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

Next:

What about my factual question?

Also, it says in the title: a delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

Are you unable to answer? It is a factual question. Simple. Straight. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

Another deliberate misrepresentation. I have already defined The Universe as meaning "the current universe". The answer has been given. You are deliberately ignoring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

StopS and al-amiyr, please take your personl differences to PM (private messenger). A public forum is not the place for personal issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

StopS and al-amiyr, please take your personl differences to PM (private messenger). A public forum is not the place for personal issues.

You are right. Can I discuss the factual differences? This I think is the raison d'etre of a forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another deliberate misrepresentation. I have already defined The Universe as meaning "the current universe". The answer has been given. You are deliberately ignoring it.

I am not talking about the Universe. I am talking about the header in your diagram titled "Qur’aan Cosmological Model", above the equation which is missing the 2T. This one: http://www.unexplain...15#entry4538963 or this one: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=237552entry4538748

In the title it says: "A delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe...". What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

It is a factual question. Simple. Straight. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model of the Universe?

Edited by StopS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother it's fairly clear StopS has one brain cell and cannot compute the notion that the Quran is in Arabic, classical arabic and that it's a rich language full of depth, when translating any language into another, you will not have an equivalent word, for example, in cosmology you nay describe something which takes upto four words in English, but in Arabic one word covers all four descriptions, that's the depth and richness. In English how many words do you have which mean or describe a sword? Maybe 5-10, in Arabic over a 100 words, same can be applied to other objects. I guess my main point is that StopS Cannot get passed the layman meaning of those verses, ie unlearned Arab may get the same meaning as he is inept to delve deeper in the literature so he sticks to a layman meaning which suffices for him, for those with more insight and learned in Arabic and sciences can delve deeper to find the true depth of the verses. An

Ecycolpedic description of the universe simply within two verses is because god chooses the best word possible in the verses, not just that if you delve deeper in to linguistic miracle of the Quran you understand there's a perfect choice of words, structure, form, other tools used which are also perfect that if we humans colluded, used all our resources, we could not even muster a verse like those in the Quran in Arabic.

I mean clearly StopS is inept in understanding the above points, He has no idea about the linguistics, contextual form etc he is basing his whole argument on translations, which are simply someones opinion as to which English words represent the original Arabic. However he ignores the lexicons and the dictionaries written by esteemed arabists who are unbias non muslim expeers.

Brother ignore this dude, if your opponent can only function purely on a limited sense ie English translation alone and not willing to learn more about Arabic, then it's futile. You end up entertaining trolls. Keep your good work going.

I am not talking about the Universe. I am talking about the header in your diagram titled "Qur’aan Cosmological Model", above the equation which is missing the 2T. This one: http://www.unexplain...15#entry4538963 or this one: http://www.unexplain...2

In the title it says: "A delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe...". What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

It is a factual question. Simple. Straight. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model of the Universe?

Did I not explain to you this already? You said and I quote,

Why have you, in more than 30 years of research, never noticed that you need to check your work? In the above diagram you say:

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I was under the impression, looking at the childish diagram that it should be

Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F

Is this intended?

I replied,

Where have I ever written the sequence as follows. Do you like to distort the work of others? Is it true what lion spoke about one brain cell? It makes me wonder!

Why have you, in more than 30 years of research, never noticed that you need to check your work? In the above diagram you say:

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I have always written the sequence as follows.

beginning with R (as contained in the first QCM verse 21:30.

Kh = R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F beginning with R (Ratq = bringing together, but unspecific as to the state of the origin)

beginning with T ( information contained in another qur'aanic verse says there was T i.e. specific as to the state of the origin)

Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F

All of the above I have already explained in previous posts.

The diagram I said was just a basic diagram not meant to go into all the details for now. Do you want me to put 300 diagrams in one place.

You run all over the internet world misquoting all the time. When I point it out you make excuses. You specially came to this forum just to distort what I said. Now I ask you again , Where did I say

I would appreciate if other readers can verify what the facts of this case are.

Thanks.

I have already explained the points but you insist to present that I said,

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

Again I will repeat myself. I started the QCM progressively and I presented the Formula as follows

Kh = +R +F +T+2R +2F

then

Kh = +R +F +2T+2R +2F

You have made two errors in quoting from my formula. And then you want to project it as what I said.

Error One. Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

Why have you taken the T out of the formula when I have it in there as follows Kh = +R +F +T+2R +2F

Error Two. Why have you affixed a T in front of the original formula on my first diagram as Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

when I wrote it as Kh = +R +F +T+2R +2F.

Please explain your reasons for doing so and then insist that you are correct. Must we get independent people to examine who is right and who is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Example the letter ‘M’ called ‘MiyM’ and ‘Mem’ in Hebrew are the symbols for the mathematical equation of a circle x/2 + y/2 = r/2. This is what is referred to as the knowledge contained in all the Divine Books. If this knowledge is lost then virtually everything becomes lost.

The equation for a circle is not x/2 + y/2 = r/2

It is x2 + y2 = r2 or, in normal notation: x^2 + y^2 = r^2

That's what happens doing mindless copy/paste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already explained the points but you insist to present that I said,

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

Why have you taken the T out of the formula when I have it in there as follows Kh = +R +F +T+2R +2F

Nope, you always write something which I did not write about.

I am talking about your diagram called 001.

NOT text. NOTHING except the diagram. I am NOT saying anything about anything you presented or wrote or demonstrated or intended to do.

I am only talking about the diagram. A diagram you label "Fig. 001 Standard Delienation"

NOT any text, just a diagram. A diagram which is repeated but always has the same name.

What you write as the first formula on top is: Kh = +R +F +T + 2R + 2F

This NOT in the text and not anywhere in your normal writing, but ONLY in the diagram. I am ONLY referring to the diagram.

I am saying that according to what you say about the "formula" elsewhere is

Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F

So what you are writing in other places than the diagramm is Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F, following your introduction where you say that for some reason it should be

Khalqan = Tayyan +Ratqan +Fatqan +2Tayyan +2Ratqan +2Fatqan

However, what you can see when you look at your diagram, the diagram labeled Fig. 001 by you is Kh = +R + F + T + 2R + 2F

Your rationale is:

Khalqan = Tayyan +Ratqan +Fatqan +2Tayyan +2Ratqan +2Fatqan.

Creation = Turn in +Rotate + Fire out +2Turn in +2Rotate +2Fire out.(an example)

The initial letters of these key words produce the following algorithmic compression;

Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F

However, in the diagram labelled Fig. 001, you contradict yourself and write: Kh = +R + F + T + 2R + 2F

It is missing the "2T" you mention in the other representations. Please note that for conformity reasons I have now even included the missing space between the "+" and the "R" so that you don't get confused if a letter is slightly offset.

Again, I am not talking about the text but only the diagram you repeat, but with the mistake intact.

In the diagram Fig. 001 there is a 2T missing. That is a mistake. It is an error to omit a 2T because you never know when a 2T comes in handy.

Here, it makes no sense, but I still maintain you should be consistently wrong when you are wrong. At least keep up the flow and stay true to your nonsensical ramblings. Keep the momentum going and please don't be angry with the 2T any longer and correct your mistake.

If you manage to confuse yourself by mixing up the letters that is not my doing but your own inconsistency. Please stay consistent - even when you are wrong.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is missing the "2T" you mention in the other representations. Please note that for conformity reasons I have now even included the missing space between the "+" and the "R" so that you don't get confused if a letter is slightly offset.

Finally admitting that you deliberately lied by falsifying what I originally wrote and which I made known on several occasions. Now you say that you put that T back. I have already explained that that formula at that stage in the explanation of the Model did not require a 2T because at that stage one would not know if is a second spiraling contraction. As I said before that in the next illustration I made it 2T because the facts became clear. There might also have been a typo error which it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally admitting that you deliberately lied by falsifying what I originally wrote and which I made known on several occasions.

No, I have not. In spite of my repeatedly asking you to show where I falsified anything you have been unable to provide the required evidence and continue fabricating stuff and simply making it up when it suits you.

There might also have been a typo error which it is not.

Now we are getting closer to the truth. The truth hurts, hey?

Now please show me the explanation in the original text why the "2T" is not required in the diagram. If you are now repeatedly unable to provide required evidence I am accusing you openly of fabricating what you want and making stuff up.

Or you can finally behave like a responsible adult and admit you made a mistake. Easy.

Now, what about the 2nd mistake?

The equation for a circle is not x/2 + y/2 = r/2

It is x2 + y2 = r2 or, in normal notation: x^2 + y^2 = r^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally admitting that you deliberately lied by falsifying what I originally wrote and which I made known on several occasions. Now you say that you put that T back. I have already explained that that formula at that stage in the explanation of the Model did not require a 2T because at that stage one would not know if is a second spiraling contraction. As I said before that in the next illustration I made it 2T because the facts became clear. There might also have been a typo error which it is not.

No, I have not. In spite of my repeatedly asking you to show where I falsified anything you have been unable to provide the required evidence and continue fabricating stuff and simply making it up when it suits you.

Now we are getting closer to the truth. The truth hurts, hey?

Now please show me the explanation in the original text why the "2T" is not required in the diagram. If you are now repeatedly unable to provide required evidence I am accusing you openly of fabricating what you want and making stuff up.

Or you can finally behave like a responsible adult and admit you made a mistake. Easy.

Now, what about the 2nd mistake?

The equation for a circle is not x/2 + y/2 = r/2

It is x2 + y2 = r2 or, in normal notation: x^2 + y^2 = r^2

1st point: The diagram is correct as it is and will remain unchanged.

2nd point: Yes! That is correct and I fixed it a long time ago. I only learned afterwards how to put a superscript 2. I have only been seriously typing this past year and am improving all the time. I am still typing with one and two fingers and my eyesight is also diminishing. 16 hours plus a day and over fifty pages; there is bound to be errors. Thanks for this positive contribution. To clarify; it was more a lack of typing knowledge than a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st point: The diagram is correct as it is and will remain unchanged.

2nd point: Yes! That is correct and I fixed it a long time ago. I only learned afterwards how to put a superscript 2. I have only been seriously typing this past year and am improving all the time. I am still typing with one and two fingers and my eyesight is also diminishing. 16 hours plus a day and over fifty pages; there is bound to be errors. Thanks for this positive contribution. To clarify; it was more a lack of typing knowledge than a mistake.

1. ok, so if you want to have people laughing about your mistake, fine. The diagram itself is also wrong because the colours are mixed up and the origin or fate mentioned in the title is not represented at all. But it's your choice

2. So someone who has been researching this for decades is ignorant of the fact that the notation x/2 means "the variable x divided by 2"? And you make the claim that you have fixed it? Where? Not here. Look for yourself: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=237552&st=15#entry4538963

Ag shame, your eyes are failing you now. That's why you can't see your mistakes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. ok, so if you want to have people laughing about your mistake, fine. The diagram itself is also wrong because the colours are mixed up

I wonder who laughs at a typo mistake. Even publishes allow errors. The colours of the diagram are not mixed up. Red along the right indicates that the universe is in a rotation and not static (like a galaxy but on a much larger scale) away from us and blue on the left indicates the same thing but coming to us ( don't when I say the words us start saying that I say the universe is heading towards this forum). And remember that I am presenting The Qur'aan Cosmological Model. It has nothing to do with me as the presenter, like it has nothing to do with anyone who writes a book about any other cosmology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. Can I discuss the factual differences? This I think is the raison d'etre of a forum.

Yes, but please try not to make it personal.

Attack the views being put forward, not the person who holds those views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder who laughs at a typo mistake. Even publishes allow errors. The colours of the diagram are not mixed up. Red along the right indicates that the universe is in a rotation and not static (like a galaxy but on a much larger scale) away from us and blue on the left indicates the same thing but coming to us ( don't when I say the words us start saying that I say the universe is heading towards this forum). And remember that I am presenting The Qur'aan Cosmological Model. It has nothing to do with me as the presenter, like it has nothing to do with anyone who writes a book about any other cosmology.

This is a fundamental and substantial error.

You arrive at your formula to show that the Universe contracts, then something like a pause and then a new phase of expansion. A classical pumping or bouncing model. You correlate these phases with words in the Koran and some which you simply make up. Showing one parameter in one bounce and forgetting it in the 2nd would mean an interruption and the end of our Universe which you claim is bouncing. This directly contradicts your model.

Where is the proof that the Universe is rotating. Again, you try and show an expansion and a contraction, which are shown in different colours in the letters. The red is the expansion and the blue is the contraction. Yellow represents the pause. Disregarding the total failure of your diagram when compared with reality, your internal contradiction consists of assigning the wrong colours to your digram. It should be, if I follow your erroneous concept, red for expansion on the expanding rate and blue on the opposite. Yet you manage to mix them up.

At least a model should stay consistent - even if it is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fundamental and substantial error.

You arrive at your formula to show that the Universe contracts, then something like a pause and then a new phase of expansion. A classical pumping or bouncing model. You correlate these phases with words in the Koran and some which you simply make up. Showing one parameter in one bounce and forgetting it in the 2nd would mean an interruption and the end of our Universe which you claim is bouncing. This directly contradicts your model.

Where is the proof that the Universe is rotating. Again, you try and show an expansion and a contraction, which are shown in different colours in the letters. The red is the expansion and the blue is the contraction. Yellow represents the pause. Disregarding the total failure of your diagram when compared with reality, your internal contradiction consists of assigning the wrong colours to your digram. It should be, if I follow your erroneous concept, red for expansion on the expanding rate and blue on the opposite. Yet you manage to mix them up.

At least a model should stay consistent - even if it is wrong.

I will repeat myself what I said about the colours of the model which you don't seem to understand. Here is the quote.

I wonder who laughs at a typo mistake. Even publishes allow errors. The colours of the diagram are not mixed up. Red along the right indicates that the universe is in a rotation and not static (like a galaxy but on a much larger scale) away from us and blue on the left indicates the same thing but coming to us ( don't when I say the words us start saying that I say the universe is heading towards this forum). And remember that I am presenting The Qur'aan Cosmological Model. It has nothing to do with me as the presenter, like it has nothing to do with anyone who writes a book about any other cosmology.

You have again made a number erroneous statements among which are the following.

1- That I arrived at a formula (which is incorrect) that I backed up with words from the Qur'aan..... No! I studied the Qur'aan and like someone who studied the General Theory of Relativity and came up with conclusions about the Universe and presented his or her findings, I did the same thing. It is like saying that Alexander Friedman had an idea and then he tried to back it up with relativity.

2- The colours of the letters in the formula has nothing to do with the colours at the sides of the diagram. I chose not to colour in the expansion phase red nor the contraction phase blue. This is just a simplified not to scale drawing as I have already stated. Over twenty years ago I drew large charts containing this model where I showed the expansion as red and the contraction as blue with the right border all along as red and the left side border as blue. I have all these charts available. You are making an issue, like usual, over nothing. Continue because I am enjoying your 'analyses' which will be your legacy.

This Model is not yet complete as I have already stated that I am putting all the other information together with its many delineations of the various phases the universe underwent and will undergo. Therein I will show that the Qur'aan says that the Universe is not static but rotates. This I must still prove.

Thanks for the well conducted approach. I will try to answer all your questions to the best of my knowledge inshaa allaah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will repeat myself what I said about the colours of the model which you don't seem to understand. Here is the quote.

You have again made a number erroneous statements among which are the following.

1- That I arrived at a formula (which is incorrect) that I backed up with words from the Qur'aan..... No! I studied the Qur'aan and like someone who studied the General Theory of Relativity and came up with conclusions about the Universe and presented his or her findings, I did the same thing. It is like saying that Alexander Friedman had an idea and then he tried to back it up with relativity.

2- The colours of the letters in the formula has nothing to do with the colours at the sides of the diagram. I chose not to colour in the expansion phase red nor the contraction phase blue. This is just a simplified not to scale drawing as I have already stated. Over twenty years ago I drew large charts containing this model where I showed the expansion as red and the contraction as blue with the right border all along as red and the left side border as blue. I have all these charts available. You are making an issue, like usual, over nothing. Continue because I am enjoying your 'analyses' which will be your legacy.

This Model is not yet complete as I have already stated that I am putting all the other information together with its many delineations of the various phases the universe underwent and will undergo. Therein I will show that the Qur'aan says that the Universe is not static but rotates. This I must still prove.

Thanks for the well conducted approach. I will try to answer all your questions to the best of my knowledge inshaa allaah.

Look, I am providing constructive criticism. You don't understand what I am saying and repeat the error, thinking that repeating an error will somehow fix it. It does not.

Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F

Khalqan = Tayyan +Ratqan +Fatqan +2Tayyan +2Ratqan +2Fatqan

This is an equation and your formula for something you call a cosmological model. Where do these words come from? What process is described by the word Tayyan and where is it defined? What process defines Khalqan?

What is the value of T, R and F? What is the result of this addition? Why is it not subtraction or the square root of these words? What would falsify the equation? What happens after the nth iteration?

How does above formula result in or lead up to "q > ½"?

Someone who has "studied the Qur'aan and like someone who studied the General Theory of Relativity and came up with conclusions about the Universe and presented his or her findings" should be able to answer these questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will repeat myself what I said about the colours of the model which you don't seem to understand. Here is the quote.

You have again made a number erroneous statements among which are the following.

1- That I arrived at a formula (which is incorrect) that I backed up with words from the Qur'aan..... No! I studied the Qur'aan and like someone who studied the General Theory of Relativity and came up with conclusions about the Universe and presented his or her findings, I did the same thing. It is like saying that Alexander Friedman had an idea and then he tried to back it up with relativity.

2- The colours of the letters in the formula has nothing to do with the colours at the sides of the diagram. I chose not to colour in the expansion phase red nor the contraction phase blue. This is just a simplified not to scale drawing as I have already stated. Over twenty years ago I drew large charts containing this model where I showed the expansion as red and the contraction as blue with the right border all along as red and the left side border as blue. I have all these charts available. You are making an issue, like usual, over nothing. Continue because I am enjoying your 'analyses' which will be your legacy.

This Model is not yet complete as I have already stated that I am putting all the other information together with its many delineations of the various phases the universe underwent and will undergo. Therein I will show that the Qur'aan says that the Universe is not static but rotates. This I must still prove.

Thanks for the well conducted approach. I will try to answer all your questions to the best of my knowledge inshaa allaah.

Look, I am providing constructive criticism. You don't understand what I am saying and repeat the error, thinking that repeating an error will somehow fix it. It does not.

Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F

Khalqan = Tayyan +Ratqan +Fatqan +2Tayyan +2Ratqan +2Fatqan

This is an equation and your formula for something you call a cosmological model. Where do these words come from? What process is described by the word Tayyan and where is it defined? What process defines Khalqan?

What is the value of T, R and F? What is the result of this addition? Why is it not subtraction or the square root of these words? What would falsify the equation? What happens after the nth iteration?

How does above formula result in or lead up to "q > ½"?

Someone who has "studied the Qur'aan and like someone who studied the General Theory of Relativity and came up with conclusions about the Universe and presented his or her findings" should be able to answer these questions?

Well you failed in all your criticism so far. I don't see you mention them anymore. Realized your errors? At least these questions are more civil and answerable as well

You ask;

- Where do these words come from?

My answer;

- Go read the previous posts. I have explained them adequately. Imagine a man asks a cosmologist when looking into Relativity Theory and sees E= mc^2 and asks where that came from: and how could a letter E be energy.

You ask;

- What process is described by the word Tayyan and where is it defined?

My answer;

-That is part of my next phase of posts. I am still in the process of making known the QCM. I have reached less than 5% so far. Read the past posts and you will see.

You ask;

-What is the value of T, R and F? What is the result of this addition? Why is it not subtraction or the square root of these words? What would falsify the equation? What happens after the nth iteration?

My answer;

- Good questions that shall be answered when we reach that stage of the model. I will consider all of them.

Your last statement is conditional and if the person is a "quranocosmologist"

This was your best so far. I hope you keep up the good work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know these sentences from the Koran?

"Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." 40:28

"Lo! the harshest of all voices is the voice of the ass." 31:19

"And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames." 49:11

I suggest you behave accordingly if you are a true Muslim.

I did not insult you I pointed out facts about your incapability to debate. You try and debate something without any evidential support nor references or anything. You claim the information provided is flawed yet provide no proof for your claim nor able to breakdown and argument and construct a counter argument which is supported with proof!

*snip*

So maybe you should adhere to the quranic verses too!'

*snip*

"takes upto four words in English". Again: concentrate. Nobody understands what you are trying to say! Is Arabic precise or can one word have several meanings?

The fact your dependant solely upon translations and don't understand the form, structures, mechanisms, etc used as linguistic tools and most of all you don't understand the original language in it's original form, yet here you are debating like a zealot without any tools! I mean I would appreciate you more if you did not accept the meanings of the Arabic words and showed us why those meanings are wrong by showing the actual meaning (oh yeah but you can't do that too), so alternatively you could cross reference, you could check the meanings by checking references given by the OP, oh yeah but you don't do that either do you? *snip* Why should your counter argument be taken serious or you for that matter, when you cant any of the above?

*snip*

But if you are so good at explaining classical Arabic, why don't you tell me what samaawaat means. Define it in your own words. If you can't do this, it means I am right and hiding behind words which are declared untranslatable and so complex they are above and beyond the English language then the Koran is not easy to understand as is claimed in the Koran itself is dishonest and contradicting the Koran itself.

*snip*

Your asking me what samawaat means when the OP and myself to a small extent elaborated on it in many posts. You ignore the information, the references, lexicon definitions provided, and still ask me what it means.

Why don't you actually do some work and check the references. Yet your incapable of this, but you cant even substantiate why it does not mean what the OP claims? I know why we all know why, it's cause your fully dependant on the English translation. Hence to base your objection solely on the English translation clearly illustrates how flawed your method and your argument is!!!

So like I said, you can only understand the layman meaning of the word and verse, meaning the English translated version is your current limit of understanding, because you lack the tools to go in-depth, you lack understanding of the original, linguistics, etc. Thus you only comprehend the layman version which is fine, cause it's also correct. However those with understanding and have the tools to do so (Muslim or not), can delve deeper into the rich Arabic language flourishing with linguistic mechanisms etc.

So no! the Quran does not contradict itself. It is easy to understand in Arabic, and in english on the face of it, layman understanding. It is also easy to remember hence we have millions of Muslims who know the Quran by memory word for word. It's still easy to understand when you one delves deeper, if you have the tools, which you dont! so what now? Well you either accept the Arabic meanings by the OP and me on face value, if not, cross reference to check it yourself, or produce the actual factual translations of those words as you know them in your expert opinion

*snip*

The Koran is intended for all mankind and nations and not just Arabs.

(2:161, 2:164, 2:213, 2:221, 4:174, 7:26, 7:27, 7:31, 7:35, 13:7, 14:52, 17:88, 17:9, 35:45, 36:60, 49:13, 64:2, and many more).

Yes it is.....hence why there are Muslims from all backgrounds in all corners of the world, I'm one, Caucasian atheist, western European, revert to Islam! Learning Arabic, but I was able to understand the translations on a layman level, but I never took any thing at face value, I always cross referenced everything and still do! The Quran original form is in Arabic, its translated into many languages still conveying the original message to millions of non Arabic speaking Muslims!

But in any case: it should still be easy to understand and clear. As is stated in:

54:17- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember

54:22- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember

54:32- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember

54:40- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember

And I said it is easy to understand in Arabic or English on a layman level at face value, what's beyond you is the depth it has and the fact the layman meaning and the deeper meaning are always correct in both cases, it's not about taking the layman meaning or the deeper meaning, you take both.

*snip*

In Arabic so you don't think this could be down to translation:

No clearly no....stuff is lost in translation, but it's actually down to you.....it's your deficiencies.

Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

Transliteration!

75:19 Then, it is undertaken by Us to explain it.

6:114 He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail

16:89 We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things.

41:3 A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail

There you have it and now please tell me what exactly samaawaat means. Or are you telling everybody the Koran is wrong?

Lmao!!!! You wrong!

The Quran is correct, Allah revealed it and explained it, verses are self explanatory on the face of it, further elaboration was provided via the prophet who was the walking talking and practical Quran....

The verses are explained, there is simple meaning in most cases, but there is also depth and they compliment each other!

You see your mistaken if you think I'm defending the Quran etc to defend OPs model, I'm not, I'm open to his theory and I'm also scrutinising it, I can scrutinise the science, philosophical implications, etc I can also check his translation of words verses etc at a simple level and depth, by using dictionaries, lexicons, linguistics etc, but you can't be critical about the Arabic and it's meaning when you have no understanding of it!

What you claim is that the OP is translating the verses to fit his theory....this is a conspiracy, which you have to prove, but you can't cause you don't know Arabic. I can check his claims on the Arabic just like science he claims, and so can you but you do neither, you just rant at him, making hollow claims, require repetition on the meanings and demand silly things which only shows have not read his posts thoroughly!

Let me leave you an example, the Quran in one chapter starts with words where Allah swears by at-tariq, now to the early Arabs they thought this word meant star or refered to a star, but the word in Arabic for star is najm. So it was not until later contemporary times that scholars delved deeper. Without going into it technically, the roots words used a verb describing most commonly a needle piercing fabric, (do you understand this?) so the root word is commonly a description for something pierces, like a needle piercing fabric. To describe this action in English one word does not suffice does it? You need a small sentence to describe it, yet in arabic a needle piercing fabric can be summed in one word. Now put this word into it's context in the Quran, where Allah is literally swearing by that something which pierces the heavens (hence why early Muslims thought it was a star, cause stars pierce the night sky, it's also correct), but linguistically and contextually allah swears by something that pierces the heavens, and we know the root is a physical description of something piercing ie fabric. So what pierces the heaven (ie the universe)? I feel like leaving this as home work to you but I know you won't do it! So I'll tell you. Allah is referring to black holes, the words used at Tariq means that which physically pierces (most commonly needle piercing fabric), what pierces the universe? Black holes do, the literally pierce the very fabric of the universe. So I hope this illustrates my points a bit clearer!!'

Edited by Saru
Removed personal attacks and insults

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you failed in all your criticism so far. I don't see you mention them anymore. Realized your errors? At least these questions are more civil and answerable as well

I failed? In what? Because you don't answer my questions or explain my critique it means I fail? Oh man!

I have not made any errors. You have. I have pointed out so many I can't even count them any longer. If you find my questions easy, why don't you answer them?

Go read the previous posts. I have explained them adequately. Imagine a man asks a cosmologist when looking into Relativity Theory and sees E= mc^2 and asks where that came from: and how could a letter E be energy.

That is not an answer. You invent words like tayyan and then tell me you explained it. You have not. Nowhere.

That is part of my next phase of posts. I am still in the process of making known the QCM. I have reached less than 5% so far. Read the past posts and you will see.

That is my point: you don't look at the evidence and create an understanding, which is then represented by a formula. You make up a formula, which you can't explain, which is nonsensical, which has no values, which has no function and no result and then look for things which could explain this formula. Without addressing the formula.

So if you are unable to provide an explanation in English and a structured approach to derive at a formula which actually has a function your approach is chaotic and sucks.

Good questions that shall be answered when we reach that stage of the model. I will consider all of them.

*snip*

Your last statement is conditional and if the person is a "quranocosmologist"

Conditional? Of what? Do you know the difference between cosmology and cosmogony?

Edited by Saru
Removed personal attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing Saru edit the posts I have to take this chance to apologise to Saru and StopS for causing any offence

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another round of discussion which I hope will bring this subject to a satisfactory conclusion. In the meantime, have a look at the following diagram that sums up the Qur,aan Cosmological Model.

Here is a little diagram about the great reality. The seven samaawaat (universal realms) one above the other with varying degrees of outward expansion. The innermost samaa' (universal realm) being drawn outwards by the gravity of the six outer samaawaat (universal realms) and the close to halting of the outermost samaa' (universal realm) by the gravitational attraction of the six inner samaawaat (universal realms).

QCMuniverse.png

Soon to continue. R - - - - - - -> /\llllllllll/\_/\ (Table Mountain)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that was a fun read ....

hey ... if the universe is expanding ... how can stellar travel be possible ?

wouldn't where we're heading be further away every minute we think we're nearer ?

if we couldn't travel fast enough would the space behind us expand up to us ?

wouldn't that put us back where we started ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another round of discussion which I hope will bring this subject to a satisfactory conclusion. In the meantime, have a look at the following diagram that sums up the Qur,aan Cosmological Model.

Here is a little diagram about the great reality. The seven samaawaat (universal realms) one above the other with varying degrees of outward expansion. The innermost samaa' (universal realm) being drawn outwards by the gravity of the six outer samaawaat (universal realms) and the close to halting of the outermost samaa' (universal realm) by the gravitational attraction of the six inner samaawaat (universal realms).

This is such a joke! Now we have some circles which are 7 heavens, each one for a different prophet except the penthouse which is reserved for one of the gods and then the "samaa' (universal realm)", which in turn is pulled by "the gravitational attraction of the six inner samaawaat (universal realms)." This "samaawaat" is translated by this character as Universe.This is hilarious and getting worse every time he comes back with another instalment of this "model".

What is the basis for this "model"? No idea.

What is the evidence for this "model"? No idea.

What is the predictive capability of this "model"? No idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry had to delete

Edited by awest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that was a fun read ....

hey ... if the universe is expanding ... how can stellar travel be possible ?

wouldn't where we're heading be further away every minute we think we're nearer ?

if we couldn't travel fast enough would the space behind us expand up to us ?

wouldn't that put us back where we started ?

icon_smilo.gif

I hope the above is a fun encounter. I was learning how to create smilies for my discussion forum and then I ended up doing this one. There appear to be a resemblance. But I do not know who :).

It would be interesting to explore your discussions (questions).

Edited by al-amiyr
1 person likes this

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.