Home » Hanafi Fiqh » Askimam.org » Response to “The Masked Arab” – The Apostate

Response to “The Masked Arab” – The Apostate

Answered as per Hanafi Fiqh by Askimam.org

Assalamu alaikum. Please answer this question in detail, as this is a crisis of faith for me.

Recently I came across a video that talks about a scientific error in Sura Kahf, verse 86, the error being that as per the Quran, the sun sets in a spring of murky water. Before this video, I was aware of this verse, and used to explain it in the usual way, that it was rather Zul-karnayn who “saw” the sun setting in murky water, and that the claim is not objective. But the video went into so much detail while examining the verse that the old explanation doesn’t seem to be a valid one anymore. I will point out the summary of the video and would request you to answer each point separately.

1. The verse used the verb “wajada”, which means “to find”, and not “to see”. Because in the same verse, it is used again in the same verse: “Near it, he found (wajada) a people”, obviously a literal finding. In fact, throughout the Quran, the verb wajada has been used to mean “to find”, and never meaning “to see”. So why would it have a meaning of a “illusional sight” for the first occurrence, and a literal meaning of “to find” for the second occurrence, in the same verse? Is there any example of such use of the verb “wajada” in Arabic Language (i.e. which can mean to see from a distance or a mere visual perception)? Can you please provide some?

2. The verse also says that he saw the sun setting in a “spring”. How can a murky spring be so big, that it stretches to the horizon and create the illusion of the sun setting in it? And it would be problematic to say that the spring was far away, near the horizon, because the Quran specifically says, “He found a people NEAR it (the spring that the sun sets in).” And also, why “murky”? Why not just “dark” or “black” water?

3. According to the video, for almost 300 years, Mufassireen have not interpreted the verse to be from Zul karnayns perspective. But when it became well known that the earth was spherical, the Tafsirs, like Ibn Kathir claimed that it meant “he saw the sun setting”, the first being Tabarani (360 AH) who said so (according to the video). I am not an Arab, and I would request you to clarify on this issue. Were the early mufassireen really silent about it? If so, then why? Doesn’t their silence only prove that they didn’t see any problem with the literal reading that “the sun setting in murky water”, as it was a common belief back then?

4. If the literal rising place of the sun was not meant in verse 90, then what is the point of saying “We had provided no covering protection against the sun”? If it means there were no trees or mountains or houses, then this applies for any desert, any barren land on earth. Doesn’t this only strengthen the literal understanding of the verse?

5. And at last, why would Allah reveal the verses in such a way that the plain reading depicts a 7th century inaccurate view of the universe? Why don’t we find any difficulty while reading it literally, but many when we try to interpret in in the other way? How can this be the style of God’s Perfect Word?

You can check out the video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVwizsojd1Y&t=1190s

Please address each point separately and in detail. JazakAllahu khair.

Answer

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

Brother in Islam,

The internet is full of anti-Islamic information. The channel that you referred us to, is one of them. It should always be in our mind that most of these people that leave Islam and then deliberately create and spread misconceptions against Islam, trying to disprove the Quranic Verses and disguise the true message of Islam, do so, out of hate and only hate. It is not the doubts about Islam that take them out of the fold of Islam, rather it is their own predetermination of leaving Islam that provide them with such fake-filled excuses. Such people have existed since the past and will continue to exist for ever after. The value-laden arguments that they come up with may seem very appealing to a layman, however it is nothing more than their own anticipated version of interpretation. We advise you to stay away from any of these websites, channels to safeguard your Iman. This inconsistency of reason is understandable, because as much as their reason tells them that there is clearly no acceptable argument against the necessity of a creator, their pride blocks that meaning and drives them to keep arguing in arrogance. Every text of scripture that makes no sense to them is in their eyes evidence to disprove the existence of God altogether. Why? Because such is how they wish it to be.

Nevertheless, we will try our utmost best to clear your doubts. Hopefully, this will suffice to expose the dishonesty of “The Masked Arab” and show you how incapable he is of understanding even the basics of a language by applying his common sense, let alone try to delve into academical discussions.

We will endeavour to answer your queries first and in between also analyse some of the arguments presented in his video.

1) Unfortunately, this objection is raised in such a way that it portrays the subject matter as a linguistic issue. Whereas, a man with a little common sense and familiarity with the Arabic language will laugh out at this objection. What difference would it make whether the verb “Wajada” is translated as “to find” or “to see”. The end result of both is the same. Is it not the visual perception which makes one believe something after having seen it with his own eyes?  Similarly, in this case, Dhul Qarnain upon reaching the furthest west found the sun setting in a murky spring. But, let me ask you, was it without having a visual perception? Of course not! Perception in of itself refers to the interpretation of what we take in through the eyes.

He should have objected by saying that “Wajada” must reflect the reality and can only be used for a factual situation.

This is what “The Masked Arab” actually intended by posing his objection. However, he could have never phrased his objection this way because he well knows that the objection has already been answered by the Scholars of Islam decades ago. Hence, he tried to twist the words and divert the mind from finding the real answer.

Anyway, where did The Masked Arab come up with this hard and fast rule that ‘wajada’ only applies to those scenarios which are factual? Did he create his own? He took all the effort of bringing references from several books for several issues. Surely, getting a reference on this, would not have been a problem. Why didn’t he then quote any of such rule from any of the well-known Arab Linguists or their texts? He should have brought forward at least one sound definition of “wajada” which substantiates the self-made rule he has spoken of. Clearly, he wasn’t able to. This displays the fallacy of his way and his dishonest academic approach. This deceitful tactic of confining the word “wajada” to factual happening has no basis whatsoever.

Here is a simple example for you to understand. It does not involve a visual perception, yet this perception for which the verb Wajada is used is against reality.

Some people are sensitive to scents. Therefore, a person may say:

وجدت رائحة العطر قوية

Translation: I found the smell of the perfume to be strong.

Now, this man’s finding may not reflect the reality. He might have found it too strong based on his perception whilst that was not the case. The scent could have been soft, yet the word Wajada is used to express this. A sane person with a basic knowledge of Arabic and common sense can understand this. One does not have to master language to understand this basic human communication pattern. There is no need to be intimidated by such a theatrical onslaught against reason and common sense! Thousands of such examples used by every native Arab in their daily conversations destroys the very foundation of his objection.

Let us take another example:

وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ أَعْمَـلُهُمْ كَسَرَابٍ بِقِيعَةٍ يَحْسَبُهُ الظَّمْآنُ مَآءً حَتَّى إِذَا جَآءَهُ لَمْ يَجِدْهُ شَيْئاً وَوَجَدَ اللَّهَ عِندَهُ فَوَفَّـهُ حِسَابَهُ وَاللَّهُ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ

Translation: But the Unbelievers,- their deeds are like a mirage in sandy deserts, which the man parched with thirst mistakes for water; until when he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing: But he finds Allah with him, and Allah will pay him his account.

This verse explains two meanings of wajada; one that appears and is true (he finds it to be nothing) and another that appears and is not literal but metaphorical and figure of speech (he finds Allah with him). The phrase “Finding Allah with him” is a perception. Now, would anyone say that the person literally found Allah? If someone thinks so, that will be wrong. This finding is metaphorical, only used as a figurative speech.

Diverting the question from “can wajada be used for a fictional situation?” to “can wajada be used to see?” has the same implications. There was no need to change the question just to confuse the mind. He should have worded his question in the same way he intended his audience to understand it. His diversion from the actual question by twisting the question and bringing up a challenge to find the verb “wajada” in the Quran that has the meaning of “to see” is nothing more than a way to divert an intellectual mind from looking at the main issue. Why would we even bother to look for coffee when all we intend to drink is a cup of tea! He is taking false routes to acquire an answer without even knowing the right question to ask, to begin with. Furthermore, the issue is not whether the verb wajada has been used in the Quran for a visual perception or not. The actual issue is if this verb can be used in the meaning of “to see”.

Let us assume that a word has multiple meanings. Now, if a book uses the word 49 times in only one meaning, does it automatically necessitate that the 50th word also be in the same meaning? Definitely no. The author is in full authority of using the word in whichever meaning he wants it to be used in so long as it fits one of the meanings of the word.

Let us give you a simple example to understand how absurd his claim is. It is common that people in thirst see mirage in the middle of a desert. Now if someone says: “I found a mirage in the middle of the desert”, would his statement be considered wrong? Absolutely not! The word finding in here clearly means his visual perception. This visual perception made him believe an illusion as a reality. The scenario here is not factual, his mind tricked him. Yet Wajada can be used to explain this situation. For every other illusion which a person sees, despite not being true, he has the full liberty to say, “I found such and such thing”. It might be unreal for the second person or for every other person in the world beside him but for him what he had seen was the reality.

Brother, we are in no need of being fooled into looking around for such examples in the Quran. As we said earlier, translating the verb “Wajada” as “he saw” or as “he found” will not cause us any problem. Translate it in anyway, it will always remain Dhul Qarnain’s perspective. We have also made it clear that there is no such rule which states that “wajada” can only be used for a situation that reflects the reality. Yet, for your satisfaction, let us see if wajada can be used as “to see”.

Let us look at some of the renowned dictionaries to see the common meanings of Wajada. We might be accused of a forgery if we look at the dictionaries compiled by Muslims. Thus, let us explore one of the best Arabic–English dictionaries ever published. It is called Arabic–English Lexicon, also known as Lane’s Lexicon. It is compiled by a British orientalist- Edward William Lane.

The dictionary gives the following meanings of Wajada:

He found it; Lighted on it; attained it; obtained it by searching or seeking; discovered it; perceived it; saw it; experienced it or became sensible of it.

Now even after looking at the above, if a person becomes belligerent, insisting for an example from the Quran, then on what standards of reason could we even argue against such irrational and linguistic outrage.

It should be clear by now that it appeared to Dhul Qarnein that the sun was setting in a murky water just as it may appear to anyone else despite it not being true. Even a lay reader can understand from the context that Allah is speaking about Dhul Qarnain’s perspective and does not speak of a natural phenomenon.

If one reads the verse keeping the context in mind, and if he is honest to himself, he’ll find that Allah himself in the verse does not say a word about the setting of the sun. Rather Allah is merely narrating the perspective of Dhul Qarnain’s view. It was he who undertook the journey; it was he who saw the sunset, it was he who perceived whatever he perceived. Narrating what someone did, perceived or believed does not imply in any way that Allah is also confirming the same. Quran says, “He found the sun setting” Not “We found the sun settting”. Why attribute this perception towards Allah then? What is wrong in narrating a perception of someone?

The Masked Arab has objected to this by stating that “…why the Quran would even include Dhul Qarnain’s mistaken perspective in the first place”.

He further goes on to say “If it (Quran) wanted to tell us, that the Sun was only setting from Dhul Qarnain’s perspective, it would have used different wording. It could have said something simple like: He thought he saw it as if it was setting in a muddy spring, when in fact it does not actually set on earth because it’s a lot bigger”.

We are not convinced with his level of argument. Why would there be the need of using a different word when someone having basic knowledge of the Arabic language and a common sense of comprehending expressions, after having read the context could easily understand that “wajada” here refers to Dhul Qarnain’s visual perspective? Now, if someone yet finds it difficult to understand then who is to be blamed?

He further makes an objection that why Allah didn’t clarify the actual concept in this instance in the way he clarified the position of Jesus (PBUH) not being killed by adding the phrase “Wa lakin shubbiha lahum”( but so it was made to appear to them). Allah should have negated the false idea of the sun setting in the murky spring, even if it were from Dhul Qarnain’s perspective, just as he clarified about Jesus(PBUH) not being killed. Why did Allah remain silent? His silence only strengthens the view that the sun did set in a murky spring.

Firstly, Isa Alaihissalam is one of the mightiest Prophet of Allah. The whole idea of negating the concept of him dying on the cross is to falsify the concept of him being crucified on the cross. The foundation of the crucifixion stands on the doctrine that blood sacrifice alone expiates sin. This is in direct contradiction with the principles of Islam. Thus, Allah debunks this long-held view of “Jesus died for our sins”. Does this matter in any way equate in importance to the sun setting in a murky spring? But then again, one can clearly see how the Masked Arab tried to fool his audience by drawing a parallel between the two incidents at 05:58 mins by labelling the verse about Jesus (PBUH) as “something similar” to the verse in discussion.

Secondly, we ask you, does not opposing something in clear terms then and there necessitate that one concurs with the idea? Where does the Masked Arab come up with such rules! Let us bring an example from the Quran and see if his logic applies well. Allah narrates the statement of Pharaoh in Surah al-Qasas with the following words:

“And Pharaoh said, “O eminent ones, I have not known you to have a God other than me. Then ignite for me, O Haman, {a fire} upon the clay and make for me a tower that I may look at the God of Moses. And indeed, I do think he is among the liars.” (28:38)

By applying the logic of The Masked Arab, this is what the Quran must have been saying:

a) Pharaoh asked Haman to build a tower for him so that he may climb up and see who the God of Moses is.

b) Allah in clear terms does not negate this false idea of Pharaoh by stating that seeing Allah is impossible no matter how high a person climbs to. Or by saying “He thought he would be able to see me by climbing the tower”.

Combining point a and b, it can be concluded that once a proper big tower that touches the sky is built, one may be able to see Allah. It doesn’t end there, one may even opt to stand on the top of the tallest skyscraper in the world and have a whole nice view of Paradise and Hell! (al iyaadhu billah)

Will any sane person accept such a false analogy? How stupid does this sound?

Continuing with the video, at 05:50 mins he says “It (Quran) uses the absolute strongest word available to it to tell us he found it setting in a muddy spring”. How could “wajada” be the strongest word whilst it has multiple meanings as discussed earlier? Afterall, this is the core of our discussion and upon which the objection has arised. The Masked Arab however, as always, has made up his mind that yes, this is the strongest word that could have been used.

Brother, if Allah wanted to portray this situation as a factual situation, he would have used absolute words that were more vibrant, having no room for a second interpretation. He could have used more absolute words such as “sabata lahu anna as-shamsa taghrubu fee ainin  hami’a”( It was proven to him that the sun sets in a murky spring), or “uktushifa anna al shamsa taghrubu fii ainin hami’a”(It prevailed that the sun sets in a murky spring).

If according to Allah, the sun did set in a murky water, then why would He even be dependent on Dhul Qarnain’s story to prove this? Allah could have explicitly expressed this in clear words like how he has done in many other places in the Quran. Allah in several verses speaks of astronomical beings and while doing so he ascribes the words to himself. He says:

اَلشَّمۡسُ وَالۡقَمَرُ بِحُسۡبَانٍ

“The sun and the moon [move] by precise calculation”(55:5)

هُوَ الَّذِىۡ جَعَلَ الشَّمۡسَ ضِيَآءً وَّالۡقَمَرَ نُوۡرًا وَّقَدَّرَهٗ مَنَازِلَ لِتَعۡلَمُوۡا عَدَدَ السِّنِيۡنَ وَالۡحِسَابَ​ؕ مَا خَلَقَ اللّٰهُ ذٰلِكَ اِلَّا بِالۡحَـقِّ​ۚ يُفَصِّلُ الۡاٰيٰتِ لِقَوۡمٍ يَّعۡلَمُوۡنَ

“It is He who made the sun a shining light and the moon a derived light and determined for it phases – that you may know the number of years and account [of time]. Allah has not created this except in truth. He details the signs for a people who know” (10:05)

تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي جَعَلَ فِي السَّمَاءِ بُرُوجًا وَجَعَلَ فِيهَا سِرَاجًا وَقَمَرًا مُّنِيرًا

“Glorious is the One who made stellar formations in the sky, and placed therein a lamp (i.e. the sun) and a bright moon.” (25:61)

Why would then Allah change this method and use Dhul Qarnain’s story to prove that the sun was setting in a murky spring! Let us unmask The Masked Arab’s agenda of distorting the meaning of the Quran. Here is a verse in which Allah clearly speaks about the sun moving in its orbit. This completely destroys The Masked Arab’s false propaganda. He says:

وَهُوَ الَّذِىۡ خَلَقَ الَّيۡلَ وَالنَّهَارَ وَالشَّمۡسَ وَالۡقَمَرَ​ؕ كُلٌّ فِىۡ فَلَكٍ يَّسۡبَحُوۡنَ

“He is the One who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each floating in an orbit. (21:33)”

Here is what the Quran states, the sun keeps floating in its orbit. Having seen such a clear verse, how can someone still insist that the Quran is suggesting that the sun sets in a murky spring?

To conclude, his whole argument on “wajada” is against basic foundations of human reason, intuition and even language.

 

2) Brother, all that is needed is to stand at a correct angle and you’ll be able to see the sun set on a building, a lake, a basket, and even on your hand. It is not necessary that something stretches to the horizon for a visual illusion to be created. But please do not take this as an academical valid evidence.

The masked Arab has further played a video which shows the largest spring in the world- The Frying Pan Lake. He tries to give a false impression that a spring can be no larger than this one.

In order to explain this, let us look at the definition of a spring. Britannica defines a spring in the following words “Spring, in hydrology, opening at or near the surface of the Earth for the discharge of water from underground sources. A spring is a natural discharge point of subterranean water at the surface of the ground or directly into the bed of a stream, lake, or sea.[i]” Wikipidea defines it in plain simples terms as “A spring is a point at which water flows from an aquifer to the Earth’s surface”.[ii]

Does any of the above definitions limit the size of a spring to the size of The Frying Pan Lake? No. The Frying Pan lake might be the largest hot spring today but was it the largest, thousand of years ago? Probably not. It did not even exist back then! It was only born after a volcanic eruption in 1886. How can then a spring that happened to come into existence only recently, be used to deny the existence of a spring that could have been larger than this, existing thousands of years ago? If we look at the current statistics of the world, we clearly see that many springs today are going dry. According to reports, 83% of the springs have dried up in Almora.[iii] Poopo, once Bolivia’s second largest lake has vanished in thin air of the Andean highlands.[iv] Some of the mightiest rivers have drained dry. It is well known that those lakes that are spring fed are susceptible to drought. Why is it then not possible that there could have existed massive ancient springs or spring-fed lakes that have gone extinct today?

Here is yet another possible explanation. It also answers your second part of the question. Many Ulama have assumed the place where Dhul Qarnain could have possibly reached to be the Black sea. Some regard the place to be Hawaii which is located towards the furthest west. This island has volcanoes which include Kilauea, Maunaloa, Hualalai, Maunakea and Loihi. Some of these volcanoes are million of years old. Some of them are active shield volcanoes. The lava erupts from underground, resembling it to a spring. More so, according to various narrations the word hami’a (حمئة) which translates to as a muddy spring can also be recited as Haamiyah  (حامية) meaning hot.[v] The areas around volcanoes are mostly black.  They are adjacent to the oceans, stretching to the horizon. The island also has hot springs adjacent to the ocean. The description very much matches the Quranic description of the place Dhul Qarnain must have come across. Standing at a distance and looking at the sun set may have created an optical illusion for Dhul Qarnain in trying to make sense of what was being seen. Besides that, how did the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam know about a place which is in the furthest west and that it is filled with blazing lava? Is it even possible that someone from the west could have visited and informed him of this? Keep in mind that all this is happening in a time when there were no facilities of electricity. It would have been dark at sun set. Fantasising the situation keeping modern day in our mind will only distort the result. Keeping all of this in consideration, imagine a person looking at the sunset when the lava is flowing to the ocean with smoke (because of the lava touching the water) covering the sky. Is it then not possible for a person to have a mistaken perception?

At this point, we would like to clarify that all what is being said are theories. Ulama have tried their best but it yet needs further research. Even then, the absolute truth is only known to Allah. However, it should be enough to bring your mind at ease, knowing that such verses can be explained based on logic and common sense. Despite this, our Iman is linked to the unseen. The foundational beliefs of faith that we have brought Iman on, are all in dispute with modern day science. Our best approach should be to dispel any kind of doubt even without knowing the evidences. Not everything present in the Quran can be explained using science as a criterion. One of the characteristics of a Muslim as mentioned in the Quran is “they have faith on the unseen”.  Now, what if a person comes and questions us about angels and seeks for scientific evidence? Allah has spoken on many topics, such as Jinn, Angels, The Judgement day, Paradise, Hell, Miracles of the Prophets, all of which cannot be explained in scientific terms. What should then our approach be? We as Muslims believe in every word that the Quran has said. If something in it comes in accordance to modern day science, then all praise be to Allah. It only increases our Imaan. But even if it is not in accordance with modern day science then it does not impact our iman in the slightest way. Showing our faith and believe in Allah in response to such accusations against the Quran is the best way to deal with such mischief makers.   

3) Brother, before we answer this question, we want you to question yourself. Is this issue of sun setting in a muddy spring relevant to salvation? If someone does hold such a view, will he be condemned of disbelief? As obvious as it is, the answer will be no. These are not primary discussions of the Quranic exegetes and if differences are found in opinions in such speculative discourses then they merely will be termed as academical discussions and not matters that concern one’s faith. What should then be the repercussion for the one who has different views on secondary issues that does not impact his salvation? Someone believing in something which is not a matter of faith should not bother us in the slightest bit.

The Masked Arab fails to understand that the Scholars from the past did not have tools to investigate astronomy or modes of travel through which they could have flown to the sky. They interpreted verses based on their understanding. The Masked Arab thinks he is smarter now – collectively – than our Scholars were! Whereas the fact is that we just happen to enjoy a bigger accumulation of knowledge and experience than they used to have! So, when we hold a view that we hold, it is because we initially started from a point that is more advanced – by accumulation, not by intelligence – than where they started! But does this make these Ulama believe things that defy basic logic? Absolutely Not!

The Masked Arab has quoted a whole list of 21 Tafaseer advocating his stance that the Ulama until the 450H took the verse in its literal meaning. None before them had any clue that the sun does not set in a murky spring. The Masked Arab however completely misunderstood many, if not all, of the tafaseer. At 17:50 mins, while quoting Tafseer al-Mujahid he says “Whats interesting is that it interpretes the verse exactly as it is written. All it does is give us more detail on what this spring is.”

Now anyone who checks up the tafseer will understand that there is no interpretation of the verse, as a whole, present for the ayah. The exegete merely quotes the ayah and expounds on the word حمئة. No where does the exegete concur with the idea of the sun setting in a murky spring. In order to say that someone firmly believed in a concept, explicit words of him saying the same should be established. Without an affirmation from the author himself, whatever is said about his belief will only be an assumption that holds no weight.

For the following 10 tafasir he chooses to follow the same deceptive approach. Upon reaching the 11th Tafseer which is Tafseer of Imam al-Tabri. He says regarding the Imam- “All he did was gather together all the narrations he could find that related to any given verse. For verse 18:86, Tabari gathers an astonishing 15 narrations from early Islam to describe this single verse. We can see by reading these that all Muhammad’s companions clearly took the verse as meaning the sun set into the spring”. This is purely a case of academic dishonesty. How on earth does 15 narrations display the view of all the companions of the Prophet (PBUH)? If someone reads through the narrations, he’ll understand that the whole discussion again is regarding the recitation of the word Hami’a. Besides that, Imam al-Tabri before bringing the narrations says:

واختلف أهل التأويل في تأويلهم ذلك على نحو اختلاف القراء في قرائته

Translation: The interpreters have differed in the interpretation of the word “حمئة” in the same way as they have differed in the way it is to be recited.

The narrations which he then quotes are simply related to the recitation of the word Hami’a. All this is being discussed keeping the whole context of Dhul Qarnain’s incident in mind.

The Masked Arab at 20:50 mins quote a poem from Tubba, a king from Yeman, in which he brings the idea about the sun setting in a muddy spring. He then, as usual, makes a judgemental comment that Prophet Muhammad must have got the idea of the sun setting in a murky spring from him. The poem that he quoted from Tafseer al-Kashf wal Bayan is not complete. Ibn Ishaq in his book on Seerah has narrated the whole lengthy poem. The translation of the book is done by an orientalist, A. Guillaume. Alfred Guillaume himself condemned this poem saying “This poem is spurious; it is not difficult to see how Ibn Ishaq persuaded himself to incorporate such an obvious forgery in a serious historical work. At this point Tabari introduces a long passage from Ibn Ishaq. A much longer story via Uthman b.Saj given by Azr.i.79” [vi]

He further quotes from other tafseers indicating that every tafseer interpreted the verse in its literal sense. The fact is that many of the tafasir did not even bother to discuss a single word pertaining to the ayah, they just skipped the verse. But revealing this secret wouldn’t have benefited the Masked Arab, as such, driven by hate, he intentionally avoided this and tried to push a point to where it obviously cannot go. All this is being done to have his audience convinced that it is his arguments that is a superior source of knowledge on those essential questions and to anything that Islam has to offer.

At 15:20 mins, he quotes the history of al-Tabri where Tabri is narrating from Ibn Abbas about the sun setting in a muddy spring. Do we have to tell the Masked Arab that not everything in the books written on History are reliable? The narration is quoted without any chain of narrators making it unreliable, or at the very least weak enough to be held as an evidence. On the contrary, we have narrations from Ibn Abbas himself with a sound chain which clearly states his view that is contrary to this belief. It is narrated:

{يسبحون} قَالَ: يدورون فِي أَبْوَاب السَّمَاء مَا تَدور الفلكة فِي المغزل

(each in an orbit floating.) means, revolving. Ibn `Abbas said, “They revolve like a spinning wheel, in a circle.”[vii] The sun along with other celestial bodies revolve around its orbit.

As for the question, why didn’t these Ulama negate this false idea? Well, there was absolutely no need of doing this. People back then, unlike the Masked Arab, understood the verse exactly how it was supposed to be understood. A clarification is needed when there is a widespread misconception and there is a need to eradicate it. Taking an action without having a cause is futile.

Brother, even if we were to accept that most of the Ulama back then actually believed that the sun sets in a murky spring. Does it have any impact on the reliability of the Quran? As mentioned earlier it is not a matter of creed. These are secondary issues. People for long have believed that the earth was flat. Infact, many of the Europeans and communities, such as “The Flat Earth Society” until date believe the same. We also have a whole long list of superseded scientific theories that were later debunked. It is fine to have had a view due to lack of evidence. Whatever position these Ulama held regarding the setting of the sun does not have any thing to do with one’s Iman.

Now, if the objection is on the Quran, then it clearly does not concur with Dhul Qarnain’s perspective. However, if the objection is on these exegetes who were born far before scientific discoveries were widespread, then that is not our problem. We do not consider them infallible. They are prone to mistakes, misinterpretations, misunderstandings of the verses especially when it comes to scientific and astronomical discussions. I could write a book interpreting the verse based on my understandings of celestial bodies. Now if something wrong is found in the book, would that make it true? And who is to be blamed for the wrong. The Quran or me? Ofcourse me. To reiterate, Quran is free from any such error.

4) Verse 90 only says that the sun rose on them in a state that they had nothing to protect themselves from the heat of the sun. It does not indicate that Dhul Qarnain had actually reached the rising place of the Sun. The way we interpreted 18:86 we will also interpret this verse in the same way. It could have been a barren land. It could mean that these people where from such a nation who were unaware of the clothing culture, making them susceptible to the heat of the sun. Whatever the case may be, it does not mean a literal place where the sun rises from.

Imam Qurtabi narrates from Abu Bakr al-Shashi al-Qaffal(291H-365H)[viii]:

Al-Qaffal said: Some Ulama say: It is not meant by reaching the rising or setting of the sun that he reached its body and touched it because it runs in the sky around the earth without touching it and it is too great to enter any spring on earth. It is so much larger than earth. But it is meant that he reached the end of populated land east and west, so he found it – according to his vision – setting in a spring of a murky water like we watch it in smooth land as if it enters inside the land. That is why He said, “he found it rising on a people for whom we had provided no covering protection against the sun.” (Holy Qur’ân 18:90) and did not mean that it touches or adheres to them; but they are the first to rise on.[ix]

It is worth noting that Abu Bakr al-Qaffal died around 365H which is way before 450H. Yet, he is quoting Ulama who completely negated the idea of the sun setting in a muddy spring. Who were these Ulama that al-Qaffal is speaking of? It is obvious that he is speaking about the ulama from his era or before him (before 291H). Does this statement not go against the whole idea of the masked arab saying that until 450H the Ulama had no clue that the sun does not set in a Murky spring? Unfortunately, The Masked Arab quoting 21 tafasir has brought him no benefit. This one statement alone breaks his whole argument.

5) Last but not the least, you ask us the following question:

 “And at last, why would Allah reveal the verses in such a way that the plain reading depicts a 7th century inaccurate view of the universe? Why don’t we find any difficulty while reading it literally, but many when we try to interpret in in the other way? How can this be the style of God’s Perfect Word?”

Brother, Quran is revealed in such a style that every individual irrespective of which era he is in, can relate to. As you earlier said, prior to having watched the video, you were also content with the verse. You understood it as every other Muslim understands it today based on the context of the verse and the modern-day scientific discoveries.

Ofcourse, Quran is not a book of guidance in a sense that it will make one an astronomer, a physicist, a chemist etc. Quran is not a science textbook. We are in no need to overemphasize the compatibility between the Quran and science. But is it the other way around that Quran goes against established scientific facts? NO. We need to have a balance approach between both.

As far as why has Allah used such statements that are subject to multiple interpretations, for this the following extract from Tafseer e Maajidi is being presented which perfectly explains the reason behind it. He says:

چاند، سورج اور ستاروں کے بیان کئے گیے تو قصداً ایسی عبارت سے جو اس زمانہ کے مسلّماتِ عقلی و فکری سے ٹکراتی نہ تھی، لیکن اتنی لچک رکھتی تھی کہ جب صدیوں کے بعد نظریاتِ فلکی بدل جائیں’ تو الفاظ قرانی کی تفسیر و تشریح جب بھی ذہنوں پر گراں نہ ہو’ زمین کی کرویت اور زمین کی گردش، اور سورج اور چاند کی خلائی گردشیں سب کی سب کھل کر اس زمانے میں بیان نہیں کیں، جبکہ یونان، ہندوستان کے مہندس، عراق و مصر کے منجّم سب کے سب اس کے قائل و معتقد تھے کہ آسمان نام ہے ایک بڑی اور ٹھوس چھت کا، جس میں ستارے’ چاند، جَڑے اور جُڑے ہوے ہیں، اگر بیان کر دیتا تو کون اس کلام کو قبل اعتنا سمجھتا اور کتنی بحثیں عقلی اور دماغی، اصل مقصدِ ہدایت سے بلکل الگ نہ چھڑ جاتیں! لا محالہ حکمتِ خداوندی نے ایسا اعجازی طریقہ کلام اختیار کیا کہ جس سے ظاہری مطلب تو اس زمانے کے مزعومات، مسلّمات اور معتقدات کے مطابق نکل اے لیکن اتنی گنجائش اس میں ہو کہ جب عقلِ انسانی بلوغ کو پہنچ جائے اور علوم و فنون برگ و بار لے آئیں تو وہی کلام ایک مستقل دلیل بن جائے – اور مومنین صادقین کے علاوہ باہر والے بھی بہ قدر اپنے ظرف و نصیب کے اس سے مستفید ہونے لگیں [x].

 

Translation: When the sun, moon and the stars were mentioned, they were so with the examples that did not contradict the intellectual and mental state of the time but sufficient flexibility was retained such that after centuries, when the astronomical beliefs change, the explanation of the words of the commentary of the Qur’an do not confuse the mind. Roundness of the earth and its rotation and the movements of the sun and the moon – all these had not been mentioned in that time openly. The engineers of Greece and India, astronomers of Iraq and Egypt; all were of the view that the sky is the name of a big and vast roof in which the stars, moon are placed and fixed. If it had been mentioned, then who would have considered this Book worthy of believing and so many arguments, intellectual and mental, would have taken away the real purpose of guidance. The wisdom of Almighty chose such a miraculous way of speech in which the apparent meaning made sense to the people of that time but sufficient flexibility and space was kept so that when the intellect and knowledge of men reach its peak, then that same Book become a permanent evidence, and apart from pure believers and truthful ones, others also get benefit from it.

Another example of Allah’s wisdom behind his choice of words is that in previous times the name Fir’aun was understood to be a personal name of a specific person. This was to the extent that when the word was to be defined, it was done so by restricting and specifying it to that one individual. However, the course of history proved that what was initially assumed to be the name of a specific person was in reality a general title given to the monarchs of ancient Egypt. Now, if one were to look at the life of Moosa Alaihissalam, the general use of this title becomes evident as he encountered two Fir’aun in his lifetime.[xi] Thus, whether Fir’aun is understood to be one person or a dozen, Quran stands true in what it has said. It was true even when the word was referred to one person, it is true today when it is known that it was title. These differences won’t have even the slightest impact on the authenticity of the Quran.

 

And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best

Naved Akhtar Ibn Shabbir.

Student – Darul Iftaa

Shillong, India.

Checked and Approved by,

Mufti Ebrahim Desai.

 

______

 

 

 


[v] تفسير الطبري = جامع البيان ط هجر (15/ 374)

يَقُولُ تَعَالَى ذِكْرُهُ: {حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ} [الكهف: 86] ذُو الْقَرْنَيْنِ {مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ} [الكهف: 86] فَاخْتَلَفِتِ الْقُرَّاءُ فِي قِرَاءَةِ ذَلِكَ، فَقَرَأَهُ بَعْضُ قُرَّاءِ الْمَدِينَةِ وَالْبَصْرَةِ: {فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ} [الكهف: 86] بِمَعْنَى: أَنَّهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنِ مَاءٍ ذَاتِ حَمْأَةٍ، وَقَرَأَتْهُ [ص:375] جَمَاعَةٌ مِنْ قُرَّاءِ الْمَدِينَةِ، وَعَامَّةُ قُرَّاءِ الْكُوفَةِ: (فِي عَيْنٍ حَامِيَةٍ) يَعْنِي أَنَّهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنِ مَاءٍ حَارَّةٍ

[vi] GUILLAUME. A, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Page 12

[vii] الدر المنثور في التفسير بالمأثور (5/ 627)

وَأخرج ابْن جرير وَابْن الْمُنْذر وَابْن أبي حَاتِم عَن ابْن عَبَّاس رَضِي الله عَنْهُمَا فِي قَوْله: {كل فِي فلك} قَالَ: دوران {يسبحون} قَالَ: يجرونَ

وَأخرج ابْن جرير وَابْن أبي حَاتِم وَأَبُو الشَّيْخ فِي العظمة عَن ابْن عَبَّاس رَضِي الله عَنْهُمَا فِي قَوْله: {كل فِي فلك} قَالَ: فلكة كفلكة المغزل {يسبحون} قَالَ: يدورون فِي أَبْوَاب السَّمَاء مَا تَدور الفلكة فِي المغزل

وَأخرج ابْن أبي شيبَة وَابْن جرير وَابْن الْمُنْذر وَابْن أبي حَاتِم عَن ابْن عَبَّاس رَضِي الله عَنْهُمَا فِي قَوْله: {كل فِي فلك} قَالَ: هُوَ فلك السَّمَاء

[viii] طبقات الشافعيين (ص: 268)

أحد الأعلام، أرخ الشيخ أبو إسحاق الشيرازي في الطبقات، وفاته لسنة ست وثلاثين وثلاث مائة، قال الشيخ أبو عمرو بن الصلاح، ووهم في ذلك قطعا: وإنما مات كما ذكره الحاكم، في ذي الحجة سنة خمس وستين وثلاث مائة، قلت: وسيأتي ترجمته في الطبقة الثالثة، إن شاء الله تعالى.

[ix] تفسير القرطبي (11/ 49)

وَقَالَ الْقَفَّالُ قَالَ بَعْضُ الْعُلَمَاءِ: لَيْسَ الْمُرَادُ أنه انتهى إلى الشمس مغربا ومشرقا حتى وصل إلى جرمها ومسها، لأنها تدور مَعَ السَّمَاءِ حَوْلَ الْأَرْضِ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ تَلْتَصِقْ بِالْأَرْضِ، وَهِيَ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ أَنْ تَدْخُلَ فِي عَيْنٍ مِنْ عُيُونِ الْأَرْضِ، بَلْ هِيَ أَكْبَرُ مِنَ الْأَرْضِ أَضْعَافًا مُضَاعَفَةً، بَلِ الْمُرَادُ أَنَّهُ انْتَهَى إِلَى آخِرِ الْعِمَارَةِ مِنْ جِهَةِ الْمَغْرِبِ وَمِنْ جِهَةِ الْمَشْرِقِ، فَوَجَدَهَا فِي رَأْيِ الْعَيْنِ تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ، كَمَا أَنَّا نُشَاهِدُهَا فِي الْأَرْضِ الْمَلْسَاءِ كَأَنَّهَا تَدْخُلُ فِي الْأَرْضِ، وَلِهَذَا قَالَ:” وَجَدَها تَطْلُعُ عَلى قَوْمٍ لَمْ نَجْعَلْ لَهُمْ مِنْ دُونِها سِتْراً 90″ وَلَمْ يُرِدْ أَنَّهَا تَطْلُعُ عَلَيْهِمْ بِأَنْ تُمَاسَّهُمْ وَتُلَاصِقَهُمْ، بَلْ أَرَادَ «1» أَنَّهُمْ أَوَّلُ مَنْ تَطْلُعُ عَلَيْهِمْ

[x] Tafseer e Maajidi, Iftitaahiya no:2, Vol-1, Pg 21.

https://qurananswers.me/2015/12/03/dhul-qarnayn-and-the-muddy-spring/

[xi] Tafseer e Maajidi, Vol-1, Pg 22.

This answer was collected from Askimam.org, which is operated under the supervision of Mufti Ebrahim Desai from South Africa.

Read answers with similar topics: