Khattab alash, which is part of Martin fatawa, as a literalist, in his own right, or apparent is, wherever you want to put it. Someone who looks at the Quran and doesn't even believe in metaphor in the forum is one of the only
people in the history of Islam who has actually said, We don't i don't even believe in such a thing as a metaphor on the put on. He says that the earth is round that he in fact, even quotes and mount it he he quotes a consensus among the scholars on this on this point. Now, this view, he says even taymiyah goes all the way back to the early generation, to a person who has a chain of narration called Eben moneda. So even monada is someone who comes in the fourth century or the third century, and who says that the earth is round, and he is one of these students of an even humble another person who
he will he wasn't going to metaphor is verses of the Quran, especially those cosmological ones which can be referring to certain phenomena. Therefore, I think in some, if we were to be fair to the tradition, I think the most that can be set in terms of making an argument against the Koran is that they've put on can be interpreted as saying the earth is flat, but you can't say that that is the only valid interpretation. That's an impossible thing to say. In fact, it's a historical because it's something which has been disproven by the very fact that the most apparent is and literalist scholars of the early times, people like even hasn't Who was it? Who was someone who was a
literalist, you know, it's not even as an allergy or someone like even taymiyah who did not believe in my jazz or metaphor isolation of the Quran. People like that.
And medical humble and his us hub. People like even monado. They said the earth is round. And they based their view on they base their view on the Quran and the verses of it. So this specious argument that's leveled the Quran well, Islam is exactly that. It's that it's really a weak argument with very little explanatory or reputational power when it comes to the historical exegetical works of the Muslim scholars. And so for this reason, we say this is a null and void refutation, which I can't even believe quite frankly, I can't even fathom how this has made the top 10 of the most, if you like, popular interrogations against Islam, in these
weak websites against Islam, I can't believe it that people actually take these arguments as carrying any kind of weight. And they continually use these arguments despite the fact that the evidence is have been shown time and time again. But these people are not ready unless ready and willing to listen to this evidence. So we just have to put it out there for mindshare as a human woman share failure as the Quran says whoever wants to come believe and whoever wants to can disbelieve what salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa.
Well, I hope all of those videos that you have just watched, or indeed, if you have just even watched some of those videos,
were able to challenge your thought process will satiate your curiosity.
We would like your feedback, if you are someone who was suffering from some kind of doubt, whether or not this series has helped you. So we will link a poll where you can tell us whether how satisfied and convinced you have been with the answers you have been given. This will give us a chance and opportunity to be able to introspect, and to self reflect and to improve our service. Positive reinforcement is as good as negative reinforcement and vice versa. So tell us what you think needs to be changed
by emailing us on the email below. Or indeed, as I've mentioned, by telling us by polling, how convincing you have thought these answers to be.
The conclusion of all of this is the approach of trying to use science to attack Islam has really a failed been a failed approach, not least because
science it assumes scientism the idea that science is omniscient, if you like, as is one of its presuppositions.
scientism is something which is almost rejected fully by the philosophical community, except in evangelical corners of new atheist propaganda. And so the interlocutor who believes in this must really come forward and explain himself or herself as to why they believe in scientism is true in the first place, or how can it be demonstrably proven to be true?
The truth of the matter is, as we have been showing throughout the series, the Quran has an inbuilt flexibility and facilitation, which allows people from the seventh century all the way through to the 21st century and beyond, to be able to make sense of the book, according to the cosmologies, and modern day, scientific theories of the day.
In other words, I don't have to as a Muslim, sacrifice, my understanding of science in order to be a practicing Muslim, I don't have to have some kind of cognitive dissonance in seeing an observable reality in one way, and approaching the text and another, I don't have to resort to huge conspiracy theories relating to this to the age of the universe, and the existence or lack thereof of dinosaurs, or the coexistence of dinosaurs and human beings. We only have the kind of propaganda that we're seeing with new age, literalist from the Christian, for my Christian coreligionists, we don't need to do any of that. We can, and this is unique, within the Islamic tradition, maintain an
absolute, for the most part literal understanding where the language is clearly literal, of the naturalistic verses, and not be out of line with that which we generally love to be observed reality today in the 21st century, I think this is something which can easily be argued to be unique to the Islamic tradition, and something which once again allows a rational person to be able to make
life decisions about religion, which doesn't compromise rationality for spirituality or vice versa.
This removes cognitive dissonance from the equation and allow someone to become fully actualized spiritually and rationally. And this is why
you could argue one of the clear reasons this multi layered approach of the Khurana facilitation why approved you could say, of the Quranic authorship from a divine, all knowing always got
was up, I'm Ali Kumara.