Location of the Moon & the Stars

Introducing one his writings[1],

Mr. Katz says:

The Qur’an teaches that there are seven heavens one above the other [67:3,

71:15], and that the stars are in the lower heaven [67:5, 37:6, 41:12], but

the moon is depicted as being in/inside the seven heavens [71:16], even though

in reality the stars are much further away from the earth than the moon.

I really do not think much needs to be said about this objection raised by

Mr. Katz. It is quite clear that whether the moon lies in the nearest of the

seven heavens or the farthest among them, in either case, there is absolutely

nothing wrong in ‘depicting’ it ‘as being in/inside the seven heavens’.

What exactly is the ‘error’ in this statement?

Mr. Katz explains:

However, the Qur’an specifically assigns the stars to a lower or even the

lowest heaven, while it states the relationship of the moon to the totality of

the seven heavens is that it is “in them” (fehinna). This gives the

impression that the moon is at least as far away as the stars if not further.

However, he further writes:

Had the Qur’an formulated “and the moon in the middle of them” then

this would have been unambiguously wrong. The formulation “in them” is

vague enough to still allow the possibility of the moon to be in the lowest

heaven as well. The wording of the Qur’an is certainly less than scientific in

this instance and suggesting wrong notions even though it is sufficiently

vague to not make it a clear error.

The reader is requested to keep in mind that the Qur’an has not even made

an indirect hint, at any place, to imply that it is written in a

‘scientific’ diction. The Qur’an is not a book of science. It has neither

made any such claims nor has it uncovered any unknown ‘scientific’ or

material facts.

The ‘vagueness’ in the statement is simply because of the fact that

clarifying such issues is not even remotely related to the message of the

Qur’an[2].

Nevertheless, it is obvious from Mr. Katz’s stipulations that the referred

statement of the Qur’an, ‘scientifically vague’ as it is, can in no case

be considered a ‘scientific’ error.

In his referred article, Mr. Katz has cited a number of references from the

Qur’an to evidence that the Arabic words ‘Fihaa’, ‘Fihinna’,

‘Fihim’ and ‘Fihi’ (i.e. ‘in it’ or ‘in them’)

etc. are used to imply ‘within’, which does not necessarily imply ‘lying

at the periphery’[3],

but is, generally, used for something which lies somewhere close or around the

center of something else. To fully understand, Mr. Katz’s contention, consider

the following diagrams:

Mr. Katz contends that the referred Arabic words have generally been used in

the Qur’an to refer to a refer to a situation depicted in square A given

above, not to that depicted in square B. Nevertheless, Mr. Katz should realize

that, even if his understanding of all the cited references is accepted to be

correct, to establish the said ‘scientific’ error, what needs to be

established is a “bit” more than what he has succeeded in establishing. The

point that would truly establish the said ‘scientific’ error is that the

referred Arabic words for ‘within’ cannot be used for

something that lies at the periphery of something else. In other words, what Mr.

Katz needs to establish is that the referred Arabic words for ‘within’ cannot

be used for the situation depicted in Square B, as shown in the diagram.

© Copyright April 2001. All Rights Reserved

with the Author