Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
al-amiyr

The Qur'aan Cosmological Model

276 posts in this topic

Must be read from post #1 #8 #9 #12 #19 #22 and #23

I hope that you have read prvious posts. If you did not then it will be difficult for you to follow.

We are now coming very close to seeing the visual presentation of the Qur'aan Cosmological Model extrapolated from the two Qur'aan Cosmological Model verses. Therefore let us now again here present the first Qur'aan Cosmological Model verse and then analyze it but this time via the meaning and definitions of its four technical terms as found in the great Arabic - English dictionary as compiled by Edward William Lane over 53 years prior to the discovery of the expansion of the universe by Edwin Hubble in 1929.

First QCM Verse 021:030

Have those who have disbelieved now not seen:-

that the samaawaat and the ‘arD

(1)- were both Ratqan

(2)- and so We Fataq them both again.

And We made from water every living thing.

Will they now not believe?

The Qur'aan is a divine book that addresses humanity throughout time.Therefore certain passages are not always clear to those who do not understand this important principal. The first QCM verse is one of those time event verses that will only become fully understood and appreciated after the subject of its statement has become known. This is not because the Qur'aan is not clear on the matter but because the nature of man is that he will not accept that which he has physically seen or proven - one of the great qualities of man if one removes any type of belief from his personality. Another quality of man is that he likes to conform with 'what is' and dislikes to be disturbed from his perceived comfort zones even if they might turn out to be wrong - one of the bad qualities of man.

If we look at the first QCM verse we see that it is a definite statement made about something and framed into a question that demands reflection and an answer. A reflection and an answer that could never have made sense to anyone prior to 1929 when it was discovered that the universe was expanding and by implication had to originate from some point back in time. Therefore it is a verse that most appropriately applies to our generation and our generation only. What a great honour and a concern that must be. For if it is like that then we must ask why are we being addressed? What is the purpose of it all?

Let us look at and ponder over the question! We observe that ALLAAH (God) the Originator of the Heavens and the Earth (i.e. the Universe) addresses a group of people whom He calls 'those who have disbelieved'. He asks them via the believers the following question, " Have you now not seen?" And what is it that ALLAAH asks them what they have now not seen? He says,

that the samaawaat and the ‘arD

(1)- were both Ratqan

(2)- and so We Fataq them both again.

And what is the samaawaat and what is the‘arD that He describe were both once upon a time Ratqan and that He then did Fataq them both again. At http://www.forum.thehiddenbook.net more graphical illustrations being made available.

In the next post we shall analyze the two important Qur'aan Cosmological Model technical terms 'samaawaat' and '‘arD' and as we have already said but this time via the meaning and definitions as found in the great Arabic - English dictionary compiled by Edward William Lane over 53 years prior to the discovery of the expansion of the universe by Edwin Hubble in 1929.

We will also have a look at who are the exact people whom are being addressed in the Qur'aan.

To be continued inshaa allaah (If God had willed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be read from post #1 #8 #9 #12 #19 #22 #23 and #26.

Defining samaa’ (singular of samaawaat) the first important Qur'aan Cosmological Model technical term.

It is sometimes important just to repeat certain keywords or phrases in order to become familiar with the concepts involved. There must be understanding and not just casual reading. It is always good for you to revise or go over the previous posts. You will be amazed how much you have missed before and how much you will gain from a second and a third and so forth repeated reading.

Let us now analyze the two important Qur'aan Cosmological Model technical terms 'samaawaat' and '‘arD' as found in the great Arabic - English dictionary compiled by Edward William Lane over 53 years prior to the discovery of the expansion of the universe by Edwin Hubble in 1929.

What is the samaawaat?

As has been said before ‘samaawaat’ is the plural of the Arabic word ‘samaa’’ and is derived from the Arabic root verb meaning:-

- he or it was, or became, high, lofty, raised, upraised, uplifted, upreared, exalted, or elevated.

- he or it rose, or rose high.

-he or it rose higher or above.

As a noun it has the following meanings:-

-the higher, or upper, or highest, or uppermost, part of anything.

-the sky, or heavens.

Let us analyze the meaning of the word ‘samaa’’ which is the singular of 'samaawaat'.

When we study the Qur'aan we will see that the word ‘samaa’’ and its plural 'samaawaat' occurs about about 310 times in the Qur'aan. When these verses are studied it will be seen that the word ‘samaa’’ is not an object but refers to the open space that surrounds the objects of the universe or in other words it is the depiction of the vast space in which all the elements of the universe find itself including the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. It refers to that part of the Universe in which motion and 'clumpiness' take place. Here is a verse of the Qur'aan that gives us that depiction:-

The Qur'aan 22:18

"...that unto ALLAAH bow down whoever is in the 'samaawaat... and the Sun, and the Moon, and the Stars..."

The Qur'aan also gives other descriptions for various types of samaa' such as for example that part immediately above the earth where the birds fly.

The Qur'aan 16:79

"... the birds that are subjected to the jaww (the air or atmosphere) of the samaa’."

The Qur'aan 41:11

Another verse which we shall not go into here says that 'The samaa' was in a certain 'smoke' state and ALLAAH caused it to undergo a state of obedience and then He completed it as seven samaawaat (plural of samaa’). We are told that the seven samaawaat are like enormous spheres one beyond the other and that our position is in the lowest of the samaawaat and is callad the samaa’ of the dunyaa (world or lower world).

The Qur'aan contrasts samaa’ with ‘arD which are two opposing but complementary states of the universe: Space verses Matter; One inherently expansive and the other inherently contractive.

In the next post I shall define the Qur'aan Cosmological Model technical term '‘arD' as found in the great Arabic - English dictionary compiled by Edward William Lane over 53 years prior to the discovery of the expansion of the universe by Edwin Hubble in 1929. After that we shall begin with the construction of the Qur'aan cosmological model.

Below is a graphical illustration for the Qur'aan Cosmological Model Technical Term samaa' (singular of samaawaat).

QCMdefs.png

See you in posts to follow inshaa allaah (If God had willed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oops double post.

Edited by Darkwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And We made from water every living thing.

Chemical ingredients of the human body Oxygen 65% Sulfur 0.3 Carbon 18.5 Sodium 0.2 Hydrogen 9.5 Chlorine 0.2 Nitrogen 3.2 Magnesium 0.1 Calcium 1.5 Iodine 0.1 Phosphorous 1.0 Iron 0.1 Potassium 0.4 Everything else 0.1

http://saveyourself.ca/articles/biological-literacy/mostly-water.php

He missed that we are 65% water, but we have a bunch of other stuff, too.

that the heavens and the earth were solid

and

We clave the same in sunder

This is simple, there was no earth at the beginning of the universe, there was hydrogen gas. You can separate something from something that is not there.

Now here is a site that explains Hindu cosmology. You can read it for yourself I am sure.

http://journalofcosmology.com/AncientAstronomy122.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He missed that we are 65% water, but we have a bunch of other stuff, too.

This is simple, there was no earth at the beginning of the universe, there was hydrogen gas. You can separate something from something that is not there.

Now here is a site that explains Hindu cosmology. You can read it for yourself I am sure.

http://journalofcosm...tronomy122.html

My dear fellow poster why are you quoting from the Qur'aan that is not in the Qur'aan? Where in the Qur'aan does it say, and I bold stress your quotation,

that the heavens and the earth were solid

and

We clave the same in sunder

Show me the Qur'aanic word that say that it was solid. I will reply in the next thread to your other important statements.

Thanks. It is always enjoyable to have these discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He missed that we are 65% water, but we have a bunch of other stuff, too.

There are other verses in the Quraan that go into the greater details. But those are books in their own right. I am also about to finish The Qur'aan Quantum Physical Model; The Qur'aan Biological Model; And other Models of knowledge. But I would just like to concentrate here on the subject of this thread which is basically The Qur'aan Cosmological Model. I stated that earlier in one of the posts. But continue asking questions because one always improves ones knowledge and ones ideas can get expanded.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now here is a site that explains Hindu cosmology. You can read it for yourself I am sure.

http://journalofcosm...tronomy122.html

Did I ever say that Hindu Cosmology contains no truths? In fact I teach the Bhagavad Gita. I do believe that it is a Divine Book on another level like the Qur'aan. The two books compliment each other. The same like the Torah. But then again you must study it from the original languages and not via human translations that take away exactly what is meant to be conveyed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the Qur'aanic word that say that it was solid.

Thanks. It is always enjoyable to have these discussions.

The quote comes from your own post. I don't read Arabic and don't want to even learn to read Arabic. I have no need for it, so it would be a waste of time. You're the one who is trying to put prove religion with science not me. You're the one who has to show the proof. I got nothing to prove. What I am saying is you really don't have enough in your Quranic quote to say there is any science in it.

Over the weekend I tried to explain gravity to a Pagan who said it was energy. I tried to explain no, it is space curved my mass. Alas, he agreed with the me and said yes gravity is an energy. You're just like him throwing out the words without meaning, because you don't really understand the physics. That is what you are doing. I am sure you will sell a lot of books to gullible Muslims who slept through or never had a proper science class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe any book is divine, they all come from the hand of man. Just paper and ink, not worth a mans or womans life. I'm a Pagan, child of the earth, we have no sacred texts, what we learn is from nature. Which is why I read a lot of science. I try not to mix my religious practice and science, because they are two different things, like oil and water.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote comes from your own post. I don't read Arabic and don't want to even learn to read Arabic. I have no need for it, so it would be a waste of time. You're the one who is trying to put prove religion with science not me. You're the one who has to show the proof. I got nothing to prove. What I am saying is you really don't have enough in your Quranic quote to say there is any science in it.

Over the weekend I tried to explain gravity to a Pagan who said it was energy. I tried to explain no, it is space curved my mass. Alas, he agreed with the me and said yes gravity is an energy. You're just like him throwing out the words without meaning, because you don't really understand the physics. That is what you are doing. I am sure you will sell a lot of books to gullible Muslims who slept through or never had a proper science class.

Now why must you always become personal and try and belittle someone you don't even know? You did not even read my text. I don't know why you are bothering to dicuss a subject that you have not even attempted to understand. Why this animosity and then you want to blame Muslims for such behaviour. I am discussing in the most civil manner and then you want to behave like a bull in the Kraal. Knock down what I am saying. I asked you a simple question and then you become angry because you cannot answer. You appear to be living in a world of illusions. You have not displayed any intelligence so far in my opinion. Read the posts again because you are totally bewildered.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe any book is divine, they all come from the hand of man. Just paper and ink, not worth a mans or womans life. I'm a Pagan, child of the earth, we have no sacred texts, what we learn is from nature. Which is why I read a lot of science. I try not to mix my religious practice and science, because they are two different things, like oil and water.

Well you have right to believe as you please but don't get angry at others. First listen to the arguments. Don't be like the inquisition. Debate and argue your points. In the end reason may prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahaa!!!!!

Well, I've had the displeasure of reading this entire thread, and would agree 1000% that this is "preaching" and an attempt at "conversion"

I think, not sure, that such incessant postings, regardless of religion, are not allowed here in UM.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahaa!!!!!

Well, I've had the displeasure of reading this entire thread, and would agree 1000% that this is "preaching" and an attempt at "conversion"

I think, not sure, that such incessant postings, regardless of religion, are not allowed here in UM.

What is "preaching" here. How would I otherwise present the argument. Give guidance. It would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is "preaching" here. How would I otherwise present the argument. Give guidance. It would be appreciated.

I'll leave that answer to the Moderators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for answering my question i actually breathed reliaf when saw first names of family tree called omar and abu baker

you see i have seen some propogenda that start legimate at first

then in middle of it by hiding lies beneath facts they slip some shitties teaching

so in way the reader is not aware he'll take couple of lies while they are presented with some facts

that is the reason of my previous doubt just so you understand

now apart from that i think your topic is very interesting

and required alot of work and knowledge to get it done

on side note i don't think the topic is preaching at all

you have point .. you're trying to prove as long as you provide evidence to prove it it's not preaching

there is just some people would consider anything about islam is preaching when it's not bashing it

if it's not talking about how bad muslims they are and how cruel islam is they that unfortunatly in their book considered preaching

preaching in my opinion is trying to convert people to other religions

and so for i have not seen this thing from you and honestly i hope not to see it

coz it'll ruin the topic

i think you shouldn't get into those endless debates with them coz they are never based on anything

rather their own dislike or whatever it is to islam and the goal is to degrade the topic

so if you have point you think you can " prove it " then go on with it

thanks for sharing those info and i'll keep an eye it

Edited by Knight Of Shadows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually looking at my copy of The Holy Quran, translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

Surah 21 -- The Prophets

Verse 30

Do not the Unbelievers see that the Heavens and the Earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

The universe was created 13 billion years ago, and the Earth is ~4.5 Billion years old. The Earth and the "heavens" were not joined together, as the earth had not even been created at the time of singularity. Secondly, during the time of singularity, nothing existed; not even hydrogen. Thirdly, every living thing is not created FROM water.

Surah 21 -- The Prophets

Verse. 104

The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed) - even as WE produced the first Creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfill it

So, the heavens are going to combine and create a new creation?..

It is an interesting post, though it is flawed.

Edited by Alienated Being
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian apologists have made similar arguments, if a verse is vague enough you can apply it to anything.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was considered sacrilegious to translate the Quran into languages other than Arabic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian apologists have made similar arguments, if a verse is vague enough you can apply it to anything.

This becomes particularly true when dealing with Semitic languages, where one word can have multiple meanings, depending on the context.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually looking at my copy of The Holy Quran, translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

The universe was created 13 billion years ago, and the Earth is ~4.5 Billion years old. The Earth and the "heavens" were not joined together, as the earth had not even been created at the time of singularity. Secondly, during the time of singularity, nothing existed; not even hydrogen. Thirdly, every living thing is not created FROM water.

Heavens and the earth united as one single unit, means the sum if all matter ie the universe was once all joined to such a small density it is vitally equivalent zero. The verse does not refer to the age of the earth or universe. In context the author is making a passing reference to the beginning of existence ie the universe. The author (of the Quran) is not providing a scientific paper nor a thesis on the matter for you to expect specific details equations etc. The author makes a reference to the most fundamental aspect of existence ie the universe, that it began, that all the matter, time, space etc began from a point when the heavens and earth constituting the universe vast space and that which exists within it were once one body united as a singularity, which was cleft asunder, ie was caused to explode so to speak and expand. Hence why others verses clearly state that it is Allah who is expanding the heavens! Clearly when your limitations on the Quran are evident and you are dependent solely on the translations, your on a weaker footing to fully comprehend.....but try though :)

So, the heavens are going to combine and create a new creation?..

It is an interesting post, though it is flawed.

I love how the usual suspects are flocking to derail this thread. When they arrive they lack any critical thinking or analysis and offer only hollow points such as "this is preaching" or "this is flawed" or "this is vague"! Grow up, man up, grow a pair! Deconstruct his argument cause he has put in the effort to construct and argument, illustrated with detail, breakdown of language, root key words, transportations, translations, everything from non bias non Muslim sources and all you can muster in response are such remarks as the ones I mentioned earlier!

Come on people, be civilised, be honest, if you don't understand, ask! If you don't agree, say why and how, if you want to learn more, simply ask the man, but don't come on and try and derail the thread or throw mud or simply say this is flawed, without any substance to the statement!

The above is a general statement alien, not specifically directed at you mate.

:)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This becomes particularly true when dealing with Semitic languages, where one word can have multiple meanings, depending on the context.

That's richness of Semitic languages and their depth. Just because you don't understand that depth, it's implications and impact, does mean it's a weakness. It's weakness in those who don't comprehend that such languages are far superior to English!

You see even if one word can have many meanings like the words in the Quran are Arabic and have many meanings. What separates it and is an amazing fact is that where words have more than one meaning, all meanings are relevant to it and it's context, implications, structure, placement, positioning, are spot on, that goes for every word in the Quran used and placed. It's perfection, beyond human capacity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The QCM is what you science folk call the big crunch model or theory.

Based on the BC theory, the universe began with the bigbang, it continues to expand, infect it's expanding faster and faster, that it will reach a point of limitation and collapse back on itself, pretty much like a scroll opening then rolling back on itself! An extension to theory which goes into quantum realms is the big bounce, followed by crunch the universe reverts to a singularity and then something would cause it to expand again and a new universe begins! these theories don't go into what causes the expansion, where did the first singularity come from etc etc these theories are based on empirical scientific data which can be interpreted to create such models of the universe.

The QCM states the universe was once united as a singularity, which was cleft asunder and made to expand (bigbang), it's early stages was dense cosmic smoke from which matter such as stars etc formed, it continues to expand, until it reaches it's limit, it will then collapse back on itself to it's original state (singularity), for it then to repeat the bigbang and form a new universe (creation). That's it in a nut shell, the difference between QCM, BC, BB are that BC and BB do not go into what caused the singularity, the bigbang, expansion, what caused existence. Instead they concentrate on the mechanisms and mechanics of it, which in itself does negate an agent behind mechanisms and mechanics. The QCM offers a model but also presents what was the cause and the author of the Quran presents himself (god) as the cause, by referring to such phenomena in such a fundamental way that a layman and a learned person can understand but the latter can delve deeper! The author if it is god does not require to give specifics such as equations or present scientific papers to make his point, all he has to do is make reference to fundamental scientific phenomena etc. Which by the way when revealed weren't fully understood but the Quran is prophecised to exist till end of time, so surly overtime it reveal new things and has revealed things and overtime science will keep backing it up and confirming it's claims and science is doing it today and has done in the past!

For those who claim science and religion don't mix, this is based on western Christian history, the rest of the world mix science and religion and Islam and science go hand in hand and always have as it's history shows and is acknowledged by western historians.

Apologies on my posts for spelling.....damn iPhone!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's richness of Semitic languages and their depth. Just because you don't understand that depth, it's implications and impact, does mean it's a weakness. It's weakness in those who don't comprehend that such languages are far superior to English!

You see even if one word can have many meanings like the words in the Quran are Arabic and have many meanings. What separates it and is an amazing fact is that where words have more than one meaning, all meanings are relevant to it and it's context, implications, structure, placement, positioning, are spot on, that goes for every word in the Quran used and placed. It's perfection, beyond human capacity!

Sure, whatever. It also makes it easier to mislead others with regard to translated passages.

The author makes a reference to the most fundamental aspect of existence ie the universe, that it began, that all the matter, time, space etc began from a point when the heavens and earth constituting the universe vast space and that which exists within it were once one body united as a singularity, which was cleft asunder, ie was caused to explode so to speak and expand.

Oh but Lion, remember the video we discussed wherein it was pointed out that the singularity is the limit of the Big Bang Theory and our current observations about the universe. This is not universally accepted by scientists as the first and final "beginning of everything".

It's possible to take verses from any religious text dealing with creation and elaborate on them, adding words and interpretations not in the original work to make it sound as though they reflect our current understanding of cosmology.

The translations given in the earlier posts on this thread refer to "cleaving" and "rending asunder". These terms mean separating or splitting, not causing to expand, as the Big Bang Theory holds and as you assert above.

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, whatever. It also makes it easier to mislead others with regard to translated passages.

No it does not, only amongst the ignorant or those who make no effort!

Oh but Lion, remember the video we discussed wherein it was pointed out that the singularity is the limit of the Big Bang Theory and our current observations about the universe. This is not universally accepted by scientists as the first and final "beginning of everything".

The beginning is fact whether the bigbang model is accepted it or not observations show that our universe began. What you forget is that video was flawed, because singularity is the limit if science and empirical data, QCM IS BASED ON THAT DATA, the scientist you refer to and the theories they propose deal with metaphysical stuff, ie beyond empirical data and science! That means if you believe on those you ate believing blindly because they don't even adhere to your own standards that you impose on the Quran and other things, they have no empirical proofs at all at least the bigbang is based on current empirical data ie it meets scientific and your standards yet you dismiss it for blind faith in some theory dealing with metaphysics? Irony!

It's possible to take verses from any religious text dealing with creation and elaborate on them, adding words and interpretations not in the original work to make it sound as though they reflect our current understanding of cosmology.

It is I agree, so now you make that statement and impose it on the Quran, all we ask is substantiate your claims don't just say things! Further scrutiny of the above statement will prove to you that no other text claim the things the Quran does. As for linguistic understanding, you dismiss it as though it's nothing yet you have nothing to counter due to linguistic deficiency!

The translations given in the earlier posts on this thread refer to "cleaving" and "rending asunder". These terms mean separating or splitting, not causing to expand, as the Big Bang Theory holds and as you assert above.

Something united is split and separation, expansion on the other hand is specifically mentioned in other verses but such is depth of language that the verse which refer to splitting etc those words also denote expanse too, linguistically and by virtue of context but that a side expansion of the universe etc is mentioned in other verses as are other cosmological phenomena!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for answering my question i actually breathed reliaf when saw first names of family tree called omar and abu baker

you see i have seen some propogenda that start legimate at first

then in middle of it by hiding lies beneath facts they slip some shitties teaching

so in way the reader is not aware he'll take couple of lies while they are presented with some facts

that is the reason of my previous doubt just so you understand

now apart from that i think your topic is very interesting

and required alot of work and knowledge to get it done

on side note i don't think the topic is preaching at all

you have point .. you're trying to prove as long as you provide evidence to prove it it's not preaching

there is just some people would consider anything about islam is preaching when it's not bashing it

if it's not talking about how bad muslims they are and how cruel islam is they that unfortunatly in their book considered preaching

preaching in my opinion is trying to convert people to other religions

and so for i have not seen this thing from you and honestly i hope not to see it

coz it'll ruin the topic

i think you shouldn't get into those endless debates with them coz they are never based on anything

rather their own dislike or whatever it is to islam and the goal is to degrade the topic

so if you have point you think you can " prove it " then go on with it

thanks for sharing those info and i'll keep an eye it

Thanks for your input 'Knight Of Shadows'. I will take your good advice. Always remind me when I should forget. Sometimes one can get entangled in the snares. Thanks for reading and being patient because that is what is needed for the subject. I need critical analysis with proper understanding. There are coming very interesting posts on this subject. The Qur'aan Cosmological Model is yet to begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.