Title: The Qur'an & Science Question: I was browsing the net...where i got this information....If you could plz answers these questions posed by this man, who says would accept ISLAM if he is convinced would be great??? the website is http://humanists.net/avijit/openChallenge.html and i'm pasting the scentific question he has posed: An Open Challenge to my Muslim Friends All devoted Muslims believe that the inimitability of the Qur'an is found in the eloquence and excellence of the Arabic language in which it is written; thus, it is impossible for them to imagine that the language of the Qur'an is full of errors. They think that the Qur'an is the direct Word of Allah and it does not contain a single word from any human being, not even the prophet Muhammad. Muslims also believe that the Qur'an and the Hadith form the foundation of the daily life of a practicing Muslim. They think the Qur'an has not changed by even a single letter since its revelation fourteen centuries ago. Their argument is that Prophet Muhammed was an illiterate man, for such a man to write on so many subjects, ranging from science to astronomy to medicine with a high degree of accuracy is impossible. Subsequently at that period no one could provide substantial confirmation on findings, because of lack of science and technology. Modern science demonstrated the objective articles written in the Qur'an to be precise. They claim that the Qur'an provides a kind of scientific knowledge which was impossible to acquire by men of that time. This is also a proof that the Qur'an is the word of Allah !!!! BUT IS IT REALLY TRUE ? I have read the Qur'an and then the Hadith several times with a free mind and I saw just the opposite picture what my Muslim "scholars" claim. I don't want to explain anything about the Textual Variants of the Qur'an or The Origins of the Qur'an here, because many discerning words have already been spent on this issue. As an engineer, I do have much more interest in current practical issues rather than the historical. At first glance I wondered whether it is really true that the Qur'an holds such kind of precise knowledge that was impossible to be acquired by the ancient people? To examine such a hypothesis, I did not have to go for grandiose words like "Big Bang Theory", or "Anatomy, Embryology and Genetics" (if readers are interested in these kind of issues, they may refer to my Mukto-mona Article page ); rather I took a simple scientific fact which was proven a long time ago (but obviously not before the time when the Quranic verses were written or collected); and the simple fact is--"The Earth moves around the Sun". My enquiry is: DOES THE QUR'AN SUPPORT THIS FACT ? Ancient people believed that our Earth is flat and they thought that "it is not the Earth but the Sun that moves". In the Quran we see exactly the same picture that represents the idea of the people of that time. Not only the Quran ---but also the Bible, the Gita, the Mohabharat and the Vedas depict the same picture because these common "facts" were seen by the naked eyes of the ancient people in their everyday life. The people of the ancient world did not have prior knowledge about relative motion, they incorrectly thought that it is the Sun which moves, not the Earth !! Here I quote some of the verses from the Quran so that we can form the concept of the movement of the Sun: " And the Sun runs on its fixed course for a term...." [Ya-Sin(36:38)] ".... And He has subjected the Sun and the moon. Each running for an appointed term. Verily, He is the All-Mighty....." [Az-Zumar(39:5)] "...He has subjected the Sun and the moon (to continue going round)! Each running (its course) for a term appointed......" [ Ar-Ra'd (13:2)] "And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the Sun and the moon, each in an orbit running." [Al-Anbiya(21:33)] "Allah merges the night into the day, and merges the day into the night, and has subjected the Sun and the moon, each running its course for a term appointed; and that Allah is aware of what you do." [Luqman(31:29)] I'll also suggest that the interested reader to go through Al-Baqarah (2:258), Al-Kahf (18:86, 18:90) and Ta-Ha(20:130) to affirm the concept that Quran clearly states that Sun is moving. Now, I quote the following verses which clearly state that according to the Qur'an the Earth is fixed. "And among His Signs is that the sky and the Earth stand by His Command...." [ Ar-Rum(30:25)] "Verily! Allah grasps the heavens and the Earth lest they move away from their places,..." [ Fatir (35:41)] "Is not He Who has made the Earth as a fixed abode......" [An-Naml (27:61)] "He has created the heavens without any pillars, that you see and has set on the Earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with you......" [Luqman (31:10)] "It is god who has made for you the Earth as a resting place and sky as a canopy" [Al-Baqara (02:22)] "And He has affixed into the Earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you, ..." [An-Nahl (16:15)] Don't be surprised by these verses. Ancient people did not have the accurate astronomical knowledge. They did not know the actual fact behind Sunset and Sunrise. They had a severe problem to solve --"Where exactly does the Sun stay at night !!!". The Qur'an says that one of the righteous men of God's servants saw the Sun setting in a certain place of the Earth-in a particular a well full of water and mud. There, this man found some people. Let us read what is recorded in the Qur'an (chapter "the Cave", verse 86): "When he reached the setting place of the Sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: 'O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness" [Al-Kahf (18:86)] Muhammed also failed to give the correct answer to one of his shahabas about the sunset. Let's analyze the Prophet's speech in the Hadith (Where does the Sun go to at night? Volume 4 Number 421) The Prophet asked me at Sunset, "Do you know where the Sun goes (at the time of Sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the Sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." What would you understand from the speech of Muhammad, who is considered by the Muslim as the greatest (***!!!***) scientists and philosopher ever the world produced ? Is it that "the Sun prostrates underneath the throne of Allah at night" should be considered as a scientific fact according to the knowledge of modern science or does it just resembles the inaccurate scientific knowledge of the ancient Arabs? MY CHALLENGE The Muslims who still believe that the Qur'an is unique, the Qur'an is amazing, the Qur'an is miracle, the Quran is scientific, the Quran is accurate....... for them I place a simple challenge here: In Arabic "ARD" means the Earth and "FALAK" is rotation/movement. Can you show me any of the verses from the Qur'an that contains these two words one after another ? I'm sure that you will not be able to because it is not stated anywhere in the Qur'an. I give you my challenge is this regard : If you can prove it, I'll apologize to you all for my previous misconceptions, delete this page from the World Wide Web and convert to Islam at once. "An unbiased study of Quran shows that far from being a "miracle" that book is a hoax. Once Quran is scrutinized with rational thinking, almost every sentence proves to be false. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities and grammatical errors. Could possibly the author of this Universe be as ignorant as it appears to be in Quran?" --- Dr. Ali Sina CONCLUSION Some readers may think that I am against the Qur'an because I was born into a different religion. This is not true (although I was born in a Hindu family, I identify myself as an Atheist and I do not hold any specific (so called) religious values (for details please read some of my posts in mukto-mona discussion forum). I used some of the verses of the Qur'an and the Hadith as examples because of the claims of some so-called scientists and philosopher of Islam regarding the scientific accuracies of Qur'an on a regular basis. Frankly speaking, every divine(?) scripture such as the Bible, the Gita and the Vedas hold the same kind of scientific misconceptions. For example here I quote some verses from the Bible and the Vedas to illustrate the same misconception (The Earth is fixed and the Sun rotates): "The Earth is permanently established. It will not move" [PSLAMS-93/1,96/10 and 104/5] or, "Sabita made this Earth fixed by different devices (like hills and mountains) and sustains sky without pillars so that it does not move" [RIK VEDA] or, "The sky is immovable, the Earth is immovable and these mountains are also immovable" [RIK VEDA 10-173-4] etc. Actually, as I explained before, people of the ancient world did not have proper scientific knowledge, they had numerous wrong concepts about our solar system - They erroneously believed that the Earth is fixed and is the center of the universe, while the Sun, moon and the planets move around the Earth. Their fallacious reasoning made them conclude that the sky is a canopy of the Earth and can sustain itself without pillars by the grace of God (see the verses that I quoted above) and the firm mountains have been created by God to prevent the Earth from shaking - beliefs which are not true. So the ancient books like the Quran, the Bible, the Gita, the Mohabharat and the Vedas etc. which are written by ancient people are not free from scientific misconceptions, flaws and contradictions. Answer: Before I respond to the challenge the writer has set forth, I would like to clearly evince a theoretical approach to the question of knowledge in relation to revelation. While it is certainly true that most, if not all, Muslims agree on the authenticity and foundational status of the Holy Qur'an and that most integrate conceptions of the Sunnah (broadly speaking, the method and example) of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) into religious praxis, it is inaccurate to imply that all Muslims agree on the import of scientific content in their scripture. The differences in opinion among Muslims, in this regard, are based largely on a disparity in theological, metaphysical, and philosophical assumptions about the nature of knowledge furnished by divine revelation. There are, as the writer has mentioned, many religionists who advance the view that revelation, as the product of the Omniscient God, provides multiple types of knowledge, insight into theology, morality, law, psychology, sociology, science, and so forth. According to this position, revelation is ipso facto eclectic and a priori "complete." It teaches the human being as much about how he or she ought to worship and act towards him/herself and to others as about, say, the stages of embryonic development, the psychological dynamics of polytheistic group worship, the life cycle of stars, and about a host of other subjects which, though not directly linked to human spirituality and morality, play an equally significant role in constituting revealed knowledge. In other words, there must be something as particularly special, miraculous, and useful in revelation's discussion of natural phenomena as there is in its disquisition concerning moral and spiritual development. In contrast, I would contend, in tune with many exegetes and scholars, that whereas revelation does endow the human being with a multiplicity of knowledge, it remains chiefly invested in offering moral and spiritual wisdom and guidance, and remains only secondarily and minimally interested in offering other types of knowledge, scientific, psychological, anthropological, and so on. These categories play a supplementary (in the most limited sense of the term) rather than a constitutive role in revelational knowledge. Moreover, revelation itself provides a critical methodological prompt to aid the human's interpretation of its content by dividing itself into verses that are clear, straightforward, and literally true and others that are allegorically (or in some other way non-literally) true but without necessarily indicating which passages qualify as literal and which qualify as non-literal (Surah Al-Imraan 3:7). [i] This distinction allows for a conceptual space in which one can lend hermeneutical legitimacy to readings of scripture that fluctuate between identifying the real (literal) and apprehending the symbolic (non-literal). This division also permits us to discredit the notion that the understanding of revelational content can only qualify as genuinely committed to the pursuit of truth when it subsumes all of scripture under the realm of the real and literal; it permits us to counter the charge that any identification of scriptural substance as symbolic, where a literal interpretation appears rationally unsound, is hermeneutical subterfuge. The writer claims: Their [the Muslims'] argument is that Prophet Muhammed was an illiterate man, for such a man to write on so many subjects, ranging from science to astronomy to medicine with a high degree of accuracy is impossible ... They claim that the Qur'an provides a kind of scientific knowledge which was impossible to acquire by men of that time. This is also a proof that the Qur'an is the word of Allah !!!! On the basis of the assumptions and premises I have introduced, I would argue that the idea that the Qur'an "provides a kind of scientific knowledge which was impossible to acquire by men of" previous centuries is false because it is not the business of revelation to yield any kind of depth on subjects directly unrelated to the moral and spiritual cleansing of the human being. My colleagues and I have only maintained that the Qur'an relates to the discipline of science in two ways: Since the Qur'an, according to Muslim belief, is the Word of the All-Knowing, All-Powerful God, it cannot contain any scientific errors (i.e. information that directly contradicts established scientific fact, as opposed to theories, hypotheses, and so forth) It follows from this that whatever of the Qur'an's content is deemed to be literally interpretable must remain consistent with scientific fact, even if the Book makes no explicit claims to providing scientific wisdom . The Qur'an may allude to natural phenomena to pique the curiosity and intellect of the human being, to point the mind to the general design and order of the universe, and to foster gratitude, humility, and appreciation toward the Creator. These relations to science are admittedly highly unspecified, but they are nevertheless a far cry from the belief that the Qur'an offers a unique, miraculous plethora of scientific detail, precision, and accuracy that could not possibly have been the product of 7 th century thought. I would request the writer to read my article, " Was the Earth Created Before the Stars? " in which I employ the same theoretical approach in an analysis of a passage in Surah Fussilat . Thus, in an important sense, we are in agreement with his basic instinct that it would be farfetched to read the Qur'an as a document that elucidated modern scientific data, theories, and facts unbeknownst to the relatively primitive mind. As I proceed to address his criticism of individual, allegedly "scientific" inaccuracies in the sources of Islam, I must stress the importance of bearing in mind the theoretical lens through which we shall analyze the referred material. He remarks: "The Earth moves around the sun". My enquiry is: DOES THE QUR'AN SUPPORT THIS FACT? Ancient people believed that our Earth is flat and they thought that "it is not the Earth but the sun that moves". In the Quran we see exactly the same picture that represents the idea of the people of that time ... I quote some of the verses from the Quran so that we can form the concept of the movement of the sun: "And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term...." [Ya-Sin(36:38)] ".... And He has subjected the sun and the moon. Each running for an appointed term. Verily, He is the All-Mighty....." [Az-Zumar(39:5)] "...He has subjected the sun and the moon (to continue going round)! Each running (its course) for a term appointed......" [ Ar-Ra'd (13:2)] "And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit running." [Al-Anbiya(21:33)] "Allah merges the night into the day, and merges the day into the night, and has subjected the sun and the moon, each running its course for a term appointed; and that Allah is aware of what you do." [Luqman(31:29)] I'll also suggest that the interested reader to go through Al-Baqarah (2:258), Al-Kahf (18:86, 18:90) and Ta-Ha(20:130) to affirm the concept that Quran clearly states that sun is moving. Science has indeed established that the earth revolves around the Sun in a fixed orbit and has upended the notion that the sun revolves around the earth. However, as I shall demonstrate, the Qur'an, in mentioning the Sun's "course" or "orbit," does not make any scientific blunders because astronomy posits an orbit for the Sun in relation to the Milky Way galaxy rather than in relation to the earth. This phenomenon is known as solar motion: Solar motion is defined as the calculated motion of the Sun with respect to a specified reference of frame. In practice, calculations of solar motion provide information not only on the Sun's motion with respect to its neighbours in the Galaxy but also on the kinematic properties of various kinds of stars within the system. These properties in turn can be used to deduce information on the dynamical history of the Galaxy and of its stellar components (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Vol. 19, p. 628). It can be easily inferred from the foregoing introduction to the astronomical concept of solar motion that scientific discussion of the Sun need not be restricted to the frame of reference of the Solar System. To assess the validity of a document that refers to the Sun solely in terms of the motion or immobility of stars is to grossly oversimplify and mischaracterize the question of stellar motion, which is relative. Nothing in any of the cited verses of the Qur'an that address solar motion and orbit requires that we consider the Sun only in reference to the Solar System, in which the Sun remains motionless with respect to the planets that circle it. All the text implies is that both the Sun and the moon have their own fixed, respective orbits, leaving open the question of the astronomical context in which each course should be measured. It is evident that the Sun has its own orbit in the Milky Way galaxy: ... [T]he Sun's motion can be considered fairly typical for its class in its neighbourhood. The peculiar motion of the Sun is a result of its relatively large age and a somewhat noncircular orbit . It is generally true that stars of later spectral types show both greater dispersions and greater values for solar motion, and this characteristic is interpreted to be the result of a mixture of orbital properties for the later spectral types, with increasingly large numbers of stars having more highly elliptical orbits (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Vol. 19, p. 629) [Bold emphasized] Again, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica amply clarifies, the Sun possesses its own unique motion and orbit when considered in a frame of reference of grander astronomical scope than our infinitesimal Solar System. The concepts I have elucidated resolve the objection the writer has expressed and alleviate the Qur'anic verses to which he has alluded of the burden of scientific consistency. He writes: ... I quote the following verses which clearly state that according to the Qur'an the Earth is fixed. "And among His Signs is that the sky and the Earth stand by His Command...." [ Ar-Rum(30:25)] "Verily! Allah grasps the heavens and the Earth lest they move away from their places,..." [ Fatir (35:41)] "Is not He Who has made the Earth as a fixed abode......" [An-Naml (27:61)] "He has created the heavens without any pillars, that you see and has set on the Earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with you......" [Luqman (31:10)] "It is god who has made for you the Earth as a resting place and sky as a canopy" [Al-Baqara (02:22)] "And He has affixed into the Earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you, ..." [An-Nahl (16:15)] ... In the referred verses, the Qur'an is not implying fixity with regard to the earth's role in the Solar System, wherein its participation in an orbit would belie the notion of fixity. My reading of these verses would show the following: In Surah Ar-Rum , 30:25, the "standing" of the skies (i.e. space in general) and the earth does not seem to warrant a literalist reading. However, more importantly, what we encounter here is a passage that turns not on a flexible interplay between literal and figurative interpretation in the light of scientific knowledge, but rather on the elasticity of language and grammar. As Moiz Amjad points out, "standing" is not used to imply "fixity" alone. For instance, in the sentence, " The agreement stands, " the word 'stand' is used to imply " To remain valid, effective, or unaltered"; the sentence " He stands on his earlier offer " uses the word 'stand' to imply " To take up or maintain a specified position, altitude, or course"; the sentence " I stand corrected " uses the word to imply " To be in a specified state or condition"; and the sentence " Send the message as it now stands " uses the same word to imply " existence in a particular form." Yet, even if we were to suppress the suppleness of grammar and instead to dwell on scientific accuracy, we should have difficulty in imagining space as a static entity because such a rudimentary interpretation would contradict other passages in the Qur'an which allude to the continuous, dynamic evolution of the universe (until the time of its destruction) and because of the sheer scientific imprecision of the verse itself. The "standing" of the skies and the earth ought rather to be construed in the most generic manner, where "standing" implies "developing," "evolving," even just "existing according to a specified position or arrangement." This latter reading would also be in consonance with a passage in Surah Fussilat (41), in which the skies and earth obey God's command and "come forward" together. The fact that, according to this passage, the skies and the earth (undefined) "verbally" express their obedience to God should suffice to refute a literalist construal. In Surah Fatir , 35:41, the notion of God "grasping" the heavens or celestial bodies and the Earth simply signifies that God "holds these bodies steady" within a macrocosmic arrangement for all celestial bodies, including the Earth, which involves fixed orbits and courses in relational categories-orbits which may be considered "laws" insofar as they are immutable within this macrocosmic order. Thus, to "grasp" is to "hold steady in arrangement" and these orbits would be the "places" to which this verse refers. Seen in their broad astronomical context, the celestial bodies are remarkably stable despite the fluidity, relativity, and evolution that are attributed to them. In Surah An-Naml , 27:61, what has been translated as a "fixed abode should be translated as a "stable resting place," as denoted by the Arabic term qarar , in this case for the innumerable inhabitants of the earth. As far as life on earth is concerned, the earth is "fixed" and "stable" enough that life can exist, evolve, flourish, perish, and regenerate on it. The verse goes on to discuss the mountains and the oceans and, therefore, does not seem to warrant a reading from an astronomical perspective at all. In Surah Al-Baqarah , 2:22, the text would sooner call for a "biological" or "geological" reading than for an astronomical one. The earth is depicted as a resting-place for its residents and the sky (i.e. the atmospheric sky) as the source of blessings, such as rain, which in turn produces fruits for the sustenance of human beings. The verse ends by admonishing the reader not to set up rivals or associates with God, whose comprehensive power, design, and order bespeak His Unity. Again, I see no reason why this verse or passage should merit an interpretation with an astronomical bent. The other two verses that the writer has quoted are more closely linked to the topics of geology than to astronomy or cosmology. Toward the end of his litany of objections, he comments: Their [the thinkers of various religious traditions] fallacious reasoning made them conclude that the sky is a canopy of the Earth and can sustain itself without pillars by the grace of God ... and the firm mountains have been created by God to prevent the Earth from shaking - beliefs which are not true. The problem that re-emerges in his discussion is the problem of oversimplification, something which neither religion or science-disparate as these disciplines are-can tolerate. Let us analyze the remaining two verses, which he employs in his argument: In Surah Luqman , 31:10 (cf. Surah Ar-Rad 13:2), the invisible pillars do not necessarily relate to the atmospheric sky of the earth, but, as the flexibility of the Arabic term samaa would allow, to space at large. I do not see why we should think the Qur'an literally means to suggest that there exist pillars (i.e. long columns or shafts) in something as marvelously grand as the universe. I would like to remind the reader here of the hermeneutical elasticity that I established at the outset of this article and that permits us to resist the need to interpret passages with images and descriptions of natural phenomena literally. The invisible pillars could just as easily identify (again, as before) the generic macrocosmic order which God has established for the universe and which incorporates orbits, trajectories, and astronomical laws that are not visible to the naked human eye, the simplest example of which would be gravitational attraction. Surah An-Nahl , 16:15, is one among a collection of Qur'anic verses that discuss mountains in relation to the earth. (Surah Luqman 31:10 makes an identical reference, so I shall treat the topic of geology in this sub-section alone). Read literally (and, therefore, superficially), these verses indicate that the mountains have been "staked" or "pegged" into the earth to prevent it from shaking. Only a crude hermeneutic would inspire the kind of objection that has been raised here, one which imagines God violently inserting mountains into the earth in order to prevent its tremulous movements. In fact, mountains do not "descend from above" but are upwarped from beneath. One general (and, admittedly, vague and imprecise) scientific concept might be gleaned from these passages: the mountains provide some kind of stability and firmness for the earth. The text makes no specific comment about: how the mountains originate, how they offer stability to the earth (except by implying that the earth shakes less as a result of the presence of mountains), or the degree of influence of tectonic processes that threaten the very stability they provide. By exploring each of these issues in some detail, we shall be able to see that, however vague and imprecise the Qur'anic treatment of geology is, it cannot be deemed inaccurate. [iii] The following is a brief conspectus of orogenic geomorphic systems (i.e. mountain-building systems): ... [M]ountain-building systems evolve in the special contexts of type, setting, and style. The principal orogenic varieties recognized are (1) mountains of the continent-continent collision type formed by lithospheric plate interaction along continental margins, (2) mountains of the collision type associated with oceanic trenches (sometimes developed along a single continental margin) with an adjacent plate-tectonic subduction system ... and (3) rift-type mountains extending into continental interiors where transcurrent faults shear cratons and deform associated sediment veneers or where spreading zones develop to create fault-block (horstgraben) mountainous terrain (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Vol. 16, p. 710). There are, thus, three principal means by which mountains arise. This should nullify the possibility of adopting an obsessively literalist and crude reading of Qur'anic material on this subject. As for the geological stability that mountains provide, I understand scientific literature as illustrating a relation between "mountain" and "earth" which is both reciprocal and conflicting . Before I explain what I mean by this, let us examine an introductory statement on the subject, which encourages us to acknowledge the properties of strength and density that are integral to the stability of mountains themselves: Mountains and mountain belts exist because tectonic processes have created and maintained high elevations in the face of erosion, which works to destroy them ... Two properties of rocks contribute to the support of mountains, mountain belts, and plateaus: strength and density. If rocks had no strength, mountains would simply flow away. At a subtler level, the strength of the material beneath mountains can affect the scale of the topography (Vol. 19, p. 714). In terms of chemical composition, and therefore density, the Earth's crust is lighter than the underlying mantle. Beneath the oceans, the typical thickness of the crust is only six to seven kilometres. Beneath the continental regions, the average thickness is about 35 kilometres ... Thus, most ranges and plateaus are buoyed up by thick crustal roots (Vol. 19, p. 714). The relation of "thick crustal roots" to the lithosphere is critically important for understanding the reciprocal relation that I am suggesting. It should be noted that the crust and lithosphere are defined by different properties and do not constitute the same layer ... Some mountain ranges and plateaus are buoyed up by a thick crust. The lithosphere beneath such areas, however, can be thin, and its strength does not play a significant role in supporting the range or plateau. Other ranges may overlie thick lithospheric plates, which are flexed down by the weight of the mountains (Vol. 19, p. 714). Just as subterranean tectonic forces produce and upwarp mountain ranges and belts, so mountain ranges stabilize the crust despite the uncertainty of lithospheric strength by weighing down on both the (strong or weak) lithosphere and the crust that buoy the mountains. The Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to the famous Himalayan mountain range as an example of this geological reciprocality: Thus, the strength of the lithosphere supports these mountains and maintains the base of the crust at a higher level than it would have if the strong layer were absent. For instance, the Himalayas have been thrust onto the crust of the Indian shield, which is underlain by particularly cold, thick lithosphere that has been flexed down by the weight of the high range (Vol. 19, p. 714). Just as mountains have been "dug up" from the bowels of the earth, as it were, so too have they been "driven into" the crust of the earth. This reciprocal "driving in" or "flexing down" offers a unique stability to the crust of the earth, and this must be the sense of the Qur'anic description of the mountains preventing the earth from shaking. Thus, the Qur'an, while remaining scientifically vague and inexact, nevertheless remains scientifically accurate. Finally, I would like to answer a supplementary objection that may arise if one studies the geological data. The introductory statements refer to the process of erosion, which works to destroy mountains and mountain belts. If such destructive processes exist, the Qur'an presents an incomplete picture of the importance of mountains by excluding data on conflicting tectonic processes. I would respond that the primary destructive forces that act on mountains-namely, erosion, crustal thinning, and thermal contraction-are not nearly as strong as the tectonic forces that have produced the mountain ranges and which lend them their overall stability. ... [I]ndividual mountains, mountain ranges, mountain belts, and plateaus exist because tectonic processes have elevated terrains faster than erosion could destroy them (Vol. 19, p. 714) Besides erosion, which is the principal agent that destroys mountain belts, two tectonic processes help to reduce high elevations. Horizontal crust extension and associated crustal thinning can reduce and eliminate crustal roots. When this happens, mountain belts widen and their mean elevation diminishes. Similarly, the cooling and associated thermal contraction of the outer part of the Earth leads to a reduction of the average height of a mountain belt (Vol. 19, p. 715). As should be clear, erosion does not act as quickly as "elevatory" tectonic processes and both crustal thinning and thermal contraction do not counteract "elevatory" tectonic processes in any comparable manner, for the reduction of elevation and widening of belts pale in relation to the magnificent upheaving of mountains. (To be comparable, one would expect that these destructive forces cause mountains to come tumbling down, but they lack the strength to accomplish such a feat). My analysis absolves the Qur'an of scientific fallacy and falsity even as it preserves its general accuracy. The inexactness and vagueness of the text is to be freely admitted. One could reasonably argue that the Qur'an tends to provide key words and phrases that could be scientifically interpreted in various ways, with results both enlightening and disastrous. Yet, as I have tried to reiterate throughout my case, the Qur'an is not a science book and therefore should neither be promoted as a miraculous, scientifically ingenious work nor as a scientifically inaccurate fiasco. Our admission of the imprecision of revelation could only have been viewed as hypocritical if we had advanced a methodological approach to the study of the Qur'an which envisioned science as constitutive of knowledge imparted in revelation, a methodological approach that I have debunked at the outset. In fact, my scientific deliberation on astronomy and geology is largely irrelevant to a study of the Qur'an if we remind ourselves of the possibility that all of the passages discussed could be interpreted strictly allegorically, in which case, questions of scientific precision and accuracy would be entirely immaterial! The writer proceeds to quote Surah Al-Kahf , in which the character, Dhul-Qarnayn , sees the Sun setting in a spring of water: The Qur'an says that one of the righteous men of God's servants saw the sun setting in a certain place of the Earth-in a particular a well full of water and mud. There, this man found some people. Let us read what is recorded in the Qur'an (chapter "the Cave", verse 86): "When he reached the setting place of the Sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: 'O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness" [Al-Kahf (18:86)]. He also cites a Hadith, in which the Prophet (pbuh) answers a companion's query regarding the setting of the Sun: Muhammed also failed to give the correct answer to one of his shahabas [sic] about the sunset. Let's analyze the Prophet's speech in the Hadith (Where does the sun go to at night? Volume 4 Number 421) The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." In citing these two portrayals, the writer charges that both the Qur'an and the Prophet are scientifically inaccurate in suggesting that the Sun sets in muddy springs, or that it could set beneath the Throne of God, and then rise in the West. I do not have much to say in response to this charge, except that I find it ludicrous to even contemplate these passages in a literal sense. In the first scenario, Dhul-Qarnayn arrives at his destination and seems to be moved by its beauty. The description of the Sun setting in the muddy spring is a lovely poetic account of the occasion for a divine command. I do not think anyone thinks, after reading a poem that describes the beauty of the "Sunset," that the poet is ignorant of science because, as we know, the Sun does not move in relation to the earth but rather vice versa. I do not think that anyone who reads the newspaper to find out what time the "Sun sets" should be considered a fool for trusting a source that apparently has not yet recognized that the Solar System is not, after all, Earth-centered, as was long supposed. It should be obvious that the idea of the "Sun setting" has never been understood as literally as the writer proposes; it seems unfair to demand a book of religious and spiritual wisdom to suddenly conform to such an unrealistic, strict standard of "scientific piety." As far as the Hadith is concerned, the Prophet (pbuh), also speaking allegorically and poetically, was alluding to the reversal of natural laws and processes at the advent of the Day of Judgment. This explains the Qur'anic verse that indicates the "term (decreed)," which simply means the temporary phase during which the Sun (and the rest of the constituents of the universe) will obey the rules of the macrocosmic arrangement implemented by the Creator, before being rearranged, destroyed, reversed during the Final Judgment. The rising of the Sun in the West is a manifestation of this reversal of cosmic process. The writer then challenges: In Arabic "ARD" means the Earth and "FALAK" is rotation/movement. Can you show me any of the verses from the Qur'an that contains these two words one after another? I'm sure that you will not be able to because it is not stated anywhere in the Qur'an. My argument should have demonstrated by now that searching for scientifically meaningful clues, facts, and artifacts in the Qur'an is an exercise in futility. It does not matter whether the Qur'an describes the Earth's rotation or movement because the role of revelation is to proffer spiritual wisdom and guidance, not scientific content. The challenge he has set forth is, therefore, fundamentally misguided. Finally, he concludes: An unbiased study of Quran shows that far from being a "miracle" that book is a hoax. Once Quran is scrutinized with rational thinking, almost every sentence proves to be false. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities and grammatical errors. We have already dealt with the question of "scientific heresy," but it is as astonishing as it is disingenuous to imply that the Qur'an's alleged scientific heresy translates into or accompanies "historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, and grammatical errors." I would kindly request the writer to present the basis for these accusations, so that we may address each objection sincerely and thoroughly. Otherwise, such a conclusion amounts to little more than rhetorical bluster instead of a compelling indictment. I hope this helps and God Almighty knows best. Omar Sarwar November 15, 2004 [i] This is not to suggest that an interpreter of the Qur'an should be free to make distinctions between the literal and the allegorical as suits his or her fancy. Rather, he or she should base an interpretation, in general, and the literalness or symbolism of a passage, in particular, on grammatical stress, historical context, "revelational" context (i.e. understanding how the determined meaning of a passage coheres with the rest of revelation so as to preserve the inimitable unity of message), rational considerations, among other variables. Anything short of this ought to be judged inadequate, if not dishonest. [ii] It is crucial that we avoid treating, in the context of the present discussion, "imprecision" and "inaccuracy" as synonyms, for in scientific discourse, theories are often appraised as "imprecise" without necessarily being "inaccurate." For instance, evolutionary biologists have argued that Darwin's personal conceptions of evolutionary processes were imprecise, owing to their poor treatment of the question of the mechanisms of genetics, but were nevertheless accurate in their essence.