HOW SHOULD A

MUSLIM VIEW
MODERN SCIENCE?
Title: How Should a Muslim View Modern Science?

Author: Abū Muḥammad (Mawlānā) Riḍwān ibn Dāwūd Kājee

First Edition: 18 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1441 - 9 August 2020

Email: [email protected]

Website: spirituallight.co.za


May Almighty Allāh accept this publication, and in His Infinite Kindness, crown it
with His Pleasure, and the pleasure of Rasūlullāh .

May Almighty Allāh allow it to be a means of perpetual reward »‫«إيصال اثلواب وصدقة جارية‬
for the author and the members of Spiritual Light, their parents »‫صهرا‬ ً ‫«نسبًا و‬, their

mentor, and for all those that have offered aid in any form, as well as their parents
and children, and for the Ummah of Rasūlullāh  in general.
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

CONTENTS

Transliteration Guide .......................................................................................................

How Should a Muslim View Modern Science? ............................................................. 1

Darwinism – A Satanic Ideology ................................................................................... 7

Belief in a ‘Sky’ that is of a Solid Structure and is Visible to the Naked Eye ............ 10

The Sun is Much Nearer Than 150 Million Km .......................................................... 17

Modern Scientific Theories, in Which Scope Exists for Differing Opinions .............. 19

Does the Sun Really Move Around the Earth or is it Vice Versa? .............................. 20

After 1550 - Europe ..................................................................................................... 24

A Christian Scholar’s Early Warning Regarding the Dangers of Heliocentrism ........ 25

The Poison of the Renaissance in the Lands of Islām ................................................. 28

The Issue of the Sun and its Relation to the Earth ....................................................... 31

My Inclination in this Regard ...................................................................................... 49

Is the Earth Flat or Round? .......................................................................................... 52

My Feelings Regarding How We Should View the Nature of the Earth ..................... 62

Which Model Should Be Considered? ......................................................................... 82

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) .......................................... 86

Food for Thought: ........................................................................................................ 92



1
Transliteration Guide
Consonants

‫ء‬ ‘ ‫ض‬ Ḍ
‫ب‬ B ‫ط‬ Ṭ
‫ت‬ T ‫ظ‬ Ẓ
‫ث‬ TH ‫ع‬ ʿ
‫ج‬ J ‫غ‬ GH
‫ح‬ Ḥ ‫ف‬ F
‫خ‬ KH ‫ق‬ Q
‫د‬ D ‫ك‬ K
‫ذ‬ DH ‫ل‬ L
‫ر‬ R ‫م‬ M
‫ز‬ Z ‫ن‬ N
‫س‬ S ‫ـه‬ H
‫ش‬ SH ‫و‬ W
‫ص‬ Ṣ ‫ي‬ Y

Vowels

َ
‫ـــ‬ A
‫ــِـ‬ I
ُ
‫ـــ‬ U
‫َــا‬ Ā
‫ـِـي‬ Ī
‫ُــو‬ Ū
‫َــي‬ AY
‫َــو‬ AW


 “And I (Allāh) created not the Jinn and man except that
they worship me (Alone, and recognize Me).” [adh-Dhāriyāt: 56]


  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

ِ ِ
،‫ ولع آهل وأصحابه أجعني‬،‫حنمده ونصّل ونسلم لع رسوهل الكريم‬
:‫أما بعد‬

How Should a Muslim View Modern Science?

Introduction

Throughout the course of history, the acquisition of knowledge with regards to

matters beyond general man’s reach has always been a coveted treasure, for which
scholars, philosophers, astronomers, and scientists devoted great portions of their
lives. The results of their research and experience were forever to be appreciated and
considered as aids for those that would strive in these fields in later years.

Due to much of their views however being based upon assumption, the scope for error
would always be present. Thus, no aspect of these sciences would ever achieve a
mantle described as ‘the absolute truth’. Wherever and whenever theories of science
and philosophy would stand in contradiction to knowledge derived from the Qur’ān
and the Sunnah, these scientific and philosophical theories would be out-rightly
refuted, unless scope for interpretation could be found.

During the Abbasid era, when the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers were
translated into Arabic and promoted, simple-minded Muslims as well as many so-
called ‘intellectual Muslims’ were thrown into the deception of regarding Greek
philosophy as an absolute truth, in the light of which verses of the Qur’ān and the
Aḥādīth should be interpreted. Through the efforts of many Muslim scholars the hold
of philosophy over the minds and hearts of the general Muslim public was finally
broken. By that time however, many who had grown up as Muslims, had
unfortunately already developed atheistic minds.

With the renaissance, from the 14th century onwards, the superiority of human
intellect and classical philosophy over the teachings of the Bible was firmly
embedded in the minds and hearts of the Christian masses. People would continue
visiting the churches and celebrating their religious festivals, but within their hearts
and minds a humanistic, atheistic inclination was predominant. Any teaching of the
Bible which was found contrary to scientific research would be either totally ignored
or interpreted in accordance to the demands of ‘modern science’. Religious books

1
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

were no longer afforded the mantle of being a source of ‘true knowledge’, but were
rather kept aside as a mere item of ‘blessings’, to be recited on occasions of joy or
mourning. When Christian ‘intellectuals’ found the teachings of the Bible in conflict
with ‘modern research’, doubts against their faith arose, and when they found their
religious elders unable to reply satisfactorily to these conflicting narrations, their
doubts turned into anger and resentment towards their faith. Thus, through the
avenue of ‘scientific thought and research’ the authority of the Bible over the minds
and hearts of its adherents collapsed and the authority of ‘supreme science’ took its
place.

Changing theories regarding the solar system?

For example, prior to the 14th century, the theory of the sun being at the centre of the
universe was a minority view. Aristarchus of Samos, a philosopher, who lived
presumably about 230 years B.C., is the first under record to have promoted the view
of the sun being stationary, at the centre of the universe, and that the earth revolves
around it as one of its satellites.

In the second century A.C. Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria refuted the theory of
Aristarchus and re-affirmed the ancient theory of the earth being stationary at the
centre of the universe, and that the sun, the moon and the stars revolve around it, as
instruments to give it light. This theory remained as the ‘accepted’ theory until 1543.

In 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus, re-introduced the theory of Aristarchus to the world

and in a book of his, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, published just before his
death, detailed the reasons of his giving preference to the view of Aristarchus over
that of Ptolemy. In the preface of the book however the following confession was
made by Andreas Osiander, the person entrusted with printing his book:

“The astronomer cannot in any way attain to the true causes, thus, he
will adopt whatever suppositions enable the motions (of the celestial
bodies) to be computed correctly from the principles of geometry, for
the future as well as the past. These hypotheses need not be true or
even probable. Rather, it is sufficient that it merely provides a calculus
consistent with the observations”.

This then was the beginning of the theory regarding the sun being stationary at the
centre of the universe, around which all planets and stars rotate. The preface of the
book in which this theory was promoted made it clear that it was a mere theory, for
which there existed no solid proof.

2
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Copernicus died of a cerebral haemorrhage on May 24, 1543. His writings soon created
controversy in European scientific and religious circles by challenging many beliefs
that had become religious dogma since the end of the Classical Era, a thousand years
before.

The theory of Copernicus was promoted further by Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton,
who added on to it the theory of ‘universal gravity’. Pythagoras, Copernicus, Galileo
and Isaac Newton all considered the sun to be stationary, and for many years
thereafter other astronomers followed suit. It was a view that had no initial solid
proof, nor did it ever find any solid proof thereafter. It was merely on account of
‘great thinkers’ accepting the theory that made it an ‘irrefutable theory’.

The truth that the ‘proven theory’ of Copernicus and Isaac Newton was not ‘proven’
at all would surface around the year 1780, when ‘science’ would admit to the fact that
the sun does actually ‘move’. In 1783, William Hershel, also accredited with the
discovery of the planet, Uranus, would identify the nature and direction of the sun’s
movements.

William Herschel however was not prepared to distance himself totally from the
views of his masters, Copernicus and Newton. He thus created a theory which still
kept the sun in the centre of the universe, with all other planets rotating around it,
as it (i.e., the sun) moved on its course. As for where the sun was then going to be
moving, he offered the ‘well-researched’ theory of the sun travelling towards a
distant star in the constellation (about 370 light years away from the sun), known as
‘Hercules’!

In 1846, Johann Von Madler, a skilful German astronomer, put forth the ‘idea’ that
there indeed exists some central point around which the sun, with its many planets
and comets, revolves in the course of millions of years. He ‘suggested’ that such a
centre is situated in the direction of Alcyone, the brightest star of the Pleiades. 1
Through his ‘theory’ he made it quite clear that the previous theory of Hershel, as
well as his new theory was indeed nothing but a theory, despite it being promoted as
though it was based upon solid evidence.

1
The Pleiades, also known as the Seven Sisters and Messier 45, are an open star cluster
containing middle-aged, hot B-type stars located in the constellation of Taurus. It is among
the star clusters nearest to earth and is the cluster most obvious to the naked eye in the night
sky.

3
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

From the above one can understand that from Aristarchus to Madler, whatever
‘scientific’ theories would surface were nothing ever but ‘theories’ and assumptions,
some of which were to be totally rejected, due to its being in open conflict with
explicit texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, whilst others could be considered as a
‘possibility’ that requires investigation. More than that, the theories of these few
‘thinkers’ carried no real weight, and until today that is the reality of their theories.

The Arab renaissance

The Arab renaissance (al-Baʿth - »‫ «ابلعث‬and an-Nahḍah - »‫ )«انلهضة‬began in Egypt in the

19th century and from there spread to the Ottoman-ruled Arabic speaking regions of
Lebanon, Syria, etc. The modus-operandi was exactly the same as that of the
European renaissance, except that in this case the goal was to remove the Noble
Qur’ān from its position of being ‘the Final and Absolute Truth’ and ‘The Supreme
Authority’ and to shift it to being a Holy Book, to be read beautifully at occasions of
joy and of mourning, but not to be studied and propagated. The Arab renaissance
poisoned the minds of millions with the thought that adhering to the principles and
teachings of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah in the ‘modern era’ would only hamper
further the Muslim world’s efforts in competing with the rest of Europe in the fields
of technology, space exploration, military advancements, etc.

Here too the authority of ‘modern science’ was utilized as a tool to weaken the
conviction that the Muslim world had always held over every verse of the Noble
Qur’ān. Through the medium of the international media such theories would be
propagated as ‘accepted facts’ amongst the masses, which were considered absurd
and laughable just a few years previously.

Those theories which were in total conflict with explicit verses of the Noble Qur’ān
were openly refuted by the scholars, thus saving the faith of millions. Examples of
such theories include the view promoted by Charles Darwin regarding the evolution
of man from an ape; the initial theory of modern science with regards to the sun being
stationary; the theory of a ‘big bang’, which ‘co-incidentally’ brought the entire world
into existence, with nothing being in existence prior to that.

As for those theories of modern science which were not found to be in total conflict
to explicit verses of the Noble Qur’ān, certain scholars chose to consider it and
attempt to reconcile between it and those texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah which
indicated to a conflicting view. The method chosen for re-conciliation was to regard
these apparently conflicting texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah to be figurative.

4
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

An example of this, amongst many others, would be those texts which indicate to the
rising of the sun from the east of the earth and the setting of the sun in the west.
These texts would be explained as ‘texts revealed in accordance to how the general
man perceives it’. What this means is that since man was instructed in the Qur’ān to
understand the power of Almighty Allāh  by pondering over the ‘perceived’
systematic movement of the sun over the earth, it was only appropriate to make
indication to the movement of the sun in accordance to how the general man
understands it. Had indication been made to the deep reality of the sun, i.e., that its
rising and setting is only a perceived notion, and it is in fact on account of the earth’s
revolving around its own axis, as well as around the sun, that we perceive the sun to
be rising and setting, had such an explanation of the sun been given in the Qur’ān,
the desired purpose of it being a ‘sign’ of the might of Almighty Allāh  would
not have been attained. Rather, the general man would then mock at the verses
concerning the sun, and instead of recognizing Allāh  through it, it would
become the cause of them drifting even further away from Allāh .

What is necessary to understand however, is that this reconciliation was made on the
basis of the theory of ‘modern science’ being established through strong, reliable
proofs. If this theory is one day proven incorrect, the need for this reconciliation
would cease to exist and the texts would again be understood in the literal sense.

Another example of such a theory is that of man living upon all sides of a global earth,
through the concept of ‘gravity’. This theory in essence does not conflict with any
explicit text of the Qur’ān or of the established Sunnah, thus it is a theory that may
be considered and conflicting texts may be explained in a figurative manner for the
purpose of reconciliation.

Yes, if any of the off-shoots and the demands of these modern-day theories are later
found to contradict the explicit texts of the Qur’ān and the established Sunnah, it
shall then be discarded and full reliance shall be declared upon what Almighty Allāh
 and His truthful messenger, Muḥammad  conveyed to us.

Of recent years, unfortunately, we find many innocent Muslim minds, which have for
years been indoctrinated with the lie that every claim of ‘science’ is a ‘proven, well
established and irrefutable fact’, finding it difficult to accept that a created, visible
sky does indeed exist. The basis of their doubt is merely on account of the existence
of a visible, created sky not fitting in fully with modern science’s theory of the nature
of earth.

5
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Similarly, they find themselves doubting the verses and texts discussing the Jinn and
their regular travels to the sun and to the sky. They base their doubts upon the fact
that according to modern science, the sun is too far away for the Jinn to reach quickly,
and since there is no sky, according to modern science, the journey of the Jinn
towards it is also questionable.

Full reliance upon ‘theories of modern science’ was instrumental in collapsing the
position that the church once held in the hearts and minds of its adherents.
Describing the rule of the church as the ‘dark ages’, modern science introduced its
adherents to a new set of beliefs, which ‘appeared’ to be much closer to the truth in
comparison to the hundreds of lies that the leaders of the church would preach. The
fact of the matter however was that through the poison injected by the ‘theories’ of
modern science, those who had, to a certain extent, some sort of belief in Almighty
Allāh, were now thrown fully into the abyss of atheism, and that was soon to be
followed by satanism.

A similar trend is being observed amongst Muslim youngsters, especially those who
have developed an admiration for western sciences. They live under the
misconception that the Noble Qur’ān is merely a Divine Book that teaches good
character and is full of blessings. As for scientific facts, they claim that this is not the
field of the texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. They foolishly believe that issues
relating to the human body, the earth and its surroundings, and the space beyond
earth are matters regarding which ‘modern science’ is the sole judge. Thus, if verses
of the Qur’ān or texts of the Aḥādīth contradict any ‘research’ of ‘modern science’,
these should be interpreted in a way that reconciles it with science. If such
reconciliation is not possible with these texts, despite being explicit in its meaning,
the texts should be ignored. May Almighty Allāh save us all from such deceptions.
Āmīn.

Finding this sad situation at our doorstep, the need has indeed arisen for scholars to
elaborate regarding those theories of modern science that totally contradict the
Qur’ān and the authentic Sunnah, foremost amongst which is the theory of evolution
as explained by Charles Darwin and the issue regarding the existence of a visible sky
that serves as a roof for earth.

As for other issues, such as whether man resides upon all sides of a global earth or
not; whether the earth is stationary or in motion; whether the earth rotates around
the sun or vice-versa; whether the moon has its own light or is a mere reflection of
the sun; whether the sun does rise from the east or not; etc , these are indeed not

6
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

matters which in essence could affect one’s faith, but due to the theories modern
science holds regarding these matters presently being used to create doubts in other
connected aspects, for which explicit verses of Qur’ān or texts of authentic Aḥādīth
are found, there is definitely a need to loudly emphasise that modern scientific
theories are in no way ‘facts proven beyond doubt’. Rather they are mere theories,
which change every few years. Besides mathematical calculations and computer-
generated ideas and thoughts, there is no solid proof for most of these theories, if not
all. Thus, any doubt created with regard to established beliefs on account of any of
these scientific theories should not be considered at all. Rather the theory should
either be discarded totally or interpreted in a manner that allows it to reconcile with
already established beliefs and principles.

In the following pages, light shall be shed, In Shā Allāh, upon a few of the issues
mentioned above, so that the reader may realise which theories of modern science
are in total contradiction to Islamic beliefs, as well as realise the weak-nature of the
‘proofs’ and ‘research’ of modern science.

May Almighty Allāh make it beneficial for all and may He, through our weak efforts,
safeguard our faith as well as that of our spouses, children and progeny. Āmīn.

Darwinism – A Satanic Ideology

Much has been written by scholars of recent times in refutation of the satanic theory,
known as Darwinism, which promotes an ideology of man having evolved from an
ape-species that existed before man’s era. In the face of the explicit verses of the
Qur’ān discussing the creation of Nabī Ādam  and his descent upon earth as a
fully-grown adult, the proofs that supporters of Darwinism use in support of their
theory indeed fall flat to the ground and thus hardly require any real refutation.

Yes, the one who is unaware of what the Qur’ān explains regarding the creation of
Nabī Ādam , as well as the one who harbours within his heart doubts regarding
the Divine Nature of every verse of the Qur’ān, such people are indeed at risk of
spoiling their faith with the above ideology. May Almighty Allāh save us all from
ignorance of the Divine teachings of our faith, and from doubting its Divine Nature.

Replying to every doubt and query of those who harbour doubts regarding the
established teachings of Islām is indeed a task which requires much effort and treatise
upon treatise dealing with each issue separately. As for the one who believes totally
in the Divine nature of every verse of the Noble Qur’ān as well as the authentic

7
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Aḥādīth, but is merely ignorant of the established Islāmic beliefs, this short treatise,
which shall highlight few of the explicit verses of the Qur’ān and a few authentic
narrations of the Sunnah regarding the issue of man’s creation, shall In Shā Allāh fulfil
his needs.

Note: Prior to the descent of Nabī Ādam , the earth was inhabited by another
species, which fall under the general term of Jinn. The exact nature, form and
characteristics of this species shall be difficult to pinpoint, as well as issues regarding
their diet, places of dwelling, methods of worship, etc. Since these matters have very
little relation to Islāmic beliefs the details of it are scant. Due to this, the possibility
does exist of such a species of Jinn having inhabited the earth at one time which
shared certain characteristics with that of the ape. Finding fossils today which make
indication to such a species that existed many thousands of years prior to Nabī Ādam
’s descent to earth is a possibility which science is free to explore.

As for the claim that this ape-like creature would later evolve into the species called ‘man’, that
is what Islām totally rejects. Had there been no witnesses to the beginning creation of
man it would then have been permitted to investigate and formulate theories, despite
the evidence for these theories not being of a sound nature. Where there is nothing
solid, assumption and ideas can be entertained. But in the case of reliable witnesses
being present, the judge ignores all assumptions and passes his verdict upon the
statement of the witnesses. What then is the matter with Muslim intellectuals who
entertain thoughts regarding the possibility of Darwin being correct? (May Almighty
Allāh protect us all. Āmīn) It can only be that they are unaware that Almighty Allāh
Himself has given witness with regards to the creation of Nabī Ādam  and has
explicitly stated that Nabī Ādam  has no relationship whatsoever with
whichever species existed before his time.

A few of the verses of the Noble Qur’ān and a few Aḥādīth regarding this are provided
below:

1. Almighty Allāh  states:

:‫ﱡﭐ ﲖ ﲗ ﲘﲙ ﲚﲛﲜﲝﲞﲟﲠﲡ ﲢ ﲣﲤ ﲥﲦﱠ [آل عمران‬

]59

“The example of ʿĪsā by Allāh is similar to that of Ādam.

He (Allāh) created him (Ādam) from sand. He then said to him, ‘Be!’
and thus he was formed.”

8
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

2. Almighty Allāh  states:

‫ﱡﭐ ﲮ ﲯ ﲰ ﲱ ﲲ ﲳ ﲴ ﲵ ﲶ ﲷ ﲸ ﲹ ﲺ ﲻ ﲼ ﲽ ﲾ ﲿ‬
]29/28 :‫ﳀ ﳁ ﳂ ﳃ ﳄ ﱠ [احلجر‬

“And (remember the time) when your Lord said to the angels, ‘I am
creating a man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape.
When I have given him shape and when I blow within him my spirit,
all of you should fall in prostration for him’.”

3. Sayyidunā Abū Hurayrah  narrates that Rasūlullāh  said:

)‫ صحيح‬،‫ (سنن أيب داود‬.»‫ فيه خلق آدم‬،‫ يوم اجلمعة‬:‫«خي يوم طلعت فيه الشمس‬

“The best day upon which the sun rises is Friday. It was on this day
that Ādam was created.”

4. Sayyidunā Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī  narrates that Rasūlullāh  said:

‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ «إن اَّلل خلق آدم من قبض ٍة‬: ‫ قال رسول اَّلل‬:‫ قال‬، ‫وعن أيب موىس األشعري‬
‫ وبني‬،‫ واألسود‬،‫ واألبيض‬،‫ جاء منهم األمحر‬:‫ فجاء بنو آدم لع قدر األرض‬،‫قبضها من جيع األرض‬
)‫ حسن صحيح‬:‫ وقال‬،‫ )الرتمذي‬.»‫ والطيب‬،‫ واخلبيث‬،‫ واحلزن‬،‫والسهل‬‫ ه‬،‫ذلك‬

“Almighty Allāh created Ādam from a handful (of sand) taken from the
earth. The children of Ādam thus came in accordance to the (nature of
the) earth. Some red, some white, some black and some with colours
between these. Some came with an easy-going, soft nature, some with
a sorrowful nature, some with an evil nature and some with a pure
nature.”

5. Sayyidunā ʿUmar  narrates that Rasūlullāh  said:

‫ه‬
ِ ‫ يا‬:‫إن موىس قال‬ ‫ه‬
‫ أرنا آدم‬،‫رب‬ « : ‫ قال رسول اَّلل‬:‫ قال‬ ‫وعن عمر بن اخلطاب‬
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ (سنن أيب‬.»‫ نعم‬:‫ أنت أبونا آدم؟ فقال هل آدم‬:‫ فقال‬،‫ فأراه اَّلل آدم‬،‫الي أخرجنا ونفسه من اجلنة‬
)‫ حسن‬،‫داود‬

(Nabī) Mūsā said, ‘O my Lord, show us Ādam, who took us and himself
out of paradise’. Almighty Allāh showed him (Nabī) Ādam. Mūsā
() said, ‘Are you our father?’ (Nabī) Ādam replied, ‘Yes’!”

9
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

6. Sayyidunā Abū Hurayrah  narrates that Rasūlullāh  said:

‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫اَّلل ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫عز وجل قد أذهب عنكم‬ ‫ «إن‬: ‫ قال رسول اَّلل‬:‫ قال‬ ‫عن أيب هريرة‬
ُّ ‫ مؤم ٌن ت‬:‫عبِيهة اجلاهليهة وفخرها باآلباء‬
،‫ (الرتمذي‬.»‫ وآدم من تراب‬،‫ أنتم بنو آدم‬،‫ وفاج ٌر شِق‬،‫ِق‬
)‫ حسن صحيح‬:‫وقال‬

“Almighty Allāh has removed from you the pride of ignorance and
boasting on account of one’s forefathers. One is either an Allāh-fearing
believer or a wretched transgressor. You are the children of Ādam and
Ādam is from sand.”

7. Sayyidunā Abū Hurayrah  narrates that Rasūlullāh  said:

‫ أ هن انله ه‬ ‫عن أيب هريرة‬

‫ فرتاه ذ ِر هيته‬،‫ «أ هول ما يدَع يوم القيامة آدم‬:‫ قال‬ ‫يب‬
)‫ (ابلخاري يف الصحيح‬.»‫ هذا أبوكم آدم‬:‫فيقال‬

“The first that shall be called on the Day of Resurrection shall be Ādam.
His progeny shall see him and it will be said, ‘This is your father,
Ādam’.”

In Shā Allāh, after learning that Almighty Allāh has Himself discussed the creation of
Nabī Ādam  in explicit terms, and after reading the explicit, authentic
narrations from Rasūlullāh , there is hope that every believer shall discard
all previous assumptions and possibilities that modern science has presented in front
of us, due to the strongest of evidence being available, i.e., the testimony of the
Creator of man Himself.

Belief in a ‘Sky’ that is of a Solid Structure and is Visible to

the Naked Eye
Until the renaissance, it was an accepted fact amongst both the scholars and the
laymen of the Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths that the sky was of a solid nature,
due to the texts of the scriptures being quite explicit in its description.

Until today, Christian scholars can be found, despite their numbers dwindling by the
day, loudly opposing the concept of the sky being of a gaseous nature and that its
colour is merely on account of refraction of sunlight. Their arguments, as mentioned
in their writings, can be summarized as follows:

10
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

 ‘The most natural explanation of the word raqia (a Hebrew word referring
to the sky) is that it refers to something of a firm nature. Virtually every
description of raqia from antiquity to the renaissance depicts it as solid.
The non-solid interpretation of raqia is a novelty.

 According to the flood story in Gen 7:11 8:2, the waters above were held
back only to be released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally,
“lattice windows”).

 Other Old Testament passages are consistent with the raqia being solid
(Ezekiel1:22; Job 37:18; Psalm 148:4).

 According to Gen 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia in the air, and not
in the raqia.

 The noun raqia is derived from a verb that means to beat out or stamp out,
as in hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus 39:3). This suggests that
the noun form is likewise related to something solid.

 Speaking of the sky as being stretched out like a canopy/tent (Isaiah 40:22)
or that it will roll up like a scroll (34:4) are clearly similes and do not
support the view that raqia in Genesis 1 is non-solid.

Despite the many clear texts in the Bible describing the sky as ‘something solid’, the
majority of Christian thinkers, after the renaissance, fell to the influence of modern
science. Considering it disloyal to abandon the Bible totally, some resorted to re-
translating the texts, or promoting the view that the Almighty Lord spoke to the
people in accordance to how they perceived matters in their era; whilst others
rejected the Bible totally, and used these very texts as proof that the Bible is not from
the Almighty Lord.

As for the people of Īmān, whose belief upon the Qur’ān and the authentic Sunnah
shall In Shā Allāh never waver in the face of the winds of modern thought, the
question of re-interpretation of the explicit, divine texts has always been considered
a deviation from the straight path. Rather modern thought, when it conforms to the
indications of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, can be considered. As for what contradicts,
it has and shall always be considered as unreliable and a mere theory, that has no
standing in front of authentic texts. Almighty Allāh states:

11
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

]28 :‫ﱡﭐ ﱋ ﱌ ﱍ ﱎ ﱏﱐ ﱑ ﱒ ﱓﱔﱕ ﱖ ﱗ ﱘ ﱙ ﱚ ﱛ ﱜ ﱝ ﱠ [انلجم‬

“They have no real knowledge. It is nothing but assumption that they

follow. And assumptions have no standing in front of that which is the
truth.”

The texts that explicitly or through indication confirm the nature of the sky to be of
a firm structure, which prevents man and Jinn exiting through it, except with divine
permission, are many. A few shall be mentioned below:

1. In the Qur’ān the sky is described as ‘a roof’. Almighty Allāh states:

]22 :‫ﱡﭐ ﲘ ﲙ ﲚ ﲛ ﲜﲝ ﲞ ﱠ [ابلقرة‬

“He, who made the earth for you a bed and the sky a structure.”

]32 :‫ﱡﭐ ﲦ ﲧ ﲨ ﲩ ﱠ [األنبياء‬

“And We made the sky a protected roof.”

2. In the Qur’ān mention is made of a sky being held up without the support of any
visible pillar. Almighty Allāh states:

]2 :‫ﱡﭐ ﱓ ﱔ ﱕ ﱖ ﱗ ﱘ ﱙﱠ [الرعد‬

“Allāh is the one who lifted up the skies without any visible pillar.”

Pillars are used to support solid structures. By Almighty Allāh mentioning the
existence of the skies above us, without resting upon any pillar, as a proof of His
unique power and might, this indicates clearly that the sky’s nature is such that it
would demand many pillars to keep it in place. Almighty Allāh has however, in the
place of pillars, kept the skies in place merely through His divine command.

3. In the Qur’ān clear mention is made of a sky that man can see, created so perfect
that despite numerous attempts, man shall not be able to find a single crack in it.
Almighty Allāh states:

12
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

‫ﱡﭐ ﱘ ﱙ ﱚﱛ ﱜﱝ ﱞﱟ ﱠ ﱡ ﱢ ﱣ ﱤﱥ ﱦﱧ ﱨ ﱩ ﱪ ﱫ ﱬ ﱭ ﱮ‬
]4/3 :‫ﱯ ﱰ ﱱ ﱲ ﱳ ﱴ ﱵ ﱶ ﱷ ﱠ [امللك‬

“The One who created the seven heavens in layers. You shall not find
in the creation of ar-Raḥmān (The Merciful) inconsistency. Look again!
Can you see any crack? Focus your gaze towards it numerous times!
You will become tired looking (but you will not find a flaw).”

The above verse indicates that the sky is not so far away from the earth that makes it
difficult for the naked eye to study it and inspect it closely. Thus, the notion of some
that there perhaps exists a ‘real solid structure at the end of space’ which is at a
distance of millions of light years away, whilst what is visible is merely on account of
refraction of sunlight, such a theory falls well short of what the Qur’ān lends
indication to.

Mention has been made in certain narrations2 that the gap that exists between the
earth and the sky is that of a 500 years journey. The chains of these narrations do
have a slight weakness; thus, no verdict can be based upon it. However, it is more
than sufficient as a reason to refute the opinion of a ‘real solid sky’ existing, out of
sight, millions of light years away.

A journey of one day ranges between 15 to 30 km, according to the nature of the
traveller. If 15km/per day is considered, a journey of 500 years would equal to 2 700
000 km. And if 30km/per day is to be considered, it would equal to 5 400 000 km.

Scientists themselves admit that the distance that the naked eye can see is based upon
the number of photons a distant object emits. The ‘Andromeda galaxy’ can be seen
with the naked eye, despite it being, according to them, 2.6 million light years away
from earth (with 1 light year equalling to 9,500,000,000,000 km). When this is their
understanding of the power of the eye, then for it to be assumed quite possible for
the naked eye to be able to see a sky only 5 million km away from earth should not be
difficult at all.

:‫ «ﱡﭐ ﲎ ﲏ ﲐ ﱠ [الواقعة‬:‫ أنه قال‬ ‫ عن رسول اهلل‬ ‫ عن أيب سعيد اخلدري‬2

‫ه‬
‫وإن ما بني ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫إن ارتفاعها كما بني ه‬
‫السماء واألرض ملسية خس‬ ،‫السماء واألرض‬ ،‫ والي نفس بيده‬،]34
)‫ بسند ضعيف‬،‫ (الرتمذي‬.»‫مائة سنة‬

13
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

4. In the Qur’ān clear mention is made of the Jinn being able to travel up to the skies.
Had there been no sky or had it been millions of light years away the Jinn would
never have thought of travelling to it. Almighty Allāh, quotes the statement of the
Jinn, when they found the sky no longer easily accessible for them, on account of
arrangements being made for the beginning of the revelation of the Qur’ān:

]8 :‫ﱡﭐ ﲍ ﲎ ﲏ ﲐ ﲑ ﲒ ﲓ ﲔ ﲕ ﱠ [اجلن‬

“And we (the Jinn) touched the sky, but found it brimming with guards
and shooting-stars.”

When the angels fire shooting-stars/meteors towards the Jinn, many of them are
unable to escape it and are burnt in the process, as mentioned clearly in authentic
Aḥādīth. Their highest speed is thus obviously much less than that of meteors, since
only that object shall be fired in order to ward one away which has a good chance of
hitting one. A bullet is shot towards an animal. A stone is flung towards a foe. Both
travel at speeds much faster than the target. So too should it be here. According to
science, meteors enter the atmosphere at speeds ranging from 11 km/sec (40233
km/h), to 72 km/sec (257495 km/h).

According to this, the maximum that a Jinni can travel in a day is less than 6,179,880
km, if one had to consider that its maximum speed is just under that of the fastest
meteor and that it remains travelling at this speed for a full 24 hours. Obviously, the
speed of the Jinn should be much less than this, but even if the highest speed has to
be considered, then too for a Jinni to travel even one light year (9,500,000,000,000
km), it would take 1,583,333 days (4337 years), forget travelling millions of light years.

5. In the Qur’ān and the Sunnah there is much indication to the existence of gates
or openings in the sky, through which sustenance, angels, and at times even rains
pass. Almighty Allāh says:

]40 :‫ﱡﭐ ﱼ ﱽ ﱾ ﱿ ﲀ ﲁ ﲂ ﲃ ﲄﲅ ﲆ ﱠ [األعراف‬

“Those who deny Our signs and scorn them, the doors of the sky shall not
be opened for them.”

]11 :‫ﱡﭐ ﱥ ﱦ ﱧ ﱨ ﱩ ﱪ ﱠ[القمر‬

14
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

“We opened the doors of the sky with pouring waters3.”

]19/18 :‫ﱡﭐ ﲈ ﲉ ﲊ ﲋ ﲌ ﲍﲎ ﲏ ﲐ ﲑ ﲒ ﲓ ﱠ[انلبأ‬

“On the Day when the trumpet shall be blown and you will come in
droves. The sky will be opened and it shall become doors (portals).”

]22 :‫ﱡﭐ ﲘ ﲙ ﲚ ﲛ ﲜ ﲝﱠ [الاريات‬

“And in the sky is your sustenance and what you have been promised.”

ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās  is quoted as having said:

ٌ ‫أحد من اخلالئق هإّل هل‬

‫باب يف ه‬ ٌ ‫ه‬
‫ (تفسي الطربي‬.»‫ وفيه يصعد عمله‬،‫السماء منه ينل رزقه‬ ‫«إنه ليس‬
)]29 :‫ ﱡﭐ ﲃ ﲄ ﲅ ﲆ ﲇﱠ [ادلخان‬:‫حتت قول اهلل تعاىل‬

“There is none from the creation except that for him there is a door in
the sky, from which descends his sustenance and through which his
actions ascend.”

The crux of the above is that the existence of a firm structure above the earth, what
we can see with the naked eye, and what we call »‫( «سماء‬sky) is a fact that can never be
denied. If this belief fails to fit in with modern scientific research and observation, it
will not be considered incorrect. Rather, it will be a proof that science has erred
greatly in this particular point. Qur’ān has come to affirm and to reject theories and
thoughts. It is not at all dependent upon science to affirm its teachings. As for science,
it has always disguised its theories as ‘proven facts’, despite it having no real basis.
When it has failed to find proof of the existence of a Divine Creator, despite this being
the most clear and obvious of matters, where can one ever suppose that it will prove
100% correct in all of its other theories?

Yes, modern science has always enjoyed the support of ‘the international media and
news agencies’, which all operate under the rule of one satanic lobby. The pictures
and ‘facts’ that modern science present in support of its theories shall always be

3
Huge amounts of rain poured unto the earth, after the doors of the skies were opened, bringing about
the great floods during the era of Nabī Nūḥ .

15
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

considered as ‘questionable’. Modern science has erred many a time and have been
caught on numerous occasions concealing the truth. Its theories shall thus always
remain as ‘mere theories’ and conviction should never be placed upon it.

Shaykh Muḥammad bin Yūsuf al-Kāfī al-Tūnsī (1250 A.H.) - a great Syrian scholar of
the Mālikī Madhhab, wrote in »‫ «املسائل الاكفية يف بيان وجوب صدق خي الربية‬regarding the view
of the Muslims with regards to the sky:

‫ه‬ ‫ ه‬:‫«املسألة اخلامسة عرش‬

،‫ وسقف ملا حتتها بال عم ٍد ترونها‬،‫السماء عقيدة املسلمني فيها أنها بناء عظيم‬
‫ ﱡﭐ ﱘ ﱙ‬:‫ مثل قوهل تعاىل‬،‫اء بالغ الغاية يف اإلتقان‬ ٌ ‫ووصف اهلل تعاىل يف كتابه العزيز بما ينطق بأنهها بن‬

‫ﱚ ﱛ ﱜﱝ ﱞ ﱟ ﱠ ﱡ ﱢ ﱣ ﱤﱥ ﱦ ﱧ ﱨ ﱩ ﱪ ﱫ ﱬ ﱭ ﱮ‬
‫ﱯﱰ ﱱﱲﱳﱴﱵﱶﱷﱸﱹﱺ ﱻﱼﱽ‬
‫ه‬
،‫ فمن قال واعتقد أنها ج ٌّو وفضاء‬،]5/4/3 :‫ﱾ ﱿﲀ ﲁ ﲂ ﲃ ﲄ ﲅﱠ [امللك‬
‫ه‬
‫ ويف‬،]22 :‫ ﱡﭐﲝ ﲞﱠ [ابلقرة‬:‫مر مص ِم ًما لع ذلك؛ يكفر تلكذيبه اهلل تعاىل يف خربه‬
‫ واست ه‬،‫ّل بناء‬

‫ ﱡﭐ ﱛ ﱜ ﱝ ﱞ‬:‫ ويف خربه‬،]32 :‫ ﱡﭐ ﲦ ﲧ ﲨ ﲩﲪﱠ [األنبياء‬:‫خربه‬

:‫ ﱡﭐ ﱳ ﱴ ﱵ ﱶ ﱷﱸ ﱹ ﱺ ﱻ ﱼﱠ [انلازاعت‬:‫ ويف قوهل‬،]5 :‫ﱠ [الشمس‬

ٌ ‫ادلالة لع أنهها بناء ُم‬
.»‫كم‬ ‫ وغي ذلك من اآليات ه‬،]28/27

“It is the belief of the Muslims that the sky is a huge building and a roof
for what is under it. It is held in place without any visible column.
Almighty Allāh has described it in the Qur’ān in a manner that
indicates to it being a building, built in the most unique and perfect
manner. Almighty Allāh says, ‘It is He who has created the seven skies
in layers. You will not find in the creation of Allāh any error. Look
closely. Can you see any crack? Look again! You will become tired of
searching (for any sign of deficiency). Indeed, We have beautified the
sky of the earth with lanterns and We have made it a source of
repelling the shayāṭīn’.

Whoever has the belief that the sky is a mere name for the atmosphere
above us, he is in fact denying what Almighty Allāh has mentioned in
various verses of the Qur’ān with regards to the sky being a created
object, thus a verdict of disbelief shall be passed over him!”



16
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

The Sun is Much Nearer Than 150 Million Km

In the Aḥādīth, indication can be found of shayāṭīn (evil Jinn) daily reaching the sun
at the time of its rise, at midday and at the time of its setting.

Rasūlullāh  is quoted as having said:

‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ُّ

‫ وتغرب بني قرَن‬،‫ فإنها تطلع بني قرَن الشيطان‬،‫ وّل حني تسقط‬،‫«ّل تصلوا حني تطلع الشمس‬
‫ه‬
)‫ (مسند أمحد‬.»‫الشيطان‬

“Do not perform Ṣalāh when the sun is rising, nor when it is setting,
since it rises between the horns of the devil and it sets between the
horns of the devil.”

‫ه‬
‫ ه‬،‫ فإذا ارتفعت فارقها‬،‫الشيطان‬ ‫ه ه‬
‫ فإذا زالت‬،‫ثم إذا استوت قارنها‬ ‫«إن الشمس تطلع ومعها قرن‬
)‫ (موطأ مالك‬.»‫ فإذا غربت فارقها‬،‫ فإذا دنت للغروب قارنها‬،‫فارقها‬

“The sun rises together with the horn of the devil. When it rises, the
devil separates from it. Then, at midday, the devil joins with it again.
When it passes midday, the devil separates and then joins it again
when it is close to setting. Upon setting, the devil separates from it.”

These narrations, when taken in its literal sense, indicate that the shayāṭīn reach the
sun in minimal time, thus allowing different groups of them to erect themselves
beneath the sun in different places, at the times of sunrise, midday and sunset.
Scholars have written that the shayāṭīn place themselves at these positions, at the
times when certain groups prostrate to the sun, thereby accepting the prostration of
the sun-worshippers as prostration to them. It has always been the desire of the devils
that man prostrate to them. Even if this prostration is not directly towards them, then
too, they are pleased to accept indirect prostration.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the speed at which the Jinn travel cannot be
more than 40 000 km/h, since that is the lowest speed at which meteors travel, as it
enters the earth, and it is known that the meteors travel faster than the Jinn. (This is
on the assumption that science is correct in this matter). If it has to be said that the
sun is at a distance of 150 million km, that would mean that at a speed of 40 000 km/h
it would take the Jinn about 156 days to reach the sun, whereas the Aḥādīth shows
that their journey to the sun is made in a relatively short period of time, from a few
minutes to a few hours.

17
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

It has also been mentioned that in the light of the narrations that make mention of
the distance between the earth and the sky being a journey of 500 years (whose chain
of narrators has slight weakness), we understand that the distance between the sky
and the earth is between 2 to 5 million km, depending on the calculation of a 500-year
journey. Since it is understood from the texts of the Qur’ān that the sun lies between
the earth and the sky, it seems quite improbable that there could exist a distance of
150 million km between the earth and the sun.



18
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Modern Scientific Theories, in Which Scope Exists for

Differing Opinions
Besides the above, there are many other present-day scientifically ‘proven’ issues
regarding which scholars of Islām differ in their approach of interpreting and
explaining. Some have denied outright these views of modern science, regarding it to
be in conflict to clear verses of the Qur’ān and clear texts of the Aḥādīth. Others have
opined that the verses and Aḥādīth regarding these matters are open to be
interpreted in a manner that reconciles with the views of modern science. And then
there are those who opine that although there does exist the possibility for
interpreting these texts and Aḥādīth to be figurative, however as long as modern
science cannot present factual evidence for its claims, one should not bother
attempting to interpret the Divine texts according to the promoted theories.

(Note: pictures alone can never be regarded as ‘factual evidence’ since the promoters
of modern scientific theories have been found many a time creating false pictures to
support their views.)

The purpose of mentioning these differing approaches and views of the great scholars
of the past and of recent times is to show that:

a) There is scope in these issues for differing opinions.

b) The views of modern science have never received full support from the
scholars of Islām; thus, one should not hold onto it as though it is an ‘accepted
teaching’ of Islām. Rather, those scholars who accepted its theories did so, not
on account of it being a clear teaching of Islām, but rather on account of
trusting the words of scientists and the proofs that they presented, and not
finding these views in total contradiction to the explicit, authentic texts of
Islām. In the event of the proofs presented by modern science one day being
proven incorrect, it will in no way mean that an Islāmic teaching has been
proven incorrect. Nay, all it shall mean is that the texts, which had scope for
interpretation, in fact needed no interpretation at all, and that its apparent
meaning was intended from the very beginning.

In the pages that follow, mention shall be made of a few of these theories, and the
opinions of the scholars of Islām regarding it.

19
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Does the Sun Really Move Around the Earth or is it Vice

Versa?
Until the year 1500 A.C., there hardly existed any major difference with regard to the
fact that the earth occupied the central position of the created world, with the sun,
the moon, and most of the stars flowing in its orbits, in accordance to its duties.

This was how Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars understood the world to be, and
it was towards this that the texts of all the Divine Scriptures indicated to. In fact, this
was also the predominant description of the cosmos in many ancient civilizations,
such as those of Aristotle in Classical Greece and Ptolemy in Roman Egypt. In
astronomy this was known as the ‘geocentric model’ or the Ptolemaic system.

The Greek astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 B.C.) did promote the view of a
heliocentric model, with the known planets circling the sun, but his view hardly
gained any prominence. The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy’s geocentric model
served as the basis for preparing astrological and astronomical charts for over 1500
years.

It was only after the emergence of the renaissance that the theory of a heliocentric
model was revived and in a gradual and systematic manner portrayed as the one and
only proven theory. Individuals recognized for their ‘remarkable’ efforts in reviving
and establishing ‘sound’ proofs for this theory were Nicolaus Copernicus (d. 1543);
Galileo Galilei (d. 1642), Johannes Kepler (d. 1630) and Isaac Newton (d. 1727). At the
beginning period of the renaissance there was much resistance to this new theory,
since Christian scholars initially found it difficult to reject the theory of geocentrism,
which had been the accepted theory for centuries, and which agree with Biblical
passages. As time passed however, the awe that the general public held for ‘modern
science’ enabled it to persuade the scholars of the Jews and the Christians to re-
interpret the texts of their scriptures where possible, or to merely ignore the matter
totally and to allow the heliocentric theory to dominate all further research.

Geocentrism as a separate religious belief, however, never completely died out. In the
United States between 1870 and 1920, for example, various members of the Lutheran
Church–Missouri Synod published articles disparaging Copernican astronomy and
promoting geocentrism.

Articles arguing that geocentrism was the biblical perspective appeared in some early
‘creation science‘ newsletters pointing to some passages in the Bible, which, when

20
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

taken literally, indicate that the daily apparent motions of the sun and the moon are
due to their actual motions around the earth rather than due to the rotation of the
earth about its axis. For example, in Joshua (10:12), the sun and moon are said to stop
in the sky, and in Psalms the world is described as immobile. Psalms (93:1) says in
part, “the world is established, firm and secure”. Contemporary advocates for such
religious beliefs include, amongst many others, Robert Sungenis (author of the 2006
book Galileo Was Wrong). These people subscribe to the view that a plain reading of the
Bible contains an accurate account of the manner in which the universe was created
and requires a geocentric worldview.

The above, in a nutshell, is how the renaissance revived and propagated a theory,
which had been abandoned by all faiths for centuries. In fact, so loud would be their
propagation of this theory, that very few would be left aware of a contradicting
theory, which could also be considered.

What is worth noticing is that all the personalities that aided in promoting and
‘establishing’ this ‘new’ theory were known to have some sort of relationship with
satanic thought, despite not announcing it loudly, due to the fear of being executed
by the ruling powers of the church.

The ring seal of Copernicus bore the image of Apollo (presumed by the Greek to be
the God of archery, music and dance, truth and prophecy, healing and diseases, the
sun and light, poetry, and more). This seal can be seen on a letter dated 1536 from
Copernicus to the Bishop Jan Dantiscus of Chełmno, found in the Collegium Maius
collections of the Jagiellonian Library in Kraków. Galileo Galilei was found guilty of
promoting views contrary to Christian teachings and was sentenced to house
imprisonment till his death. There exist many drawings that show Johannes Kepler’s
links to freemasonry. Isaac Newton was knighted by Queen Anne, on the 16th April
1705, at Trinity College, which was a known masonic lodge of that era.

One could perhaps call this a mere coincidence that the four most influential people
responsible for making the world ‘aware’ of a thousand plus years ‘error’ in
understanding the system of the world were all ‘freemasons’. Or was it something
else?

Another aspect worthy of consideration is that prior to the coming of Copernicus and
his theory of a heliocentric model, the theory of earth being at the centre with the
sun orbiting it, known as the ‘geocentric model’ or the Ptolemaic system was studied
in depth for hundreds of years by Muslim scholars. Their observations led them to

21
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

make many corrections to the theories held by previous masters of astronomy. For
e.g.

1. Ḥasan bin Haytham (d. 1040) (known as Al-Hazen, the father of modern optics
- In his Ash-Shukūk ‛alā Batlamyūs, variously translated as Doubts Concerning
Ptolemy or Aporias against Ptolemy, published at some time between 1025 and
1028, he criticized Ptolemy‘s Almagest, Planetary Hypotheses, and Optics, pointing
out various contradictions found in these works, particularly in astronomy.

Ptolemy himself acknowledged that his theories and configurations did not always
agree with each other, arguing that this was not a problem provided it did not result
in noticeable error, but ibn Haytham was particularly scathing in his criticism of the
inherent contradictions in Ptolemy’s works. Having pointed out the problems, ibn
Haytham appears to have intended to resolve the contradictions he pointed out in
Ptolemy in a later work. He intended to complete and repair Ptolemy’s system, not to
replace it completely. In the Doubts Concerning Ptolemy he set out his views on the
difficulty of attaining scientific knowledge and the need to question existing
authorities and theories. He wrote:

“Truth is sought for itself, but the truths are immersed in uncertainties
and the scientific authorities, such as Ptolemy, are not immune from
error.”

2. Abū Is-ḥāq az-Zarkalī (d. 1087) (known as Arzachel, whose books, after being
translated, were very influential in Europe, and whose invention of the
Saphaea (a perfected astrolabe) proved very popular and was widely used by
navigators until the 16th century). Az-Zarkalī corrected geographical data
from Ptolemy and Khwārizmi. Specifically, he corrected Ptolemy’s estimate of
the longitude of the Mediterranean Sea from 62 degrees to the correct value of
42 degrees. In his treatise on the solar year, which survives only in a Hebrew
translation, he was the first to demonstrate the motion of the solar apogee
relative to the fixed background of the stars. He measured its rate of motion as
12.04 seconds per year, which is remarkably close to the modern calculation of
11.77 seconds. Az-Zarkalī’s model for the motion of the Sun, in which the
centre of the sun’s deferent moved on a small, slowly rotating circle to
reproduce the observed motion of the solar apogee, was discussed in the
thirteenth century by Bernard of Verdun and in the fifteenth century by
Regiomontanus and Peurbach. In the sixteenth century Copernicus employed

22
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

this very model, except that he modified it to fit in with his theory of the
heliocentric model, in his De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium.

3. The “Maragha Revolution” - This refers to the Maragha school’s revolution

against Ptolemaic astronomy. The “Maragha school” was an astronomical
tradition beginning in the Maragha observatory (opened by Ṭūsī, with the
permission of Halagu Khan, in Maragha, Iran) and continued with astronomers
from the Damascus mosque and Samarkand observatory. Like their Andalusian
predecessors, the Maragha astronomers attempted to solve the equant
problem (the circle around whose circumference a planet or the centre of an
epicycle was conceived to move uniformly) and produce alternative
configurations to the Ptolemaic model without abandoning geocentrism.

They were more successful than their Andalusian predecessors in producing non-
Ptolemaic configurations which eliminated the equant and eccentrics, were more
accurate than the Ptolemaic model in numerically predicting planetary positions, and
were in better agreement with empirical observations. The most important of the
Maragha astronomers included ibn Burayk al-Urdī (d. 1266), Naṣīr ad-Dīn aṭ-Ṭūsī (d.
1274), Quṭb ad-Dīn ash-Shirāzī (d. 1311), ibn ash-Shāṭir (1304–1375), ʿAlī Qushjī (d.
1474), Al-Birjandī (d. 1528), and Shams ad-Dīn al-Khafrī (d. 1550).

What we learn from the above is that until 1550, great research was made in the
Muslim lands and many errors of the Ptolemaic concept was pointed out and
rectified. In fact, certain scholars even discussed considering the view of a particular
rotation of the earth. Much of the works of these scholars have until date not even
been translated, but from the little that has reached the western world, it has left
them astounded. Consider what was written regarding the works of ash-Shirāzī:

“Of ash-Shirāzī’s works, none has been published so far, and none is
contemplated for the near future, as far as I am aware. The difficulty
lies in the amount of labour it will take anyone to complete an edition
of the voluminous works left by ash-Shirāzī. Each of ash-Shirāzī’s
major works is more than two hundred densely written folios. And to
use Kennedy’s words, when he tried to describe ash-Shirāzī’s planetary
models, each folio is “exasperating” by itself. After reading ash-
Shirāzī’s third work, namely his Faʿaltu Fa-lā Talum, which is not yet
studied in any depth, we know why. He himself admits that he had
constructed “nine models to solve the problem of Mercury’s equant,
only the ninth is the correct one. The remaining eight, each has some

23
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

fault”. Ash-Shirāzī goes on to say that he “exposed the faults of six of

them in the Tuḥfah [another one of his works] and intentionally left
the faults of the seventh and the eighth in order to test whether those
with intelligence will ever discover them”. The work is sufficiently
difficult as it is, without the author intentionally playing tricks with
it.”

Despite the great research undertaken by these scholars, up to the year 1550, none of
them felt the need to shift from the concept of a geocentric model to the heliocentric
one. What then was the motivation behind Copernicus and his freemason
companions to push so much towards this new theory? Was it that they found so
much of error in the previous theory, which all the scholars up to his era had missed,
or was there some other purpose behind his ‘sudden’ shift to a ‘new’ theory, which
would then become a theory loudly promoted by ‘modern-day science’ as ‘the one
and only acceptable theory’?

In fact, if one were to ask what was the real ‘achievement’ of Copernicus, an adequate
answer would be: “‘Copernican astronomy’ merely entails the transformation of
geocentric mathematical models to heliocentric ones by the reversal of the vector
connecting the sun to the earth, while leaving the rest of the mathematical models
intact”. What this means is that all he did was to reverse the roles of the sun and the
earth. Had the earth been kept at the centre and the sun made as the orbiting planet, the
results would be identical!

After 1550 - Europe

As mentioned above, the new theory of Copernicus initially found great opposition
from the church, but as the decades passed, more and more professors would rise in
the defence of a theory that had once been viewed by the church as an act of heresy.
Finally, unable to sustain the pressure, the church gave in and announced that in
actual fact it had no real objection with the theory of a heliocentric model, and that
the texts that indicated otherwise were open to interpretation.

It shall perhaps never be known on what account the professors of those eras all
rallied behind the heliocentric theory. Was it on account of some clear-cut proof
which was in front of them, which had escaped the deep insight and research of the
masters that preceded them, or was it that they were initiated into a movement that
made it its mission to establish the ‘sun’ as the centre and to drive every opposing
theory deep into the ground? If it was the latter, it would indeed not be anything

24
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

surprising, since that is exactly how they created and thereafter established the
theory of Darwinism, despite it not fitting with any of the previously accepted
principles of science, and it being contrary to common intellect as well.

It should be understood that until today there is no solid evidence to establish the
heliocentric theory as the one and only acceptable theory. Rather, as mentioned
above, the geocentric theory, with a few modifications would give the very same
results which the heliocentric theory provides. Until today, experts in the field of
astronomy can be found admitting to this.

For e.g., Alexander von Humboldt (d. 1859), who sought to formulate the known facts
about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols), said
quite candidly: “I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of
Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it”.

Bernard Cohen in Birth of a New Physics, 1960, concurs: “There is no planetary observation
by which we on earth can prove the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun”.4

A Christian Scholar’s Early Warning Regarding the Dangers

of Heliocentrism
St. Robert Bellarmine, regarding whom Pope Clement VIII rejoiced that “the Church
of God had not his equal in learning’’, who knew the perilous consequences of
Galileo’s heresy penned the following letter on April 12th, 1613 addressed to Fr. Paolo
Foscarini, in which he decisively and prophetically cautioned the 16th century world
about the dangers of heliocentrism. Lest one might believe it is quoted out of context,
and also to dispel any doubt, Bellarmine’s entire letter will be cited.

“I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your
Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both
are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my

4
Many more such quotes of renowned scientists can be found regarding this. At the end of
the book, an article, titled ‘Food for thought’ has been quoted, which to a great extent exposes
many of the lies that have been said in order to promote this Copernicus theory.

25
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for
reading and I for writing.

Firstly, I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did
prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not
absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say
that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the
appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to
speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for
mathematicians.

But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the centre of the
heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without
travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third
sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very
dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and
scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and
rendering the Holy Scripture false. For Your Reverence has
demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have
not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have
found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages
which you yourself have cited.

Secondly, I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits
expounding the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the
holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers
but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms,
Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining
literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly
around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands
immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all
prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense
contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek
commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of
faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the
subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would
be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob
twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are

26
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and
apostles.

Thirdly, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was
in the centre of the universe and earth in the third sphere, and that
the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun,
then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining
the passages of the Scripture which seem contrary, and we would
rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that
something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe
that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It
is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by
assuming that the sun is at the centre and the earth is in the heavens.
I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave
doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart
from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the
words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to
the place where he ariseth, etc” were those of Solomon, who not only
spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and
most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created
things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus, it is not too likely that he
would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already
demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.

I salute Your Reverend and ask God to grant you every happiness.”

Crux of the above: Contrary to what is generally understood, that the concept of
heliocentrism has already been adequately proven, the paragraphs above make it
quite clear that even in the European world, from the beginning until today, many
scholars, mathematicians, scientists and professors voiced opinions to the contrary.
However, due to the heliocentric model being a ‘determined model’ of the ‘new world
order’, all opposing views were ‘unanimously’ shelved by the state, by the recognized
education institutes of the world and by the international media, since all operated
under the very same lobby that seeks a ‘one world-order’.

As with regards to the concept of heliocentrism in Islāmic circles, the following pages
shall In Shā Allāh, shed some light on that.



27
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

The Poison of the Renaissance in the Lands of Islām

The first introduction of the theory of Copernican heliocentrism to the Muslim world
occurred most probably sometime after 1663, when Ibrāhīm Efendi al-Zigetvari
Texkireci translated Noel Duret’s French astronomical work (written in 1663) into
Arabic.

In July 1683, the Ottoman army suffered their first major defeat at Vienna, and from
then things, unfortunately, began changing radically. The Ottomans grudgingly
began to acknowledge the superiority of Western science and technology. They
slowly became convinced that to master the techniques of modern warfare, they
needed not just to embrace Western science, but speed up the transfer of technology
from the West. Modern scientific curricula were introduced in military academies,
with the emphasis on applied rather than theoretical science.

During the reign of Sultān Aḥmad 3rd (1703-30) permission was given to Ibrāhīm
Muteferrika (d. 1745) to start a printing press, which would be used for the
publication of dictionaries, books on logic, philosophy and astronomy. Excluded from
this permission was the publication of any books related to Islāmic theology (ʿIlm al-
Kalām), Islāmic jurisprudence (Fiqh), commentaries of the Qur’ān (Tafsīr), and the
sayings and actions of Rasūlullāh  (Aḥādīth). From this devilish permission
one can well understand the influence that the renaissance had gained over the
minds of the Muslim leaders in the eighteenth century already.

Together with his printing activities, Ibrāhīm Muteferrika discussed the theory of
heliocentrism in detail, due to which he is considered one of the first people to
properly introduce heliocentrism to the Ottoman readers. The quote of Ibrāhīm
Muteferrika, mentioned below, is more than sufficient to show with what frame of
mind he studied and propagated this theory. He very proudly commented:

“Why do the Christian nations, which were so weak in the past,

compared with Muslim nations, begin to dominate so many lands in
modern times and even defeat the once victorious Ottoman armies?...
Because they have laws and rules invented by reason!” (Naʿūdhu Billāh).

When the so-called founding father of the theory of heliocentrism had such an
atheistic attitude, and blamed man’s reliance upon Divine Law as the reason for the
Muslim world’s failure to progress in the modern age, one then cannot be blamed for
viewing the theory of heliocentrism with a cautious eye.

28
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

The Arab renaissance began in the nineteenth century, under the names of the ‘an-
Nahḍah’ »‫ «انلهضة‬and later al-Baʿth »‫«ابلعث‬. Central figures in this movement were

a) Egyptian scholar Rifāʿah aṭ-Ṭaḥtāwī (d. 1873) - widely seen as the

pioneering figure of the an-Nahḍah. He was sent to Paris in 1826 by
Muḥammad ʿAlī’s government to study Western sciences and educational
methods. He came to hold a very positive view of French society, although not
without criticism. Learning French, he began translating important scientific
and cultural works into Arabic. His political views, originally influenced by
the conservative Islāmic teachings of al-Azhar university, changed on a
number of matters, and he came to advocate parliamentarism and women’s
education.

After five years in France, he returned to Egypt to implement the philosophy

of reform he had developed there, summarizing his views in the book Takhlīṣ
al-Ibrīz fī Talkhīṣ al-Barīz (sometimes translated as The Quintessence of Paris),
published in 1834. It is written in rhymed prose, and describes France and
Europe from an Egyptian Muslim’s viewpoint. Aṭ-Ṭaḥtāwī’s suggestion was
that Egypt and the Muslim world had much to learn from Europe

b) Butrūs al-Bustānī (1819–1893) was born to a Lebanese Maronite Christian

family in the village of Dibbiye in the Chouf region, in January 1819. Having
been influenced by American missionaries, he converted to Protestantism,
becoming a leader in the native Protestant church. Initially, he taught in the
schools of the Protestant missionaries at Abey and was a central figure in the
missionaries’ translation of the Bible into Arabic. Despite his close ties to the
Americans, al-Bustānī increasingly became independent, eventually breaking
away from them.

After the bloody 1860 Druze–Maronite conflict and the increasing

entrenchment of confessionalism, al-Bustānī founded the National School or
al-Madrasah al-Waṭaniyyah in 1863, on secular principles. This school
employed the leading an-Nahḍah pioneers of Beirut and graduated a
generation of an-Nahḍah thinkers. At the same time, he compiled and
published several school textbooks and dictionaries; leading him to becoming
known famously as the Master of the Arabic Renaissance.

c) Syrian scholar, publicist, writer, poet and physician, Francis Marrash

(d.1874): He travelled throughout Western Asia and France in his youth. He

29
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

expressed ideas of political and social reforms in Ghābah al-Ḥaqq (first

published in 1865), highlighting the need of the Arabs for two things above all:
modern schools and patriotism “free from religious considerations”.

Marrash has been considered the first truly cosmopolitan Arab intellectual
and writer of modern times, having adhered to and defended the principles of
the French Revolution in his own works, implicitly criticizing Ottoman rule in
Western Asia and North Africa.

d) In the religious field, Jamāl ad-Dīn al-Afghānī (1839–1897) gave Islām a

modernist reinterpretation and fused adherence to the faith with an anti-
colonial doctrine that preached Pan-Islāmic solidarity in the face of European
pressures. He also favoured the replacement of authoritarian monarchies
with representative rule, and denounced what he perceived as the
dogmatism, stagnation and corruption of the Islām of his age. He claimed that
tradition (Taqlīd, »‫ )«تقليد‬had stifled Islāmic debate and repressed the correct
practices of the faith. Al-Afghānī’s case for a redefinition of old
interpretations of Islām, and his bold attacks on traditional religion, would
become vastly influential with the fall of the Caliphate in 1924. This created a
void in the religious doctrine and social structure of Islāmic communities
which had been only temporarily reinstated by Abdul Hamid II in an effort to
bolster universal Muslim support. It forced Muslims to look for new
interpretations of the faith, and to re-examine widely held dogma; exactly
what al-Afghānī had urged them to do decades earlier.

Al-Afghānī influenced many, but greatest among his followers is undoubtedly his
student Muḥammad ʿAbduh (1849–1905), with whom he started a short-lived Islāmic
revolutionary journal, al-ʿUrwah al-Wuthqā, and whose teachings would play a
similarly important role in the reform of the practice of Islām.

As the teachings of the renaissance forced itself into the Muslim world, aided by many
of the newly-formed modern-day Muslim governments, many belonging to the al-
Baʿth Party (which was an Arabic term, meaning ‘The Awakening’, which in essence
was what the renaissance meant), Muslim scholars divided in their manner of
accepting or rejecting the new theories that modern Europe claimed to have been
already scientifically established.

Their different approaches could be summarized as follows:

30
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

a) Scholars who outrightly rejected all those theories which contradicted the
texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, even if the texts had the potential to be
interpreted in another way.

b) Scholars who indicated towards their preference of holding onto the

apparent meaning of the texts, but allowed for interpretation.

c) Scholars who opined that as long as our senses do not directly witness these
matters to be in accordance to what modern science explains, until then the
texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah should be accepted upon their apparent
meaning. As for scientific proofs based upon computer calculation, etc., these
should never be considered as comprehensive proofs, on account of which the
texts should need to be interpreted.

d) Scholars who considered many of the texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah
regarding the nature of the earth and the skies to be figurative in meaning.

An example of their varying approaches shall now be given, using the issue of
whether the sun really rises and sets, as it circles the earth or if this is just something
that we perceive, whilst in reality it is the earth that circles the sun. Since the issue
of whether the sun physically prostrates under the Throne of Allāh daily is linked to
this, it shall also be discussed hereunder. And in order to understand how scholars
prior to the Arab renaissance viewed this issue, their opinions shall also be
mentioned.

The Issue of the Sun and its Relation to the Earth

Almighty Allāh states in the Noble Qur’ān:

]38 :‫ﲴ ﲶ ﲷ ﲸ ﲹ ﲺ ﱠ [يس‬

‫ﱡﭐ ﲱ ﲲ ﲳ ﲵ‬

“And the sun travels until it reaches it point of rest. This is the
planning of The Mighty, The Knowledgeable.”

Sayyidunā Abū Dharr  narrates from Rasūlullāh : (as narrated in the

Saḥīḥ of Imām Bukhārī )

31
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 
‫ه‬ ِ
‫ «يا أبا ذر! أتدري أين تغرب‬:‫ فقال‬،‫ يف المسجد عند غروب الشمس‬ ‫انليب‬ ‫«كنت مع‬
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
:‫ فذلك قوهل تعاىل‬،»‫ «فإنها تذهب حَّت تسجد حتت العرش‬:‫ قال‬،‫ اَّلل ورسوهل أعلم‬:‫الشمس؟» قلت‬
)‫ (ابلخاري‬.» ‫ﲴ ﲶ ﲷ ﲸ ﲹ ﲺ ﱠ‬
‫ﱡﲱ ﲲ ﲳ ﲵ‬

“I was with Rasūlullāh  in the Masjid at the time of sunset.

He asked me, ‘O Abū Dharr, are you aware of where the sun sets?’ I said,
‘Allāh and His Messenger know best. He said: ‘It continues until it
prostrates beneath the Throne. And this is what the verse alludes to:
‘And the sun travels until it reaches it a point of rest. This is the
planning of The Mighty, The Wise’.”

In Saḥīḥ Muslim the narration is quoted in the following words:

ً
‫ فال تزال كذلك ه‬،‫دة‬ ‫ه‬
‫إن هذه جتري ه‬
:‫حَّت يقال َلا‬ ‫ فتخ ُّر ساج‬،‫حَّت تنتيه إىل مستق ِرها حتت العرش‬ «
‫ثم جتري ه‬ ً
‫ ه‬،‫ فرتجع فتصبح طالعة من مطلعها‬،‫ ارجِع من حيث جئت‬،‫ارتفِع‬
‫حَّت تنتيه إىل مستق ِرها‬
‫ وّل تزال كذلك ه‬،‫دة‬ً
‫ فرتجع‬،‫ ارجِع من حيث جئت‬،‫ ارتفِع‬:‫حَّت يقال َلا‬ ‫ فتخ ُّر ساج‬،‫حتت العرش‬
‫ثم جتري ّل يستنكر انلهاس منها شيئًا ه‬
‫ ه‬،‫عة من مطلعها‬ ً
‫حَّت تنتيه إىل مستق ِرها ذاك حتت‬ ‫فتصبح طال‬
ً ً
‫ فقال رسول اهلل‬، ‫ فتصبح طالعة من مغربها‬،‫ ارتفِع أصبِح طالعة من مغربك‬:‫ فيقال َلا‬،‫العرش‬

‫ «أتدرون مَّت ذاكم؟ ذاك حني ﱡﱕ ﱖ ﱗ ﱘ ﱙ ﱚ ﱛ ﱜ ﱝ ﱞﱟ‬:

)‫ (مسلم‬.»]158 :‫ﱠ ﱡ ﱢﱣﱠ [األنعام‬

“Indeed, this sun continues, until it reaches its place of rest under the
Throne. There it falls into prostration and it remains in that posture
until it is said to it, ‘Rise and return to where you have come from’. It
thus returns and rises from its rising point. Then it continues, until it
reaches its place of rest under the Throne. There it falls into
prostration and it remains in that posture until it is said to it, ‘Rise and
return to where you have come from’. It thus returns and rises from
its rising point. Then it will continue (on this very pattern), whilst the
people find nothing of it to be against the norm, until (a time will come
when) it will reach its place of rest under the Throne and it will be
ordered to rise from the west, which it shall do. Rasūlullāh 
then said, ‘Do you know when that will be? It will be at the time when
faith shall be of no avail, for the one who did not believe before this or
had not earned good before this’.”

32
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

How Scholars View the Above

a) There were and there still are scholars who outrightly reject the theory of the earth
orbiting the sun, since, in their understanding, it totally contradicts the texts of the
Qur’ān and the Sunnah. Amongst such scholars are, Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qāhir al Baghdādī
Shāfiʿī 5 (d. 429 A.H.), Shaykh Muḥammad bin Yūsuf al-Kāfī at-Tūnsī Mālikī (1250
A.H.)6, ʿAllāmah Sayyid Maḥmūd al-Ālūsī (d. 1270 A.H.)7 Mawlānā Idrīs Kāndhelwī (d.
1394 A.H.)8, Shaykh ʿAbdul ʿAzīz ibn Bāz (d. 1420 A.H.)9, Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ
al-ʿUthaymīn (d. 1421 A.H.)10 and Mawlānā ʿĀshiq Ilāhī Bulandsharī (d. 1422 A.H.)11
etc.

5
Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qāhir al Baghdādī Shāfiʿī was an Imām in the fundamentals of Islām. In his
book, Uṣūl ad-Dīn, under the chapter regarding whether the earth moves he has written:

‫ه‬
‫ وأن حركتها إنما تكون‬،‫ فقال املسلمون وأهل الكتاب بوقوف األرض وسكونها‬،‫«اختلفوا يف هذه املسألة‬
ٌ
،‫ وبطلميوس‬،‫ وأرسطاطاليس‬،‫ أفالطون‬:‫ وبه قال جاعة من الفالسفة؛ منهم‬،‫يف العادة بزلزل ٍة تصيبها‬
.»‫وإقليدس‬

“There exists a difference of opinion amongst the people with regards to this.
The Muslims and the scholars of the previous scriptures hold the view that
the earth does not move, except on account of earthquakes. This is also the
view of a group of the philosophers, amongst whom were Plato (d. 347 B.C.),
Aristotle (d. 332 B.C.), Ptolemy (d. 100 A.C.), and Euclid (d. mid-3rd century
B.C.).”

6
Shaykh Muḥammad at-Tūnsī writes in »‫«املسائل الاكفية يف بيان وجوب صدق خي الربية‬:

ٌ ‫ه‬ ‫ عقيدة املسلمني هالين لم تشب قلوبهم ح ه‬:‫«األرض من حيث حركتها وسكونها‬
‫ أنها ساكنة‬:‫ب أهل الكفر‬
ٌ
.»‫وثابتة ومرساة باجلبال‬

“As with regards to whether the earth is in motion or it is stagnant, it is the

belief of the Muslims, whose hearts have not been affected with the love of
kufr, that the earth is stagnant, being held firmly in place by mountains.”

Under Mas’alah 21 he refutes the view of Rashīd Riḍā, who promoted the theory of the earth’s
rotation around the sun. He writes:

“Mas’alah 21 - I am mentioning here what I had penned down in my book al-

Ajwibah al-Kāfiyah, which was intended as a refutation to an article that was
=

33
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

published in the magazine ‘al-Manār’ of Rashīd Riḍā, in which mention was

made of the views of Darwin with regards to the earth and with regards to
Nabī Ādam .

The author of al-Manār had written: ‘What is this earth upon which we live?’
He then replies, ‘It is but a star from the many stars that circle the sun, which
are known as ‘the moving objects’.’

I say, ‘This person has taken the view that the earth is in continuous
movement, rotating around the sun and that it is not pegged into one place
with mountains. This is a view that has been propagated by Darwin and those
who have followed him.

Darwin has written in his book ‘The theory of evolution’ on page 238: The false
perceptions which have made the life of man straightened for a very long
time and which have been the major cause of his being left in misfortune are
basically two.

1. Their old belief that the earth lies at the centre and the heavenly bodies
circle around it.
2. That man was once in the heavens and that the creator of the heavens
sent him out of a garden of paradise into a narrow corner of this earth.

Whereas it is the belief of all the Muslims that the earth is in one place,
motionless. It is this belief that conforms to the many verses of the Qur’ān
that make indication to the fact that the earth has been pegged into place.
(The author quotes a few verses regarding this) From these verses it becomes
clear that Almighty Allāh has informed us of the earth being in one place. As for
Darwin and those who follow him, they promote the view of the earth circling the sun.
I ask, ‘Who knows better the condition of the earth?’ The answer obviously is, ‘Allāh’!”

7
Under the explanation of verse 41 of Sūrah Fāṭir, ʿAllāmah Ālūsī writes:

‫« ه‬
.»‫وأما األرض فال خالف بني املسلمني يف سكونها‬

“And there exists no difference of opinion amongst the Muslims that the
earth does not move.”

8
In Ghuldasta-e-Tafāsīr, quoting from Maʿārif-e-Kāndhelwī, the words of Mawlānā Idrīs are
quoted under verse 13 of Sūrah Fāṭir. Ḥaḍrat writes:
=

34
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

]13 :‫ﱪﱬ ﱭﱮﱯﱠ [فاطر‬

‫ﱫ‬ ‫ﱡﱨﱩ‬

“And He (Allāh) has made the sun and the moon subservient. Each one moves
upon its set course.”

“It is clear from this verse that the sun and the moon, in accordance to the
Divine Decree of Almighty Allāh, travel upon their set courses. Western
philosophers claim that it is the earth that circles the sun, and not vice-versa.
Had this been the case, the continuous turning of the earth would surely have
caused the pole-star to shift from its position, whereas it has never done so.
(As a conclusion Ḥaḍrat writes:) Thus, the notion of the earth, at a tremendous
speed, circling the sun is totally incorrect!”

In Maʿārif al-Qur’ān, Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Idrīs Ṣāḥib has written under verse 41 of Sūrah Fāṭir:

]41 :‫ﲇﱠ [فاطر‬

‫ﲈ‬ ‫ﱡ ﲁ ﲂ ﲃﲄ ﲅ ﲆ‬

“Indeed, Allāh keeps the skies and the earth in place, preventing it from
moving.”

“It is the view of the majority of the scholars of Islām that neither does the
sky move, nor the earth. (Refer to Rūḥ al-Maʿānī). Philosophers of the past
claimed that the sky moves, but not the earth. Present day philosophers
(scientists) deny the existence of a sky and claim that the earth circles the
sun. For this claim, they have no proof!”

9
Shaykh ʿAbdul ʿAzīz prepared two articles with regards to this matter, published under the
title of »‫«األدلة انلقلية واحلسية لع جريان الشمس وسكون األرض‬. A few extracts from this book are
provided below:

“The scholars of Tafsīr, like ibn Jarīr, al-Baghawī, ibn Kathīr, al-Qurtubī and
others have made explicit mention of the movement of the sun in its orbit,
rising and setting, and of the earth being stationary and firm in its position,
in accordance to what many clear verses of the Qur’ān indicate towards. This
has also been explicitly mentioned by the scholars of Islām, whose authority
in this field is recognized. They have clearly stated that the sun and the moon
move in their respective orbits, in accordance to the system that Almighty
Allāh has set out for them, and that the earth is stationary, held down by
mountains, which Allāh has made as pegs for the earth.
=

35
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

As for the one who claims that the earth rotates, whilst the sun too travels in
its orbit, such a claim is obviously much easier to consider than the claim of
the sun being stationary. However, this too is a clear error, in conflict to the
verses that have been mentioned as well as being in conflict to what is clearly
perceived by our senses. In fact, such a claim can easily open the door for
others to later deny the movement of the sun. Almighty Allāh has made clear
mention that He has placed mountains upon the earth, so that it does not
‫ه‬
shake »‫«ئلال تميد بهم‬. The scholars have explained that the word »‫‘ – «ميد‬to
shake’ refers to any type of movement, as well as to rotation.” (Pg. 22)

“However, the one who holds such a view (i.e., of the earth rotating, together
with the sun moving in its orbit) shall not be declared a disbeliever, since the
verses that indicate to the earth being stationary and not in rotation are not
as explicit in its meaning, compared to the verses that indicate towards the
movement of the sun and it’s not being stationary…. As for the one who
denies the movement of the sun, there shall be no doubt in his kufr, due to
the explicit verses in this regard.” (Pg.23)

As a conclusion, he writes:

“And from what we have mentioned, i.e., the verses of the Qur’ān; the
statements of the masters of the Arabic language; the scholars of Tafsīr; as
well as many of the scholars of astronomy, it would have become clear to you
that the view of the earth being stationary and not in rotation is the correct one, and
it is this upon which the scholars of Islām had unanimously agreed, as well as the
scholars of the previous scriptures. This has been clearly mentioned by Imām al-
Qurtubī in his Tafsīr. Similarly, ʿAllāmah ʿAbdul Qāhir ibn Ṭāhir al-Baghdādī
in »‫ «الفرق بني الفرق‬has written that the Ahl as-Sunnah are unanimous with regards
to this.”

10
In his Tafsīr of Sūrah Fātiḥah and Sūrah Baqarah, Shaykh al-ʿUthaymīn writes:

‫ه‬
‫أحد مالف لظاهر القرآن؛ ألننا‬ ٍ ‫ وأّل نلتفت لقول‬،‫«ويب علينا أن نأخذ يف هذا األمر بظاهر القرآن‬
‫ه‬ ُّ
‫ ﱡﭐ ﱌ‬:‫ قال اهلل تعاىل‬،‫متعبِدون بما يدل عليه القرآن؛ هذا من جهة؛ وألن الي أنزل القرآن أعلم بما خلق‬
‫ه‬
،»‫ و«تطلع‬،»‫ «تأت‬:‫]؛ فإذا اكن يقول يف لكمه إن الشمس‬14 :‫ﱍ ﱎ ﱏ ﱐ ﱑ ﱒ ﱓ ﱠ [امللك‬
ُّ
،‫ و«تتوارى»؛ ك هذه األفعال يضيفها إىل الشمس؛ ملاذا حنن نعلها لع العكس من ذلك‬،»‫ و«تزول‬،»‫و«تغرب‬
‫]؛ ّل‬65 :‫ ﱡﲕﲖﲗﲘﱠ [القصص‬:‫ونضيفها إىل األرض!!! ويوم القيامة سيقول اهلل نلا‬
=

36
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

ً ‫ه‬
‫ وحديثا متلفون يف هذا؛ لم يتهفقوا لع‬،‫يما‬ً ‫أن علماء الفلك قد‬ ‫ ماذا أجبتم العالم الفليك الفالن؛ لع‬:‫يقول‬
ِ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ وانلهار؛ وما دام األمر موضع خالف بني الفلكيني أنفسهم؛‬،‫أن األرض ه اليت بدورانها يكون الليل‬
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫]؛ بل‬59 :‫ﱡﳏﳐﳑﳒﳓﳔﳕﳖ ﱠ [النساء‬ ‫ ﳎ‬:‫فإننا نقول كما نقول لعلماء الشع إذا اختلفوا‬
‫وس؛ وحينئ ٍذ نقول‬ٌ ‫أمر ُمس‬ ‫حَّت يت ه‬
ٌ ‫بني نلا‬ ‫ لو جاء علماء الفلك بأجعهم ما عدنلا عن ظاهر القرآن ه‬:‫نقول‬
‫ه‬
‫ ﱡﭐ‬:‫ وقلت‬،]286 :‫ ﱡﭐ ﲦﲧ ﲨﲩﲪﲫ ﱠ [ابلقرة‬:- ‫ وقولك احلق‬- ‫ إنك قلت‬:‫لربنا إذا ّلقيناه‬
‫ه‬
‫ ﱡﱖﱗﱘﱙ‬:‫ إن قولك‬:‫]؛ وحنن ما وسعنا إّل أن نقول‬16 :‫ﲗﲘﲙﲚﱠ [اتلغابن‬
‫ه ه‬
‫ وبصنا بأن الي يكون‬،‫ إذا طلعت رأي العني؛ ّل يف حقيقة الواقع؛ ألننا علمنا ب ِسنا‬:‫] أي‬17 :‫ﱠ [الكهف‬
‫ وانلههار هو دوران األرض؛ أما احلس لم يدل لع هذا؛ ولكنهه ه‬،‫به تعاقب الليل‬
‫ فإنين‬،‫جمرد أقيسة ونظريات‬
ِ ً ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ه‬
‫ملجرد قول‬ ‫ والي أنزل القرآن تبيانا لك ش ٍء‬،‫حد أن يعدل عن لكم ربِه الي خلق‬ٍ ‫أرى أنه ّل يوز أل‬
)‫ (تفسي الفاحتة وابلقرة‬.»‫هؤّلء‬

“It is necessary that we accept the apparent meaning of the verses dealing
with this (i.e., the relationship between the earth and the sun), and that we
pay no attention to the statement of any person whose words seem contrary
to the apparent texts, since we have submitted to Allāh, in accordance to
what the Qur’ān indicates towards. This is one aspect of this matter. And it is
clear that the One who revealed the Qur’ān is most aware of what He has
created. {What, does the One who created not know? Whereas He is the Most
Knowledgeable, Aware of the finest of details!}.

When Almighty Allāh refers to the sun with the words, ‘it comes (from the east)’; ‘it
rises’; ‘it sets’, ‘it declines’; ‘it disappears’, when Almighty Allāh attributes all of these
acts to the sun, why are we then doing the opposite? On the day of Qiyāmah,
Almighty Allāh shall ask us, {What was your reply to the messengers?}. He shall
not ask us, ‘What was your reply to a certain astronomer?’ Also, it is clear
that the astronomers of the past, as well as the present themselves differ in
this regard. There is no consensus, even amongst them, that night and day is
caused by the rotation of the earth. Thus, we say (to them), just as we say to
the ʿUlamā’, (as Almighty Allāh states) {When you differ in a matter, then refer it
to Allāh and the messenger of Allāh}.

In fact, even if all the astronomers were to unite on a view, then too we would
not move away from what the apparent texts indicate towards, until we
ourselves do not physically see a reason for doing so. Then, at least we would
be able to say to Allāh, when we appear in front of Him, that He himself has
stated that {Allāh has not ordained upon one what one cannot manage} and {Fear
Allāh, as much as you can}, so after seeing with our own physical eyes that the
earth rotates, thereby causing day and night, we found no alternative but to
=

37
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

b) Some of these scholars declared those holding an opposite view (i.e., of the earth
orbiting the sun) to be a deviate, whilst others merely stated it to be an open error,
or in conflict to the consensus of the scholars of Islām.

Concerning the nature of the prostration of the sun at the Throne of Almighty Allāh,
ʿAllāmah Ālūsī opined that such an interpretation of this could however be
considered, which keeps the text upon its original meaning, yet allows it to reconcile
with what is physically observed.12

say that the verse {And you see the sun, when it rises} meant ‘when it appears as
though it is rising’, and not that it actually ever rises.

But, as long as our senses have not perceived and seen this, and it is only an
assumption based upon theories and calculations, until then I do not feel it
permissible to divert from the Speech of the One who created and who
revealed the Qur’ān, in which all matters have been explained, merely due to
the statements of these people.”

11
In Tafsīr Anwār al-Bayān, under verse 38 of Sūrah Yāsīn, Mawlānā ʿĀshiq Ilāhī has written
that since clear mention is made in the Aḥādīth of the sun reaching its point of rest and then
prostrating at the Throne of Allāh, to now deny this occurrence, merely on the basis of a few
scientific calculations and observations, is totally incorrect. Mawlānā explains that it is
possible that at a certain point the sun does disappear totally, but due to its disappearance
being for a very short time, scientific instruments, and physical observation fail to detect it.

12
Under verse 38 of Sūrah Yāsīn, ʿAllāmah Ālūsī has explained that the sun does indeed reach
a place of rest daily, during which it prostrates under the sun, as mentioned clearly in the
Ḥadīth of Sayyidunā Abū Dharr . ʿAllāmah Ālūsī then offers a possible explanation of
how this could occur, despite the total disappearance of the sun from the earth being
contrary to physical observation. He writes:

“The apparent meaning of the verse is that the sun does indeed come to rest.
Imām Nawawī has mentioned that this is the view of a group of scholars.
Wāḥidī has mentioned that in accordance to this view its prostration under
the Throne occurs daily, when it sets. Imām Nawawī has also written that its
prostration is with full understanding, which Almighty Allāh creates within
it (i.e., it is a real prostration, and not merely figurative, in the meaning of
being obedient to the command of Almighty Allāh).”

He writes further:
=

38
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

“Understanding the nature of its prostration under the Throne and of its
coming to a rest every night is indeed difficult, since various scholars have
mentioned that it is an accepted fact that when the sun sets in one place it is
found rising in another. In Bulgaria the sun rises even before the
disappearing of the Shafaq (whiteness of the sky found after the sun sets. In
lands situated at 90 degrees (i.e., between the furthest eastern point and the
furthest western point), the sun remains continuously visible for half the
year, when the sun is in the Northern Hemisphere, and there is continuous
night there, when the sun is in the Southern Hemisphere. Thus, for half the
year they experience only night and for half the year they experience only
day. There are many proofs to show that the sun does not stop moving after
sunset. If it had to, it would be found motionless after rising as well, since
when it is out in one place, that is the time it just set in another place.

I had asked many great scholars of my era regarding the manner of

reconciling between the authentic narrations regarding this matter and
between what the eye sees. I could however not find an answer that could
quench my thirst and remove my confusion.”

‫ه ه‬ ِ ‫ه‬
‫ أن الشمس وكذا سائر الكواكب‬- ‫ واهلل تعاىل أعلم بقيقة احلال‬- ‫«والي يطر بابلال يف حل ذلك اإلشاكل‬
ٌ ٌ
‫ حيث جء‬،]33 :‫ﱡﲸ ﲹﲺﲻﲼ ﱠ [األنبياء‬ ‫ ﲷ‬:‫مدركة اعقلة كما ينبئ عن ذلك قوهل تعاىل اآلت‬

‫ ﱡﲶﲷ ﲸﲹﲺﲻﲼﲽ‬:‫ وقوهل تعاىل‬،‫ندا إىل ضمي جع العقالء‬ ً ‫بالفعل مس‬

‫ه‬ ُّ
،‫ يدل وعليه ظاهر ما روي عن أيب ذر من أنها تسجد وتستأذن‬،‫ نلحو ما ذكر‬،]3 :‫ﲾﲿﳀﱠ [يوسف‬
‫ه‬
.»‫ دون لسان احلال‬،‫فإن املتبادر من اّلستئذان ما يكون بلسان القال‬

“An answer that has come to mind is that one considers the possibility of the
sun, as well as all the heavenly bodies having an original existence in another
form (similar to what exists for man in »‫‘ «اعلم املثال‬the world in which the
original soul of each person resides’). In its original state these heavenly
bodies are beings, blessed with total understanding. Certain verses of the
Qur’ān in fact make indication to this. For e.g., Almighty Allāh mentions
regarding these heavenly bodies: ‫‘ ﱡﲸﲹﲺﲻﲼﱠ‬they are all swimming
in their orbits’. By attributing the verb to »‫( «جع اعقل‬a plural which is in Arabic
only used for males of understanding, and not for any matter which is void
of the understanding of man and Jinn) indication is made towards these
heavenly bodies enjoying the quality of full understanding and perception,
similar to what man enjoys. This indication can also be found in the verse of
=

39
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Sūrah Yūsuf, in which Yūsuf  describes what he had seen in his dream.
His words, as mentioned in the Qur’ān, are: ‫ﱡﲶ ﲷ ﲸ ﲹ ﲺ ﲻ‬

‫‘ ﲼﲽﲾﲿﳀﱠ‬Indeed I had seen eleven stars and the sun and the moon. I
saw them all prostrating to me.’ In this verse too, the heavenly bodies have been
described with the quality »‫ «ساجدين‬which is reserved for the masculine
gender, when it is of that species which has intelligence. And it is this very
point that is made clear in the Ḥadīth of Sayyidunā Abū Dharr , i.e., the
sun having an intelligence similar to that of man, since in this narration
mention is made of the sun prostrating and then seeking permission to rise
up again, and it is generally understood that seeking permission is an act that
occurs verbally.”

ٌ ٌ ‫«ومَّت اكنت كذلك فال يبعد أن يكون َلا ن‬

»....... ‫فس ناطقة كنفس اإلنسان‬

“When this is the case, (i.e., that the sun has intelligence, similar to that of
man), it will not be far-fetched to assume that it too has a celestial, original
existence »‫«نفس ناطقة‬, quite similar to that of man’s.”

ِ
،‫ وتذهب متمثلة ظاهرة بصور أبدانها‬،‫«واألنفس انلهاطقة اإلنسانيهة إذا اكنت قدسية قد تنسلخ عن األبدان‬
‫ه‬ ُّ ‫ه‬ ‫ حيث يشاء اهلل ه‬... ‫أو بصور أخرى‬
‫ يتأّت معه صدور‬،‫ مع بقاء نوع تعل ٍق َلا باألبدان األصلية‬،‫عز وجل‬ ٍ
»...‫األفعال منها‬

“This original soul of man (known as »‫)«نفس ناطقة‬, when it is of a most pure
being (for e.g., a Nabī), at times separates itself from its body and makes its
appearance (in another dimension or place, wherever Almighty Allāh so
wishes), either in the very form of its body or in some other form. During this
appearance of it in one dimension, it still keeps its relationship with its
original body, and thus continues functioning in its original time-zone in a
normal way.”

It has been authentically proven that Rasūlullāh  saw Nabī Mūsā  performing
Ṣalāh in his grave. Then, as he  began his journey into the heavens, he 
found Nabī Mūsā  there as well, and it was there that their discussion began regarding
the issue of how many Ṣalāh were being made compulsory upon this Ummah. None have said
that the body of Nabī Mūsā  which was in the grave was thereafter taken to the
heavens. And to even consider this will be like holding on to a very weak assumption.
Similarly, on that night of Miʿrāj, Rasulūllāh  met many other Anbiyā’  in
=

40
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

the heavens, despite their earthly bodies being in their graves. None have said that their
earthly bodies were physically transported to the heavens.

And this has nothing to do with what philosophers have stated that it is impossible for one
being to be involved with more than one body. Rather, this is a totally different matter, which
is not hidden from those who Almighty Allāh has blessed with foresight.

(Note: Shāh Waliyyullāh has discussed this issue in detail in his most unique compilation,
Hujjatullāh al-Bālighah. One may refer to its details there. - Abū Muḥammad)

‫ه‬ ‫ه ه‬
ً ‫للشمس ن‬
‫ وأنها تنسلخ عن اجلرم املشاهد املعروف‬،‫فسا مثل تلك األنفس القدسية‬ ‫ إن‬:‫«فيمكن أن يقال‬
ُّ ُّ ‫ه‬
‫ وّل‬،‫ وتستقر هناك وتستأذن‬،‫ فتسجد حتته بال واسطة‬،‫ فتعرج إىل العرش‬،‫وع من اتلعلق َلا به‬ ٍ ‫مع بقاء ن‬
‫ه‬
‫ ويكون ذلك إذا‬،‫ وغيهم‬،‫ وعدم سكونه حسبما يدعيه أهل اَليئة‬،‫ينايف ذلك سي هذا اجلرم املعروف‬
‫ إذ‬،‫ض فيه طلوعها‬ ُّ ‫ وّل ي‬،‫يِق وانقطعت رؤية س هاكن املعمور من األرض إيهاها‬ ِ ‫غربت وجتاوزت األفق احلق‬
ِ ُّ ‫السجود‬ ُّ ‫ أل هن ما ذكرنا من كون‬،‫ذاك يف عرض تسعني وحنره‬
‫والسكون باعتبار انلهفس املنسلخة املتمثلة بما‬
‫ ويوز أن‬،‫ بل لو اكن نصف انلههار يف خ ِط اّلستواء لم يض أي ًضا‬،‫شاء اهلل تعاىل ّل ينايف سي اجلرم املعروف‬
‫ه ه‬
‫ إّل أن‬،‫ إذ ذاك يف أفق آخر ملا سمعت‬،‫ وّل يض فيه كونها طالعة‬،‫ سجودها بعد غروبها عن أفق املدينة‬:‫يقال‬
‫ه‬ ‫ ولع هذا ه‬،‫الظن ما ذكر أو ًّل‬
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
،‫الطرز يرج ما يك أن الكعبة اكنت تزور واح ًدا من األولاء‬ ‫الي يغلب لع‬
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ وانلهاس يشاهدونها يف‬،‫ وه باعتبار تلك احلقيقة تزور‬،‫العامة‬ ‫بأن يقال إن الكعبة حقيقة غي ما يعرفه‬
.»‫ارا مبنيهة‬
ً ‫ماكنها أحج‬

(Having understood this) “It is now quite possible to say that the sun also
enjoys a celestial reality »‫ «نفس‬similar to that which these great personalities
enjoy, and that it also separates (to some extent) from its physical body,
whilst still maintaining a slight connection with it. With its celestial body it
proceeds to the Throne of Almighty Allāh and falls in prostration beneath it.
It lies there motionless, seeking permission to rise. During this time, its
continuous earthly movement shall not in any way contradict its being
motionless (in another realm). This most probably occurs when the sun
disappears from the sight of the inhabited world (which will be when it
moves away from the extreme west, even though, at that very moment, it
may still be visible at the poles), since we have already explained that its
celestial body being motionless does not conflict with its earthly body being
in constant motion. In fact, even if it had to be midday at the equator, that
too would not conflict with it being motionless in another dimension. It is
also possible that this prostration occurs at the time when the earthly sun
disappears from the eyes of the people of Madīnah Munawwarah, despite it
being high or rising in some other area. Yes, one finds a greater inclination
=

41
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

to the first possibility (i.e., its prostration is when it disappears in the far-
west).

It is on this very principle that an answer can be given to those incidents in

which mention has been made that the Kaʿbah proceeded forth to greet a
certain saint (i.e., for the Kaʿbah there is a celestial existence, as well as a
physical existence. Thus, if at any time the real Kaʿbah, which has an original
celestial existence, proceeds forth in some other direction, this shall not
conflict at all with the earthly Kaʿbah, which is built of stone, remaining in
its place.)

‫ فلي ه‬،‫«وهذا ما عندي‬

‫ واهلل تعاىل اَلادي إىل سواء ه‬،‫تأمل‬
.»‫السبيل‬

“This is what has come to my mind with regards to this issue. And Almighty
Allāh alone is the one who guides to the straight path.”

: ‫ وعطاء بن أيب رباح‬،‫ وعكرمة‬،‫ وابنه ابلاقر‬،‫ وزين العابدين‬ ‫ وابن عبهاس‬،‫«وقرأ عبد اهلل‬
‫ فتقتض انتفاء ك مستقر حقيِق جلرمها‬،‫ وبناء «مستقر» لع الفتح‬،‫«ّل مستقر َلا» بال انلهافية للجنس‬
ً ‫ادلنيا د‬
.»‫ائما ّل تستقر‬ ُّ ‫ ه جتري يف‬:‫ أي‬،‫ادلنيا‬
ُّ ‫ وذلك يف‬،‫املشاهد‬

“Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās , Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn and his son, Bāqir,
ʿIkramah and ʿAtā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ  would recite this verse: ‫ﱡﲱﲲ‬
‫ ﲳﲴﱠ‬as »‫‘ «ّل مستقر َلا‬i.e., the sun continues, and for it there is no place
of rest’. This then shall be with regards to the earthly sun, that it will never
cease moving in its set orbit.” (End of quote from ʿAllāmah Ālūsī)

Another possibility that could be explored with regards to the above is that daily, after
passing a certain point, the very sun that we see enters into another realm, and proceeds
towards the throne of Almighty Allah, seeking permission to rise for the next day. As for the
objection that such a journey to the throne of Allah requires time, whereas, from what has
been observed, the sun does not disappear at any time of the day for such a lengthy period,
this objection can easily find its answer in the Ahādīth regarding Mi’rāj (Rasulullāh
’s ascension to the heavens).

The crux of the answer is that time is also a creation, and the manner in which time passes
for us is restricted to our time-zone. If, with Divine Permission, one is allowed out of our time-
zone, he will be able to complete many a task, yet when he re-enters our time-zone, it will be
as if no time has passed. On the night of Mi’rāj, Rasūlullāh  visited various areas on
land, and conversed with many of the Anbiyā’ , before his ascension to the heavens,
=

42
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

c) Then there are scholars, who opined that the apparent texts regarding this issue
should be accepted. However, since the texts are not explicit, there is scope for
interpretation as well. Such scholars, include amongst others, Mawlānā Ashraf ʿAlī
Thānwī (d. 1362 A.H.).13

d) And finally, there are those scholars who opined that the texts regarding the
movement of the sun, it’s reaching a point of rest, and its prostration are all
figurative. As with regards to the movement of the sun and related matters,
indications towards such matters should not be drawn from the texts of the Qur’ān

after which he  spent a great amount of time exploring the secrets of the heavenly
realms, yet when he  returned, it was as if hardly any time had passed. Similarly,
when the attendant of Nabī Sulaymān  offered to bring the throne of Bilqīs to him, he
was able to accomplish the task in a mere few seconds, whereas just the journey alone to
Saba’ (the land of Bilqīs) should have taken at least a few days. Upon exiting our time-zone,
completing the above feats, in a matter of seconds, became possible. After understanding
this, why should one still find it difficult to comprehend the possibility of the sun, at some
point daily, exiting our time-zone, entering into a different realm, prostrating at the throne
of Almighty Allāh, receiving its permission to rise again, and thereafter returning back into
our time-zone, without hardly any noticeable amount of time passing? (And Almighty Allāh
knows best. – Abū Muḥammad)

13
Mawlānā Ashraf ʿAlī Thānwī has written in Bayān al-Qur’ān, under the explanation of verse
38 of Sūrah Yāsīn: ‘And the sun continues until it reaches its place of rest’

ً ِ ‫ه‬
‫ لو‬،‫ وكون هذه احلركة ذاتية ّل تب ًعا للفلك‬،‫حركة دون األرض‬‫ ظاهره يقتض كون الشمس مت‬:‫«ﭐﱡﲲﱠ‬
‫ه‬
.»‫لم يؤول بأن هذا اجلري يف رأي العني‬

“The apparent indication of the phrase demands that it is the sun that is in
motion and not the earth, and that the motion of the sun is due to its body
moving, and not merely on account of the system that it exists in moving.
Unless, this phrase is interpreted to mean that one’s eye sees the sun ‘in
motion’.”

‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
،‫ وبالعكس‬،‫«ونف حركة األرض بناء لع ما هو املشهور أن القائل بركة الشمس ينف احلركة عن األرض‬
ً ‫ه‬
.»‫وإّل فحركة ك منها ُمتمل عقال‬

“As for the reason of denying the movement of the earth, that is merely on
account of what is famous that it is either the sun that moves and not the
earth, or vice versa. Otherwise, it is indeed rationally possible that movement
be established for both the sun and the earth.”

43
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

and the Sunnah. The reason for this is that since the message of the texts is directed
towards mankind in general, the general understanding of the masses has been
considered in the style of speech adopted. Had deep, scientific issues, which the
general mind could not easily comprehend, been indicated to, whilst introducing
mankind to The Almighty and to the Book of The Almighty, it would have resulted in
man further denying the message, on account of the proofs itself being in conflict to
what he understands.

44
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Examples of such scholars include, amongst others, ʿAllāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī 14
and ʿAllāmah Shabbīr Aḥmad ʿUthmānī 15.

14
ʿAllāmah Kashmīrī wrote the following in Mushkilāt al-Qur’ān, in the explanation of the
verse 38 of Sūrah Yāsīn:

ِ ‫ه‬
‫ فهل تكون‬،‫ ولكن خالفت أوضاعها بالنسبة إىل األرض‬،‫ لو لم يكن مبدأ احلركة يف الشمس‬:‫«يعين‬
ٌ ً ً ً ‫مس‬
‫ أو األنسب أن‬،‫ وسقط احلجر‬،‫ ومرض‬،‫ مات زيد‬:‫ كما يقال يف‬،‫ندا إلها عرفا ويكون اجلري فعال َلا‬
.»‫ينقض ذلك العرف؟‬

“Even if there had there been no movement at all for the sun, but in relation
to the earth, its position is found always changing, should movement then
not still be attributed to the sun, in accordance to the norm (i.e., what is
generally understood), as it happens in sentences such as; Zayd died; Zayd
fell sick; the stone fell, (whereas it is known that Zayd and the stone itself
carries out no act). Rather they merely accepted an act that was done to
them, yet, the verb is still attributed to them), or would it have been more
appropriate to break the norm?” (Obviously not!)

(What Shāh Ṣāḥib meant is that instead of speaking against the norm, it is always more
appropriate to discuss matters as they are generally understood, even though that may not
be exactly how the matter is. Further on, Shāh Ṣāḥib mentions:

ِ ‫والي يظهر أ هن األمور اتلعليمية غي ه‬ ‫ه‬

،‫ َلا واقع آخر‬،‫الطبيعيهة بعضها اكألمور اإلنتاعيهة ّل املادية‬ «
ِ
.»‫ وسيه‬،‫ والظل‬،‫ وزواَلما‬،‫ واملوازاة‬،‫اكملحاذات‬

“What seems apparent is that matters dealing with teaching (i.e., introducing
man to his Creator) and which are not related to the discussion of scientific
facts, at times they are like issues of relativity (i.e., verses concerning sunrise,
sunset, the stability of the earth, etc. are verses whose purpose is to teach
man the recognition of his Creator. These are not verses that have come to
discuss deep scientific issues. It is similar to words that describe matters of
relativity.) For example, when one speaks of something appearing in front of
him and later disappearing, (on account of his position changing, and not
that of the item), or when one speaks of the lengthening and shortening of a
shadow (whereas it was the rays of the sun that caused the size of the shadow
to change)
=

45
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

From the above it becomes clear that the scholars have adopted various approaches
with regards to explaining scientific theories, which apparently conflict with the
texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. Due to each one being a great scholar, it would
not be wise to ignore their differing approaches and to declare one with a differing
view to be astray. Neither should the one who prefers to interpret the texts in an
appropriate manner be declared an apostate, nor should the one who chooses to
question the strength of these ‘scientific theories’ be labelled as a ‘trouble-maker’ and
one walking a path contrary to the path of the predecessors.

‫ه‬
‫ فِلا وقع فيها أغال ٌط‬،‫اكلراِئ يف املناظر‬ ً ‫ بل مع‬،‫الَّشء يف نفسه‬
‫ ه‬،‫تربا بالنسبة إىل غيه‬ ‫«وُكها ليس من وجود‬
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ٌ
‫ فال يفسخ‬،‫ وهذه اَليئة باقية‬،‫ ولعلم أن أهل العرف إنما أطلقوا جري الشمس لع هيئ ٍة معهود ٍة‬،‫وتفاوت‬
‫ه‬
)‫ سورة يس‬،‫ (مشالكت القرآن‬.»‫ ويارى معه وكأنه حقيقة عرفيهة‬،‫ذلك العرف‬

“All these issues are thus not due to an act/motion in reality occurring within
these things, but rather acts are attributed to these things in accordance to
how they appear to the eye of the one looking through binoculars. Some
might find an item small and others will see it bigger.

In the terms of the general man the words ‘movement of the sun’; ‘rising of
the sun’; ‘setting of the sun’ have an understood meaning, which is found till
today. Thus, this ‘understood meaning’ has not been broken. (Rather, the
verses of the Qur’ān were revealed in accordance to this.) It is as though this
is the »‫ «حقيقة عرفية‬of these phrases’ meaning.” (i.e., a meaning taken on
account of how the general people utilize a word)

15
ʿAllāmah Shabbīr Aḥmad ʿUthmānī wrote a few pages with regards to this issue, which has
been published under the title of »‫«سجود الشمس‬. In this book, he has explained that just on the
basis of the subject matter of certain Aḥādīth not conforming to the demands of one’s
intellect, one should not be hasty to reject its authenticity. He then, in detail, answered the
objections that some had made with regards to the Ḥadīth quoted by Sayyidunā Abū Dharr
, discussing how the sun prostrates under the Throne of Almighty Allāh.

In his explanation, ʿAllāmah ʿUthmānī indicates to the possibility of the prostration of the
sun under the Throne not being intended in the literal sense, but rather in the meaning of its
being, at every point of its journey, totally dependent upon the permission of Almighty Allāh.
ʿAllāmah explains that since the intended purpose of the narration was to show how every
being in existence is dependent upon Almighty Allāh, so much so, that even the mighty sun,
which itself provides heat, light and energy to the world, it too is not in any way independent.
Rather, it’s every movement requires permission from Almighty Allāh.

46
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Shaykh ʿAbdul ʿAzīz ibn Bāz penned down a few valuable guidelines to be considered
in such issues. A few excerpts are provided below:16

“The issues relating to the universe which have been explicitly

discussed in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah are indeed issues which one
should accept wholeheartedly and should not doubt it merely due to
the statements of astronomers, etc. Rather, the views of astronomers
should always be viewed through the light of the Sharīʿah. What
conforms with the teachings of the Sharīʿah will be accepted, what
contradicts it will be rejected and that which finds no explicit mention
in the texts of the Qur’ān and authentic Sunnah, nor does it contradict
that which is totally apparent, shall neither be accepted totally, nor
rejected. Rather, it shall remain a possibility until such knowledge is
acquired that either confirms its truth or exposes its falsehood.”

“It is allowed for the one, who has sufficient knowledge of the
principles upon which astronomers base their conclusions, to place his
reliance upon what they say, as long as it does not conflict with clear-
cut rulings of the Sharīʿah. Accepting such conclusions however
cannot be forced upon the one who does not wish to accept it, on
account of him not being content with their proofs. Yes, if he wishes,
he may narrate their conclusions (as one quotes Isrāīlī narrations).”

“As for what some feel that in this matter the scholars should not
interfere, but should rather accept what the masters of astronomy
explain, such a statement has indeed absolutely no substance. Some
issues pertaining to the universe are such that within the Qur’ān and
the Sunnah there are clear statements regarding it. In such issues it is
not permissible for any believer to ignore what the Sharīʿah has
explained and to instead accept the statements of astronomers.”

“As for those issues regarding which there is nothing clear-cut in

Sharīʿah, here one may refer to what the astronomers explain and
their conclusions may be held as worthy of consideration. Here too
however, it is not permissible that one places full conviction and

.»‫ وسكون األرض‬،‫ والقمر‬،‫ ولع جريان الشمس‬،‫ «األدلة انلقلية واحلسية يف ماكن الصعود إىل الكواكب‬16

47
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

reliance upon whatever the astronomers explain. Rather their

explanations too shall be divided into three:

1) That which contradicts the teachings of the Sharīʿah shall be

rejected.

2) That which confirms with the teachings of the Sharīʿah shall be

accepted.

3) That which neither contradicts nor confirms shall be considered as

a possibility. Total reliance shall not be placed upon it, nor is there any
need for it to be rejected. One may even quote it, in the same manner
that Isrāīlī narrations are quoted. And Almighty Allāh alone is the one
who guides to the straight path.”



48
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

My Inclination in this Regard

As mentioned above, the issue concerning the relationship of the sun with the earth
is one in which no decisive view exists, neither amongst astronomers, nor amongst
the scholars. Thus, to force one to accept a particular view in this regard would indeed
be unfair. Similarly, to declare one particular view to be the ‘only correct view’, and
all other opinions to be that of deviates, that too would be foolish, since, as we have
seen, each opinion is backed by some giant in knowledge or the other. The safest
route would thus be to adopt or incline to a view one feels comfortable with, without
condemning those who opine otherwise.

With regards to which of the above views I incline towards, I feel that as long as our
senses do not directly witness the movement and the rising and the setting of the sun
to be in accordance to what modern science explains, until then the texts of the
Qur’ān and the Sunnah should be accepted upon its apparent meaning. As for
scientific ‘proofs’ based upon computer calculation, and the ‘pictures’ that NASA
provides, these should never be considered as comprehensive proofs, on account of
which the texts need to be interpreted.

The reasons for this inclination of mine are as follows:

 It (the view of the sun circling the earth, instead of the earth
circling the sun, and of the earth being stationary) is a view that is
supported by the clear texts of the Qur’ān as well as authentic
Aḥādīth.

 Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd  , in clear words, rejected

the theory of movement for the skies and the earth, when he
refuted the view promoted by Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, of the skies circling,
in a manner similar to the pole of a mill (upon which the upper
plate rotates) whilst on a pillar, balancing upon the shoulder of an
angel.

He said:

‫ٌ ه‬
،]41 :‫ ﱡﭐﲁ ﲂ ﲃ ﲄ ﲅ ﲆ ﲇﱠ [فاطر‬:‫ إن اهلل تعاىل يقول‬،‫ب‬ ‫«كذب كع‬
ً
.»‫وكف بها زواّل أن تدور‬

49
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

“Kaʿb has erred/lied. Indeed, Allāh says, ‘Verily Allāh holds the skies
and the earth, preventing it from moving’. And moving in a circle shape
is without doubt a form of movement!”17

Although Sayyidunā ibn Masʿūd’s  refutation was with regards to the

movement of the skies, the argument that he provided shows clearly that, in his
understanding, the earth too does not move.

Note: According to modern science, the sun is in constant movement towards a

certain star. As it moves, the earth rotates around it. It has been reported from
Sayyidunā ʿAlī and Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr 18 that the Bayt al-Maʿmūr is
situated directly above the Kaʿbah. If the view of modern science is to considered, it
will demand that the skies too rotate, as the earth rotates, and that the skies too move
along the path upon which the sun moves, thereby keeping the Bayt al-Maʿmūr
always in line with the Kaʿbah. According to the understanding of ʿAbdullāh ibn
Masʿūd  with regards to the above verse of the Qur’ān, there is absolutely no
movement that occurs with the skies, and since the skies are not moving, it also
demands that the earth too remains in one place, so that the Kaʿbah remains parallel
to the Bayt al-Maʿmūr.

‫ «قيل ّلبن مسعود‬:‫ قال‬،‫ عن شقيق‬،‫ وعبد بن محيد‬،‫ وابن املنذر‬،‫ وابن جرير‬،‫ أخرج سعيد بن منصور‬16
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
:‫ فقال‬،»‫الرح يف عمود لع منكب ملك‬ ‫السماء تدور يف قطبة مثل قطبة ه‬‫«إن ه‬ :‫ إن كعبًا يقول‬:
‫ٌ ه‬
‫ وكف بها‬،]41 :‫ ﱡﭐﲁ ﲂ ﲃ ﲄ ﲅ ﲆ ﲇﱠ [فاطر‬:‫ إن اهلل تعاىل يقول‬،‫ب‬ ‫«كذب كع‬
ً
)‫ (روح املعان‬.»»‫زواّل أن تدور‬

‫ عن خادل بن‬،‫ عن سماك بن حرب‬،‫محاد بن سلمة‬‫ حدثنا ه‬،‫ أخربنا انلهض بن شميل‬:‫ قال إسحاق بن راهويه‬17

‫ ما ﱡﭐ ﲚ‬:‫ فقال‬،‫ض‬ ‫ سلين ه‬:‫ قال‬،‫عما أسألك عنه‬

ُّ ‫عما ينفع وّل ي‬ ‫ أخربَن ه‬:‫ فقام آخر فقال‬...« :‫عرعرة قال‬

ٌّ ‫] ؟ فقال‬4 :‫ فما ﱡﲗ ﲘ ﲙ ﱠ [الطور‬:‫ قال‬.»‫«السماء‬

‫لَع‬ ‫ ه‬:‫]؟ قال‬5 :‫ﲛ ﲜ ﱠ [الطور‬
ٌ ‫ ولكنهه ب‬،‫ «ّل‬:‫ فقال‬.»‫ الكعبة‬:‫ «هذا ابليت‬:‫ ما تقولون؟ قالوا‬:‫ ألصحابه‬
‫يت يف ه‬
‫السماء بيال ابليت‬
‫ ه‬،‫ك يومٍ سبعون ألف ملك‬‫ه‬ ‫ حرمته يف ه‬،‫الضاح‬ ُّ
‫ثم ّل‬ ٍ ‫ يدخله‬،‫السماء كحرمة هذا يف األرض‬ :‫ يقال هل‬،‫احلرام‬
)‫ (املطالب العالة‬.»‫يعودون فيه‬

ٌ ‫ «ابليت المعمور ب‬:‫ قال‬،‫عن عبد اهلل بن عمرو بن العاص‬

‫يت يف ه‬
،‫ لو سقط؛ سقط عليها‬،‫السماء بيال الكعبة‬
‫ه‬ ِ
)‫ (شعب اإليمان‬.»‫ واحلرم حر ٌم بياهل إىل العرش‬،‫يصّل فيه ك يوم سبعون ألف مل ٍك‬

50
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

 Until the renaissance, the scholars had claimed consensus upon

the view of the earth being stationary. Such a consensus has never
been claimed for the view of the earth rotating around the sun.

 It seems far-fetched that astronomers, both Muslims and non-

Muslims, for thousands of years, found no fault in the view of the
earth being stationary. Their writings prove that they had
mastered this field, yet ‘amazingly’ they all erred in such an
important aspect, and it required devil-worshipping free-masons
to correct an ‘error’ that the world had been blinded to from the
very beginning.

 The claim of the sun being at the centre and the earth orbiting it
was made at the time when the renaissance began. So called
‘scientific evidence’ would years later be provided for this proof by
NASA. Thus, one can easily say that modern science did not
uncover a ‘fact unknown to the world’. Rather, modern science was
used to find evidence for a theory already propagated. The
pictures, etc. that we see today were not available at the time
Newton and company made their claim. Either, their level of
intellect allowed them to understand what none had understood
until then, or they were ordered by the devil to promote a theory,
and the devilish organizations like NASA, etc. were then ordered to
create ‘evidence’ for such a theory. When one ponders over the
devilish nature of the initial promoters of the theory of the earth
orbiting the sun, one shall surely find inclination towards the
latter possibility, i.e., they were mere tongues of a higher devilish
order.

However, as mentioned above, this is a matter in which there is scope for a difference
of opinion. My inclination in this matter to a particular view is merely a matter of
preference. And each individual holds the right to entertain an opinion in such a
matter.

Another issue in which scholars differ is with regards to whether the earth is flat or
round, and then whether man resides upon all sides of the earthly globe, or only upon
one side. Similar to the issue discussed above regarding whether the earth is stagnant

51
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

or in constant motion, here too there is no definite view. Rather, it too is open for
differing opinions. In the pages that follow, some of the opinions of scholars
regarding this matter shall be provided.

Is the Earth Flat or Round?

Views of the Scholars of Islām

a) Prominent scholars who made clear mention of the earth being flat (and not
spherical), from the year 400 A.H. until 1250 A.H., included, amongst others:

1. Shaykh ʿAbdul-Qāhir al-Baghdādī Shāfiʿī (d. 429 A.H.).19

2. Abū al-Ḥasan Al-Māwardī Shāfiʿī (d. 450 A.H.)20 -Author of »‫«انلكت والعيون‬,
commonly known as Tafsīr al-Māwardī.

19
In his book Usūl ad-Dīn, in the chapter regarding the names of Almighty Allāh, he has
written:

Chapter 10 of this principle - explaining how the names of Allāh indicate

towards His doings.

ِ ‫ادلّللة لع بسط‬
‫الرزق‬ ‫ وابلاسط يف ه‬،‫ وابلاري يف ادلّللة لع أنهه خالق اخللق‬،‫بره بعباده‬ ‫اكلرب يف ه‬
ِ ‫ادلّللة لع‬ ِ «

‫جمني‬ِ ‫ خالف قول من زعم من الفالسفة واملن‬، ‫ وللك س هماها ﱡﱼﱽﱠ‬،‫ ولع أنهه بسط األرض‬،‫ملن شاء‬
‫ه‬
.»‫أن األرض كرية غي مبسوطة‬

“For example, the name ‘al-Barr’ is indicative of His kindness towards His
slaves. The name ‘al-Bārī’ is indicative towards the fact that it is He who is
the Creator of all creation. The name ‘al-Bāsiṭ’ (one of the names of Allāh) is
indicative of the plentiful bounty given to those He wishes and that He spreads
the earth flat, which is why He called it ‘Bisāṭan’ (that which is spread flat; a carpet),
contrary to the claims of those philosophers and astrologers who say that the earth is
spherical and not flat.”

20
In his famous Tafsīr »‫ «انلكت و العيون‬commonly known as Tafsīr al-Māwardī he has written:

‫ه‬ ‫ه ه‬
‫ ردا لع من زعم أنها‬،‫ بسطها لالستقرار عليها‬:‫] أي‬3 :‫ ﱡﭐ ﱲ ﱳ ﱴ ﱵ ﱠ [الرعد‬:‫عز وجل‬ ‫«قوهل‬
.»‫مستديرة اكلكرة‬

52
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

3. Ibn ʿAṭiyyah al-Muḥāribī al-Andalūsī (d. 542 A.H.)21 Author of ‫«تفسي املحرر‬
»‫الوجزي‬, commonly known as Tafsīr ibn ʿAṭiyyah.
4. Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī Mālikī (d. 671 A.H.)22 -Author of ‫«اجلامع‬
»‫ألحاكم القرآن‬, commonly known as Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī.

“The verse “And it is He who spread the earth” means that He (Allāh )
spread it so that things may lie firm on it, refuting the claim of those who say
that it is round like a ball.”

21
Ibn ʿAṭiyyah was accomplished in the fields of Tafsīr, Ḥadīth, Fiqh, and the Arabic language.
He was appointed as a judge of Grenada. He authored a Tafsīr named »‫«املحرر الوجزي‬. In the
commentary of verse 19 of Sūrah Nūḥ, he wrote:

‫ه‬
‫ يقتض ظاهره أن األرض بسيطة غي‬، ]19 :‫ ﱡﭐ ﱸ ﱹ ﱺ ﱻ ﱼ ﱽ ﱠ [نوح‬:‫«وقوهل تعاىل‬
‫ ه‬،‫ امهلل هإّل أن يرت هكب لع القول بالكرو هية نظ ٌر فاس ٌد‬،‫ واعتقاد أحد األمرين غي قاد ٍح يف نفسه‬،‫كرو هية‬
‫وأما‬
‫ه‬
.»‫ وهو الي ّل يلحق عنه فساد أبلتهه‬،‫اعتقاد كونها بسيطة فهو ظاهر كتاب اهلل تعاىل‬

“The apparent meaning of the verse demands that the earth is flat and not
round. Any of the two views however may be adopted. Yes, it is necessary
that the view of the earth being round does not lead further to a corrupted
understanding. As for the view of the earth being flat, which is the apparent
meaning of the verses of the Qur’ān, by adopting this view there is no fear of
an incorrect understanding later arising.”

And in the explanation of verse 20 of Sūrah al-Ghāshiyah :‫ﱡﭐ ﳂ ﳃ ﳄ ﳅ ﳆ ﱠ [الغاشية‬

]20 he wrote:

‫ والقول بك ه‬،‫ وهو هالي عليه أهل العلم‬،‫أن األرض سطح ّل كرة‬
‫ريتها وإن اكن ّل ينقص‬
‫ه‬
‫«وظاهر هذه اآلية‬
‫ه‬ ٌ ‫ه‬
.»‫ فهو قول ّل يثبته علماء الشع‬،‫ركنًا من أراكن الشع‬

“And the literal meaning of this verse (88:20) is that the earth is flat, and not a
sphere. And it is this view which the scholars have adopted. As for the claim that it
is a sphere – even though it doesn’t violate any pillars of Islām – it is a claim
that scholars do not subscribe to.”

22
In his Tafsīr, Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, in the commentary of verse 3 of Sūrah al-Raʿd ‫ﱡﭐﱲﱳﱴﱵ‬
‫‘ ﱠ‬And it is He who has spread out the earth’ he wrote:
=

53
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

5. ʿAlā’ ad-Dīn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Khāzin (d. 741 A.H.)23 - Author of Tafsīr
al-Khāzin.

‫ه‬ ٌّ
.»‫ يف هذه اآلية رد لع من زعم أن األرض اكلكرة‬:‫«مسألة‬

“And this verse is a refutation against those who claim that the earth is like
a sphere.”

‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ وأن حركتها إنما تكون يف‬،‫ القول بوقوف األرض وسكونها ومدها‬:‫«والي عليه املسلمون وأهل الكتاب‬
.»‫العادة بزلزل ٍة تصيبها‬

“And it is the opinion of the scholars of Islām and the People of the Book that the earth
is static, unmoving and spread out, and that its only movement is due to causes
such as earthquakes, etc.”

23
In the commentary of the verse:
]3 :‫ﱡﭐﱲﱳﱴﱵﱶﱷﱸﱹﱠ [الرعد‬

“And it is He who has spread out the earth and placed upon it mountains and
rivers.”

he has written:

‫ه‬
‫ اكنت األرض جمتمعة فمدها من حتت ابليت‬:‫ وقيل‬،‫ بسطها لع وجه املاء‬:‫«ﭐﱡﭐﱲﱳﱴﱵﱠ أي‬
ِ ٌ ‫ه‬
،‫ األرض كرة‬:‫ وعند أصحاب اَليئة‬،‫ وهذا القول إنما يص ُّح إذا قيل إن األرض منسطحة اكألكف‬،‫احلرام‬
‫إن الكرة إذا اكنت كبية عظيمة فك قطعة منها تشاهد مدودة ه‬‫ه‬
،‫اكلسطح الكبي العظيم‬ :‫ويمكن أن يقال‬
ُّ ُّ ‫ه‬ ‫ه ه‬
‫ وك ذلك يدل لع‬،‫ وأنه دحاها وبسطها‬،‫ ومع ذلك فاهلل تعاىل قد أخرب أنه مد األرض‬،‫فحصل اجلمع‬
ً ً
.»‫ وأبني دلال من أصحاب اَليئة‬،‫ واهلل تعاىل أصدق قيال‬،‫التسطيح‬

“Allāh said ‘And it is He who spread the earth’ meaning that He spread it over
the water. It has been said that the earth was all together. Almighty Allāh
then spread it out from under the Kaʿbah. This can only be correct if it is said
that the earth is flat like the palm.

According to astronomers the earth is a ball. It can be said that if the ball is
large enough, every piece of it can be seen as a large flat expanse. In this
manner both views could be reconciled. Despite this possibility of
=

54
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

6. Imām Jalāl ad-Dīn as-Suyūṭī (d. 911 A.H.) 24 - Author of half of Tafsīr al-
Jalālayn.
7. ʿAllāmah ʿIṣām ad-Dīn Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad al-Qunāwī Ḥanafī (d.
1195)25 -His 7-volume commentary on the Tafsīr of Bayḍāwī is regarded as
the biggest and perhaps the best.

reconciliation Almighty Allāh has stated that He expanded the earth and that
He spread it and flattened it, all of which indicate that the earth is flat, and Allāh
is more truthful and has better evidence than astronomers.”

He wrote in his Tafsīr of Qur’ān, Jalālayn, in the commentary of verse 20 of Sūrah al-
24

Ghāshiyah:

‫ وعليه‬،‫ ﱡﳅﱠ ظاه ٌر يف األرض سطح‬:‫ وقوهل‬،]20 :‫«ﭐﱡﭐﳂﳃﳄ ﳅﳆﱠ [الغاشية‬

‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
.»‫ ّل كرة كما قاهل أهل اَليئة؛ وإن لم ينقض ركنًا من أركن الشع‬،‫علماء الشع‬

“{And (do they not look) at the earth – how it is spread out?} The word ‘spread out’
literally suggests that the earth is flat, and such is the opinion of the scholars of
Islām, not a ball like astronomers claim, though claiming so is not against any
established teaching of Islām.”

25
In his commentary on Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, ‘Ḥāshiyah al-Qunawiyyah’, whilst discussing Qāḍī
Bayḍāwī’s commentary on the verse:
]22 :‫ﱡﭐﲘﲙﲚ ﲛﲜﱠ [ابلقرة‬

“He who has made for you the earth flat.”

He writes,

“Qāḍī Bayḍāwī commentated as follows:

ِ ‫ه‬
‫ ألن كرية شكها مع عظم حجمها واتساع جرمها ّل يأب اّلفرتاش‬،‫«وذلك ّل يستدع كونها مس هطحة‬
.»‫عليها‬

“This does not demand that the earth must be flat. Due to the huge size of
the earth, its being round shall not prevent items being laid out upon it.”

ʿAllāmah ʿIṣām ad-Dīn then commentates:

=

55
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

8. Qāḍī Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ash-Shawkānī (d. 1250 A.H.)26 -Author of Tafsīr
Fatḥ al-Qadīr.

‫ه‬
‫ وظاهر قوهل‬، ،‫ عن ابن عمر‬،‫ ألنها متار ابن عبهاس‬،‫سطحة راجحة‬
‫صح إدارتها بل كونها م ه‬
‫«وإن ه‬

‫ ﱡﭐ‬، ]107 :‫ ﱡﭐﲌ ﲍﲎﲏﲐﲑ ﲒ ﱠ [طه‬:‫ وقوهل تعاىل‬، ]19 :‫ ﱡﭐﱗﱘﱠ [احلجر‬:‫تعاىل‬
ُّ
‫ وجع كثي من أهل العلم‬،‫ وابن عبهاس‬،‫ يدل لع كونها مس هطحة‬،]30 :‫ﲄﲅﲆﲇﲈﱠ [انلازاعت‬
‫ه‬ ِ
،‫ والكروية قول الفالسفة‬،‫ فال جرم أن امليل إله مقبول دلى أويل العرفان‬،‫ وأدرى بابليان‬،‫أعلم باللسان‬
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫والظاهر أنهها متار املصنِف تب ًعا لإلمام ه‬
‫ه‬
،‫الرازي فإنه قول الوجوه العقليهة اليت أقيمت لع الكروية يف تفسيه‬
‫ لكن متابعة ه‬،‫ فحينئذ ّل ُمذور يف لك اّلحتمالني‬،‫واملصنِف تبعه مع تقرير حدوثها‬
.»‫السلف أسلم‬ ٍ ٍ

“Although the author’s (Bayḍāwī’s) claim (that the earth is round) is well meant, the
claim that it is flat is still preferred since it was the opinion of ibn ʿAbbās quoting
from ibn ʿUmar (may Allāh be pleased with them). It is also the apparent
interpretation of the verses ‫‘ ﱡﭐﱗﱘﱠ‬And the earth, We have spread it’
(15:19) and ‫‘ ﱡﭐﲌﲍﲎﲏﲐﲑﲒﱠ‬You will not see therein a depression or an

elevation’ (20:107) and ‫‘ ﱡﲄﲅﲆﲇﲈﭐﱠ‬And after that He spread the earth’

(79:30). And ibn ʿAbbās and a multitude of scholars are more knowledgeable
of the Arabic tongue and its subtleties, thus inclining to this view will most
definitely be acceptable in the opinion of those of understanding.

And the claim of sphericity is that of the philosophers, and apparently the
author (al-Bayḍāwī) has preferred this view as well, following the opinion of
Imām ar-Rāzī, who has discussed the rationalist arguments for sphericity in
his Tafsīr. The author has accepted the opinion of Imām ar-Rāzī, despite it
being a new opinion in this issue. We understand from this that there is no
impermissibility in considering any of the two views. However, it is still safer to follow
the opinion of the salaf.”

26
He has written in Tafsīr Fatḥ al-Qadīr under verse 19 of Sūrah al-Ḥijr:

‫ ﱡﭐ ﲄ ﲅ ﲆ ﲇ ﲈ ﱠ‬:‫ بسطناها وفرشناها كما يف قوهل‬:‫] أي‬19 :‫«ﭐﱡﭐ ﱗ ﱘﱠﭐ[احلجر‬

ٌّ
‫ وفيه رد لع من زعم‬، ]48 :‫ ﱡﭐ ﳅ ﳆ ﳇ ﳈ ﳉ ﱠ [الاريات‬:‫ ويف قوهل‬،]30 :‫[انلازاعت‬
‫ه‬
.»‫أنها اكلكرة‬

“The verse ‫ ﭐﱡﭐﱗﱘﱠ‬means that Allāh spread (the earth) and laid it

flat, as mentioned in the verse ‫‘ ﱡﭐﲄﲅﲆﲇﲈﱠ‬And after that He spread

=

56
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

9. Shaykh Muḥammad bin Yūsuf al-Kāfī al-Tūnsī Mālikī (d. 1250 A.H.).27
10. ʿAllāmah Muḥammad Amīn al-Harawī Shāfiʿī (d. 1348 A.H.)28; - Author of
.»‫«تفسي حدائق الروح و الريان‬

b) Prominent scholars who supported the theory of a round/spherical earth,

include, amongst others:

1. Imām Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar Fakhr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī (d. 606 A.H.)29- Author
of »‫«مفاتيح الغيب‬, commonly known as Tafsīr al-Kabīr.

the earth’ (79:30) and ‫‘ ﱡﭐﳅ ﳆﳇﳈﳉﱠ‬And the earth We have spread
out, and excellent is the Preparer’ (51:48) and in it is a refutation to those who claim
that it is like a ball.”

27
In refutation of a book written by Shaykh Muḥammad Bakhīt al-Muṭiʿī, titled
»‫ «تنبيه العقول اإلنسانية ملا يف آيات القرآن من العلوم الكونية و العمرانية‬he refutes the statement of Shaykh
Bakhīt regarding the earth being round. He writes:

ً
‫يم حيث جعل األرض كرة تلكون فراشا ومه ًدا‬ ٌ ‫ «كيف؟ وقد دلهت لع أ هن اهلل حك‬:‫«قوهل‬
ٌ ‫يم مقت‬
ٌ ‫در عل‬
ُّ ‫ه‬ ً
‫ غي صحيح بالنسبة لكون اهلل جعل األرض كرة؛ ألنه ّل شء من آيات القرآن يدل لع ذلك أبلتهه‬،»‫وذلوّل‬
ٌ ‫ فهذا ثاب‬،‫يما‬
ً ‫يما مقتد ًرا عل‬ ‫ه‬
ً ‫ وأ هما كونه سبحانه وتعاىل حك‬،‫تقدم‬
‫ت هل بن ِص الكتاب بقطع انلظر عن‬ ‫كما‬
ً ً
.»ٍ‫ أو غي كرة وغي دائرة‬،‫كون األرض كرة دائرة‬

“Sheikh Bakhīt’s claim, ‘that Allāh is wise and powerful and knowledgeable enough
to make the earth round, whereby it can be a place of rest’, is incorrect for there are
no verses in the Qur’ān that indicate to this at all as we have indicated earlier. As for
them saying that Allāh is wise and powerful and knowledgeable, that is
already proven by the Qur’ān regardless of the earth being round or not.”

28
In his Tafsīr »‫«حدائق الروح‬, he quoted the above text of ʿAllāmah Khāzin, indicating to his
agreement with this theory.

29
In his Tafsīr of Qur’ān, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, he has written:
=

57
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

‫ه ً ه‬ ٌ ‫«قال ق‬
‫ اكنت‬:‫ وقال آخرون‬.‫دورة فمدها ودحا من مكة من حتت ابليت فذهبت كذا وكذا‬ ‫ اكنت األرض م‬:‫وم‬
ٌ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ً
‫سطحة‬ ‫ اعلم أن هذا القول إنما يت ُّم إذا قلنا األرض م‬.‫ اذهيب كذا وكذا‬:‫جمتمعة عند ابليت المقدس فقال لها‬
ُّ ‫ وأصحاب هذا القول احت‬،‫رة‬ ٌ
.]30 :‫ﭐﱡﭐﲄﲅﲆﲇﲈﱠ [انلازاعت‬:‫جوا عليه بقوهل‬ ‫ّل ك‬

“Some have said that the earth was once round. Almighty Allāh then spread
it out from Makkah, from beneath the Kaʿbah. Others have claimed that it
was spread out from Bayt al-Maqdis. This however can only be considered
probable if one accepts the view that the earth is flat, and not round. Those
who support the view of the earth being flat present as a proof the verse ‘And
the earth We spread it out after that’.”

ٌ ‫ه‬ ‫ أنهه ثبت ه‬:‫األول‬

‫شك من وجهني؛ ه‬ ٌ
‫بادلّلئل أن األرض كرة فكيف يمكن الماكبرة فيه؟ فإن‬ ‫«وهذا القول م‬
‫ِ ه‬ ُّ ً
‫ نسلم أن األرض‬،‫ ّل‬:‫] ينايف كونها كرة فكيف يمكن مدها؟ قلنا‬3 :‫ ﱡﭐﱴ ﱵﱠ [الرعد‬:‫ وقوهل‬:‫قالوا‬
‫ك قطعة منها تشاهد ه‬ُّ ٌ ٌ ‫ج‬
.»‫اكلسطح‬ ٍ ‫ والكرة إذا اكنت يف اغية الكرب اكن‬،‫عظيم‬ ‫سم‬

“Such a view however is problematic for two reasons:

1) It has been proven that the earth is round, thus opposing this is not
correct. If it is said that the view of the earth being round contradicts the
word ‘spread out’, which has been mentioned clearly in the Qur’ān, we will
reply that there is no contradiction, since it is accepted that the earth is a
huge body, and it is known that when a ball is huge, each part of it appears
as though it is a spread-out surface.”

‫أمرا مشاه ًدا‬

ً ‫والشط فيه أن يكون ذلك‬‫ه‬ ‫أن هذه اآلية إنهما ذكرت ليستد هل بها لع وجود ه‬
،‫الصانع‬
‫ه‬
:‫«واثلهان‬
ً
ٌ ‫عة حتت ابليت‬ ‫حَّت يص هح اّلستدّلل به لع وجود ه‬ ً ‫معل‬
‫وما ه‬
‫سوس‬ ٍ ‫أمر غي مشاه ٍد وّل ُم‬ ‫ وكونها جمتم‬،‫الصانع‬
‫ه‬ ‫فال يمكن اّلستدّلل به لع وجود ه‬
.»‫اتلأويل احل هق هو ما ذكرناه‬
‫أن ه‬ ‫ فثبت‬،‫الصانع‬

“2) The purpose of the mentioned verse ‘And We spread the world out after that’
has been mentioned so that one recognizes through it the existence of the
Creator. For this it is necessary that the spreading out of the earth be
something that is visible. It’s being cramped together under the Kaʿbah (and
from there being spread out) is not something that is visible. Thus, if this was
the intended meaning it would not be a verse through which the presence of
the Creator of the world could be proven. From what we have mentioned it
becomes clear that the proper translation and explanation of the verse is what we
have mentioned (i.e., whenever one looks at the earth it appears as a flat surface).”

58
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

2. ʿAllāmah Maḥmūd ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Ālūsī (d. 1270 A.H.) - author of ‫«روح‬
»‫املعان‬
3. Qāḍī ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar al-Bayḍāwī (d. 685 A.H.)30- author of »‫«أنوار اتلنيل‬,
commonly known as Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī.
4. Ibn Ḥazam Ẓāhirī (d. 456 A.H.).31

30
Under the explanation of the verse ]22 :‫‘ ﭐﱡﭐﲘﲙﲚ ﲛ ﲜﱠ [ابلقرة‬It is He who has made the
earth a carpet’, he writes:

ِ ‫سطحة؛ أل هن ك ه‬
‫«وذلك ّل يستدع كونها م ه‬
‫رية شكها مع عظم حجمها واتساع جرمها ّل يأب اّلفرتاش‬
)22 :‫ (تفسي ابليضاوي – ابلقرة‬.»‫عليه‬

“This does not demand that the earth be flat, since even if it is spherical, but huge,
that too shall allow the spreading out of a carpet above it.”

31
During his era, books of the ancient philosophers had gained great prominence amongst
the Muslims. Certain groups were utilizing the arguments of these books against many of the
narrations that appear in the books of Islām, even though these narrations were not really
established to be the statements of Rasulullah . Rather, it would be total
fabrications, or narrations with weak Sanads, or the words of Kaʿb al-Aḥbār.

Amongst the objections that this group was levelling against the Muslims was with regard to
the earth. According to the books of philosophy that had been translated and spread amongst
the Muslims of that land, the earth was round. Using the proofs for this, found in their books,
they were creating doubts in the hearts of the simple believers. Responding to them in ‫«الفصل‬
»‫ يف امللل و األهواء و انلحل‬he writes:

‫ إن الرباهني قد صحت‬:‫ وذلك أنهم قالوا‬،‫«وهذا حني نأخذ إن شاء اهلل تعاىل يف ذكر بعض ما اعرتضوا به‬
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ إن أحد من أئ همة المسلمني‬:- ‫اتلوفيق‬
‫اَّلل تعاىل ه‬ ‫ وب‬- ‫ وجوابنا‬،‫والعامة تقول غي ذلك‬ ‫ه‬
،‫كروية‬ ‫بأن األرض‬
‫ألحد منهم يف دفعه‬
ٍ ‫ وّل يفظ‬،‫المستحقني ّلسم اإلمامة بالعلم رِض اهلل عنهم لم ينكروا تكوير األرض‬
‫ه ه‬
‫ﱡﲲﲳﲴﲵ‬ ‫ ﲱ‬:‫عز وجل‬ ‫ قال اهلل‬،‫لكمة بل الرباهني من القرآن والسنة قد جاءت بتكويرها‬

ٍ ‫ وهذا أوضح بيان يف تكوير بعضها لع‬، ]5 :‫ﲶ ﲷ ﲸ ﲹﲺﱠ [الزمر‬

‫ مأخوذ من كور‬،‫بعض‬
‫ه‬
.»‫ ودوران الشمس‬،‫ وهذا ن ٌّص لع تكوير األرض‬،‫ وهو إدارتها‬،‫العمامة‬

“Now we shall respond to some of their objections. They claim that the earth
is proven round and that it is only the general man that regards it to be flat.
Our response to this, with the aid of Allāh, is that there is not a single
recognized authority in Islāmic knowledge that has denied the earth being
=

59
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

5. ʿAllāmah Maḥmūd ibn ʿAmr az-Zamakhsharī (d. 538 A.H.) 32 - Author of

»‫«الكشاف‬.
6. ʿAllāmah ibn Taymiyyah33

round. Not a phrase has been recorded of them refuting this ever. Rather,
clear proofs can be found in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah regarding the earth
being round. Almighty Allāh states: ‘It is He who folds the night over the day and
folds the day over the night’. This is the clearest of proofs that part of the earth
folds over another. »‫«تكوير‬, extracted from the phrase »‫( «كور العمامة‬the fold of
the turban). This verse is thus explicit in the fact that the earth is round and that
the sun moves around the earth.”

(Note: Although ibn Ḥazam held the view of the earth being round, he at the same time held
the view of the sun moving around a round earth.)

32
Under verse 22 of Sūrah Baqarah he writes:

‫ه ه‬ ‫ه‬ ٌ
‫ ليس فيه إّل أن انلهاس يفرتشونها‬:‫ هل فيه دلل لع أن األرض مس هطحة وليست بكرية؟ قلت‬:‫«فإن قلت‬
،‫ فاّلفرتاش غي مستنكر وّل مدفوع‬،‫ أو شك الكرة‬،‫السطح‬ ‫ وسواء اكنت لع شك ه‬،‫كما يفعلون باملفارش‬
ِ
)22 :‫ (الكشاف – ابلقرة‬.»‫ وتباعد أطرافها‬،‫ واتساع جرمها‬،‫لعظم حجمها‬

If you were to ask if there is perhaps a proof in the verse of the earth being
flat, instead of spherical, I would reply, ‘All that the verse indicates to is that
people utilize it for spreading out their things. Irrespective, whether the
earth is flat or spherical, both allow for items to be spread out upon it, due to
its huge size and the space between its ends.

33
ʿAllāmah ibn Taymiyyah writes in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā:

،‫ من أعيان العلماء المشهورين بمعرفة اآلثار‬،‫«قال اإلمام أبو احلسني أمحد بن جعفر بن المنادي‬
‫ من ه‬،‫ادلينيهة‬
‫ «ّل خالف بني العلماء‬:‫الطبقة اثلهانية من أصحاب أمحد‬ ِ ‫واتلصانيف الكبار يف فنون العلوم‬
‫ه‬
‫ه‬ ‫أن ه‬‫ه‬
‫ كدورة الكرة لع قطبني ثابتني غي‬،‫ وأنها تدور ِبميع ما فيها من الكواكب‬،‫السماء لع مثال الكرة‬
‫ه‬ ُّ ِ ‫مت‬
‫ «ويدل لع ذلك أن الكواكب جيعها‬:‫ قال‬.»‫ واآلخر يف ناحية اجلنوب‬،‫ أحدهما يف ناحية الشمال‬:‫حركني‬
ً
‫ إىل أن تتو هسط ه‬،‫ ومقادير أجزائها‬،‫قليال لع ترتيب واحد يف حركتها‬
‫ ه‬،‫السماء‬
‫ثم تنحدر‬ ٍ ٍ ‫تدور من المشق تقع‬
‫ه‬ ً ً ٌ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ «وكذلك أجعوا لع أن األرض ِبميع‬:‫ قال‬.»‫ كأنها ثابتة يف كرة تديرها جيعها دورا واحدا‬،‫لع ذلك الرتتيب‬
‫ه ه‬ ُّ ِ ‫حركتها من‬
‫ ّل يوجد طلوعها‬،‫ والكواكب‬،‫ والقمر‬،‫ «ويدل عليه أن الشمس‬:‫ قال‬.»‫الرب وابلحر مثل الكرة‬
‫ «فكرة األرض‬:‫ قال‬.»‫ بل لع المشق قبل المغرب‬،‫وقت واح ٍد‬ٍ ‫وغروبها لع جيع من يف نواِح األرض يف‬
‫ اكنلُّقطة يف ه‬،‫السماء‬ ٌ ‫ه‬
‫تة يف وسط كرة ه‬
)‫ استدارة األفالك‬- ‫ (جمموع الفتاوى‬.»»‫ادلائرة‬ ‫مثب‬

60
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

7. ʿAllāmah Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUmar al-Biqāʿī (d. 885 A.H.)34 - author of ‫«تفسي نظم‬
»‫ادلرر‬.
8. ʿAllāmah Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī (d. 1127 A.H.) - author of Tafsīr Ruḥ al-Bayān.35

“Imām Abū Ḥusayn Aḥmad ibn Jaʿfar ibn Munādī, who is from those scholars
that are well known for their expertise with regards to the Aḥādīth and are
known for their writings, and who is from the second division of the students
of Imām Aḥmad, said:

‘There is no difference amongst the scholars that the sky is like a ball, and
that it turns, with whatever stars are within it, in a circle-like shape over the
two permanent poles, i.e., the pole in the far north and the pole in the far
south. A proof for this is that the stars all move towards the east, in a circle-
like manner, falling slowly into place, in a set sequence, until it reaches the
centre of the sky. Then it falls back towards where it had started from, in that
very same sequence, as though it is all fixed to a rotating system, which turns
(pulls) all to a certain point.

Similarly, they have agreed that the earth, and all the movements of the
earth, on land and sea, are like that of a ball. The proof of this is that at one
and the same time the sun, the moon and the stars are not visible to all the
inhabitants. Rather, it first appears in the east and then in the west. ... (He
also said) Thus, the circle of the earth is situated in the centre of the circle of
the sky, similar to a dot in a circle.”

34
The author of »‫ «نظم ادلرر‬writes:

ُّ ‫ه‬
‫ وهذا ّل ينايف أن تكون كرية؛ ألن الكرة إذا عظمت اكن ك‬،‫ وحده ﱡﱳﱴﱵﱠ‬:‫«ﱡﭐﱲﱠ أي‬
‫قطعة منها تشاهد ه‬
)3 :‫ الرعد‬- ‫ (نظم ادلرر‬.»‫اكلسطح‬

“And {He} i.e., Allāh alone {is the One who spreads the earth}. This verse does not
contradict the view of the earth being spherical in nature, since a spherical
object, if it is very huge, each portion of it appears to be flat.”

ٌ ‫ريتها؛ أل هن جيع األرض ج‬

‫سم‬ ‫] … وكونها بسيطة ّل يناف ك ه‬3 :‫ «ﱡﭐ ﱲ ﱳ ﱴ ﱵ ﱠ [الرعد‬34
‫ والكرة إذا اكنت يف اغية الكرب اكن ُّك قطعة منها يشاهد ه‬،‫عظيم‬
)3 :‫ (روح ابليان – الرعد‬.»‫اكلسطح‬ ٌ

61
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

The difference of opinion of the scholars regarding this matter shows that this too is
open for discussion, and that one is free to adopt whichever view he feels inclined to.
In the pages below, I shall mention my thoughts regarding this matter, together with
some of the reasons for it. It is not necessary that it is correct in its entirety, since this
is a matter for which there is no real way of proving any theory. Rather, it is meant
only as ‘food for thought’. Much more investigation in this field is required before
any solid theory can be presented. In Shā Allāh, through this booklet, others may be
encouraged to exert themselves in understanding, through their independent
research, the system of the earth and the sky. (Independent research refers to
knowledge acquired after investigation, and not to ‘western education’ which is
nothing but ‘unquestionable theories’ forced upon innocent minds.) Who knows?
Perhaps such points shall then come to light, which shall show how accurate the texts
are in its indication to what occurs around us.

My Feelings Regarding How We Should View the Nature of

the Earth
The first point of note is that although the scholars of Islām differed with regards to
the shape of the earth, in its being of a flattish or roundish nature, one does not find
in the writings of even those who felt that the earth is round any indication towards
the view of man residing upon all sides of the globe. Their claim of the earth being
round does not necessarily mean that they felt that man resides upon both the top
surface as well as the bottom surface of the globe. Had they held such a view, during
their eras, they would have then definitely discussed regarding why man, at the
bottom of the earth, does not fall off, into space, due to him being ‘upside-down’. The
theory of ‘gravity’ was discussed only from the late 16th and early 17th century, first
by Galileo Galilei (the very freemason who promoted the heliocentric theory of
Copernicus) and then in 1687 by ‘Sir’ Isaac Newton (the freemason who then stamped
the theory of Copernicus with ‘royal approval’).

“The earth being spread out does not contradict the view of the earth being
spherical in nature, since the earth is huge, and a ball, when it is very big,
each portion of it appears to be flat.”

62
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Muslim scholars who wrote before this regarding a spherical earth found no need to
question why man was not falling off the fast-rotating earth, especially when one is
at the bottom ‘upside-down’, since they never opined (as far as I understand) that
man resides upon all sides of ‘the globe’, or that the earth rotates in such a manner,
that those on the upper surface frequently move over to the bottom. (And Allāh
 knows best)

Similarly, their inclination to the view of a spherical earth does not necessitate that
they held the view of the earth rotating in the manner that modern-science
propagates. For e.g., ʿAllāmah Ālūsī (author of Ruḥ al-Maʿānī) wrote under verse 41 of
Sūrah Fāṭir that there exists consensus amongst the believers that the earth does not
move. In the issue of the shape of the earth however, he opines that it is spherical.

It thus becomes clear that the theory regarding the earth and the sky which modern-
science explains, the Muslim scholars of the past, despite the differences that
occurred amongst them, in this regard, did not support such a theory. Those who
promoted the view of a spherical earth did not ever promote the theory of a spherical,
fast-rotating earth, that circles the sun, with its inhabitants held into place through
‘gravity’.

After understanding this, we realize that whether the view of the flat earth of some
scholars is considered, or the view of a spherical earth, in both instances there is no
need to agree to the ‘round-earth model’ that modern-science promotes. The
difference of opinion regarding this matter of the scholars of the past now makes no
real difference to the discussion, since the issue at hand is not really whether the
shape of earth is round or flat, but rather whether man resides only upon the upper
surface of the earth or does he reside on all sides, even on the side which makes him
totally ‘upside-down’.

Based upon this, I feel that any such shape can be considered for the earth, which
does not necessitate the need for any law of ‘gravity’; nor that the earth rotates
around the sun in order for day and night to be realized; nor that the earth be smaller
than the sun; nor that there is no sky and nor that the understanding of the Ṣaḥābah
 regarding the nature of the earth be termed incorrect.

Any model of earth which necessitates any of the above should be discarded, since,
as we have mentioned in detail, there exists no real proof of any particular model
being ‘the only correct model’. Every model is a mere theory, and theories should not

63
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

be the basis of refuting points towards which much indication can be found in the
Divine Texts.

Rather, such a model should be considered which conforms the most to the many
indications of the Qur’ānic verses and the texts of the Aḥādīth and statements of the
Ṣaḥābah .

1. A Model That Conforms to the Qur’ānic Indication of the Earth

Being Connected to the Sky at its End

In the Qur’ān, indication is made of a sky that had once been fully connected to the
earth and was then separated. Almighty Allāh asks:

]30 :‫ﱡﭐ ﲃ ﲄ ﲅ ﲆ ﲇ ﲈ ﲉ ﲊ ﲋ ﲌﱠ [األنبياء‬

“Did the disbelievers not see that the skies and the earth were once
joined together, after which We separated it?”

The sky and earth were once joined together. Allāh  then lifted the sky away
from the earth. The separation of the sky from the earth could either have been in
totality or by leaving it connected to the earth at the sides, thus forming a dome-like
structure.36 The word »‫ «رتقا‬indicates to this second possibility, i.e., the earth and the
sky are still connected to each other, but only at the sides, and not in the centre.37

(The sky being a dome-like structure over the earth is explicitly mentioned by the Ṣaḥābah
36

, as we shall mention ahead)

37
Tafsīr Ḥadā’iq ar-Rūḥ explains the meaning of »‫ «رتقا‬as follows:

ً ‫ه‬ ‫ فإ هن ه‬،‫ وّل فرج‬،‫ ّل فضاء وّل هواء بينهما‬،‫«ملتقتني ومنض همتني‬
‫ خلقة اكن أو‬،‫الرتق هو الضم واّلتلحام‬
ً
‫ وهو الفصل بني‬،‫] من الفتق‬30 :‫ ﱡﲌﱠ [األنبياء‬،‫ وحقيقة متهحدة‬،‫احدا‬ ً ‫ اكنت شيئًا و‬:‫صنعة؛ أي‬
‫ رفعنا ه‬:‫ أي‬،‫والريح‬
‫ وأبقينا‬،‫السماء‬ ‫ ف ه‬:‫ وهو ض ُّد الرتق؛ أي‬،‫املتهصلني‬
ِ ‫فصلنا إحداهما عن األخرى باَلواء‬

.»‫األرض ماكنها‬

“Firmly joined together, with no air and atmosphere between the two. It was
one entity. It was then separated with air and wind being brought into the
centre, by lifting the sky and keeping the earth in its place.”
=

64
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

From the verse ‘did the disbelievers not see that the skies and the earth were once joined
together, after which We separated it?’ an indication can also be taken that the
disbelievers during the era of Rasūlullāh  were aware of the sky and earth
once being together. They had most probably acquired such knowledge from the
scholars of the previous scriptures. 38 The understanding of those scholars with
regards to how they understood the nature of the earth and the sky has thus been
affirmed, to a certain extent, as a correct understanding of the issue and has been
classified as a sign of the power of Allāh .

2. A Model that Conforms to the Statements of the Early Muslim

Scholars that the Sky is Like a Dome Over the Earth

Ibn Jarīr aṭ-Ṭabarī has narrated, under the commentary of Sūrah Baqarah, verse 22,
the view of Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh ibn Abbas  and Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh ibn
Masʿūd , that the sky forms a dome-like shape over the earth.39

It is mentioned in Tafsīr Khāzin, under the explanation of verse 2, Sūrah Raʿd:

‫ وجهور‬،‫ وقتادة‬،‫ وهذا قول احلسن‬،‫السماء مقبِية لع األرض مثل القبهة‬

‫ « ه‬:‫قال إياس بن معاوية‬

)2 :‫ (الرعد‬.»‫املف ِّسين‬

“Iyās ibn Muʿāwiyah (a high-ranking Tābiʿī) has stated that the sky is
dome-shaped over the earth, similar to a dome (on a building.)
This is the also the view of Ḥasan, Qatādah and the majority of the
Mufassirīn.”

The manner of separating with air forming in between is similar to what happens when one
blows a balloon. It remains connected and stretched at the sides, and due to the air in-
between its centre remains separated.

‫ه‬
‫ بأنههم علموه من ه‬:‫ وأجاب‬،‫الكفار لم يروا ذلك وّل علموه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫الرؤية ه‬ ‫ه‬
ُّ ‫أن‬
‫اتلوراة‬ ‫إما أن تكون بصية أو علمية؛ ألن‬ « :‫ وأورد الفخر‬38
)‫ (تفسي ابن عرفة‬.»‫واإلنيل‬

‫ «والسماء‬: ‫اس من أصحاب انليب‬ ‫ه‬

ٍ ‫ وعن ن‬،‫ عن ابن مسعود‬،‫ وعن مرة‬،‫ عن ابن عباس‬،‫ وعن أيب صالح‬،‫ «عن أيب مالك‬39
)‫ (تفسي الطربي‬.»‫ وه سقف لع األرض‬،‫ فبناء السماء لع األرض كهيئة القبة‬،»‫بناء‬

65
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

If man were to be living upon the outside surface of a globe, as modern-science claims,
the surrounding sky would then have had to circle the earth completely, and it would
in no way form a dome shape.

3. A Model in Which the Earth is of a Similar Width to That of the

Sky

Describing Jannah, Almighty Allāh says:

]21 :‫ﱡﭐ ﲃ ﲄ ﲅ ﲆ ﲇ ﲈ ﲉ ﲊ ﲋ ﲌﱠ [احلديد‬

“Hasten to the mercy of your Lord and a garden, the width of which is
like that of the sky and the earth.”

Had the width of the earth been the size of a mere speck in comparison to the skies,
as modern-science claims, it would not have been mentioned as it has in the verse
above. For example, if one wishes to describe the height of a hut, which is double the
height of man, he shall not say that its height is double the height of man and double
the height of an ant. Since the height of the ant is minimal, in the comparison it is not
mentioned. Since the width of the earth has been mentioned in the verse above, it
indicates that its width, in comparison to the skies, is not minimal, but rather quite
close.

4. A Model, Which Conforms to the Maps Drawn by the Early

Scholars of Islām

Below is a picture of a map of the world, drawn by ʿAlī ibn Ḥusayn al-Masʿūdī (d. 345
A.H./956 A.C.)

66
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

In the map of al-Masʿūdī one finds land surrounded by al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, ‘a

surrounding ocean’. All of this rests on a circle. If land is assumed to be spread over a
globe, as modern-science claims, the concept of ‘surrounding waters’ shall not arise.
On a globe there is no beginning, middle and ending point, thus neither can the
spread-out land be termed to be surrounded by waters, nor can the waters be termed
to be surrounding the land. Water can only be termed as ‘surrounding’ if there is no
land beyond it on any side. Otherwise, that land and the land on its opposite side
could be viewed as though it surrounds the in-between waters.

In the map of ibn Ḥawqal (d. 367 A.H./ 978 A.C.) (below) as well as the map of al-Idrīsī
(560 A.H./1165 A.C.) (further-below) the same concept is shown, of a ‘living area’
surrounded by water.

67
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

In the map of ibn al-Wardī (d. 750 A.H./1349 A.C.) (below) the city of Makkah
Mukarramah is shown as being at the centre of the living-surface. As for the concept
of man residing on all sides of a globe, the possibility of Makkah being at the centre
does not arise at all, since in a globe every area, in comparison to the surrounding
areas, could be deemed as centre.

Many other scholars of the past can be found placing Makkah Mukarramah at the
centre of their map. Had the concept existed in their minds of the living-area of earth
being spread out across a globe, in which no area could be termed as ‘the centre’,

68
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

these scholars would not have bothered showing Makkah as the dead centre of the
earth.

5. A Model, Which Allows for the Existence of a Barrier, That

Prevents Both Man and Jinn from Traversing the Earth at its
Corners and from Traversing the Skies

Addressing man and Jinn, Almighty Allāh declares:

‫ﱡﭐ ﲑ ﲒ ﲓ ﲔ ﲕ ﲖ ﲗ ﲘ ﲙ ﲚ ﲛ ﲜﲝ ﲞ ﲟ‬
]33 :‫ﲠ ﲡ ﲢ ﱠ [الرمحن‬

“O man and Jinn, if you find the strength to traverse the skies and the
earth40, then do so. You shall not be able to traverse except with divine
aid.”41

If the above verse is taken in the general sense that neither at present nor on the Day
of Qiyāmah shall man and Jinn be able to pass the sides of the skies and the earth,
then in this verse one finds indication of a barrier preventing man and Jinn from
flying out of the earth’s enclosure. Thus, the furthest that man can reach is the
highest levels of the »‫( «أفالك‬the space between earth and the barrier, after which
begins the heavens).

In fact, one can also find indication that man resides within an enclosure and not on
the outer surface of a globe, as modern-science claims. Had man already been on the
outside surface, it would not be said one cannot pass it sides, since on the outside
surface of a globe man is not surrounded by any side. Rather, he is already on the
outside. The most that would be said to such a person is that he will not be able to
pass the edges of the sky.

Since the verse mentions both the sides of the earth and the sky as a barrier which
man and Jinn cannot pass, one feels inclined to the view of man and Jinn being

)‫ (الطربي‬.»»‫ «من أطرافها‬:‫ قال‬،‫ ﱡﲔﲕ ﲖﲗﲘﲙﲚﲛﱠ‬:‫ «عن سفيان‬39

‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
ٍ ‫ «إّل بسلط‬:‫ ﴿ ﲝﲞ ﲟ ﲠ ﲡ ﲢ﴾ قال‬:‫ عن قتادة‬،‫ عن معمر‬،‫ حدثنا ابن ثور‬:‫ قال‬،‫«حدثنا ابن عبد األلع‬
،‫ان من اهلل‬ 40

)‫ (الطربي‬.»»‫إّل بملك ٍة منه‬

69
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

enclosed, with the earth below him and the sky above him and some barrier on the
sides of the earth linking up to the sky.

6. A Model, that Keeps Some Stars at a Specific Point, Which

Travellers Utilize to Keep Track of their Direction

In the Qur’ān, stars have been described as objects, through which travellers can find
their path. Almighty Allāh states:

]16 :‫ﱡﱏ ﱐ ﱑ ﱒ ﱠ [انلحل‬

“And with the star they find their way.”

Had the earth been turning in its orbit, the position of these stars to the earth would
always be different, and man would not have been able to use it as a guide.

7. A Model, Which Has Various Levels and Stations, Between the

Land and the Barrier that Prevents Man Reaching the Heavens

Almighty Allāh states:

]16 :‫ﱡﭐ ﱁ ﱂ ﱃ ﱄ ﱅ ﱆ ﱇ ﱈ ﱠ [احلجر‬

“Without doubt We had placed in the sky stations and We had made it
beautiful for those looking.” (Towards it)

Explaining the word ﴾‫ ﴿ ﱅ‬ʿAllāmah Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī has written:

‫ه‬ ً ‫ ن‬:‫ قيل‬،‫«ﭐﱡﭐ ﱁﱂ ﱃﱄ ﱅ ﱠ‬

،‫ املنازل اليت ينل فيها الشمس‬:‫ ويتمل الربوج‬،‫وما‬
)‫ (تفسي املاتريدي‬.»‫ وانلُّجوم‬،‫والقمر‬

“Some have said that it refers to stars. It is also possible that it refers
to the stations through which the sun, moon and the stars pass.”

ʿAllāmah Harawī has written in his Tafsīr, Hadā’iq ar-Rūḥ:

‫السماوات‬ ‫ ينَلا السيهارات ه‬،‫ ومنازل‬،‫ وطرقًا‬،‫ وبيوتًا‬،‫صورا‬

‫السبع يف ه‬ ً ‫ ق‬:‫«﴿ﱃ ﱄ ﱅ﴾؛ أي‬
‫ه‬
‫ وه الربوج اّلثنا‬،‫ وانلُّجوم السيهارة ومواضع سيها‬،‫ منازل الشمس والقمر‬:‫ واملراد بها هنا‬،‫السبع‬
‫ه‬
‫ ه‬،‫ واجلوزاء‬،‫ واثلهور‬،‫ احلمل‬:‫ وأسماؤها‬،‫ املختلفة اَليئات واخلواص‬،‫عش املشهورة‬
،‫ واألسد‬،‫والّسطان‬
‫ ه‬،‫ واجل ِدي‬،‫ والقوس‬،‫ والعقرب‬،‫ واملزيان‬،‫والسنبلة‬
.»‫ واحلوت‬،‫وادللو‬ ُّ

70
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

“Burūj refers to palaces, homes, pathways and stations, through which

the seven planets pass through, in the seven skies. The intended
meaning in this verse is the stations of the sun, the moon and the
moving stars/planets. The stations are commonly known as the 12
stations. They are: Aries; Taurus; Gemini; Cancer; Leo; Virgo; Libra;
Scorpion; Sagittarius; Capricorn; Aquarius; and Pisces.”

‫ ه‬،‫الرابعة‬ ‫ه‬
‫والشمس يف ه‬ ِ ،‫السادسة‬ ‫ واملشرتي يف ه‬،‫السابعة‬
‫السماء ه‬
‫«فزحل يف ه‬
‫والزهرة‬ ،‫واملريخ يف اخلامسة‬
ُّ ُّ ‫ يف سماء‬:‫ والقمر يف األول؛ أي‬،‫ وعطارد يف اثلهانية‬،‫يف اثلهاثلة‬
‫ والعرب تعد املعرفة بمواقع‬،‫ادلنيا‬
.»‫الطرقات واألوقات واخلصب واجلدب‬ ُّ ‫ ويستدل ُّون بها لع‬،‫انلجوم يف منازَلا من أج ِل العلوم‬

)‫(حدائق الروح‬

“Zuḥal (Saturn) is in the seventh sky. Mushtarī (Jupiter) is in the sixth.

Mirrīkh (Mars) is in the fifth. The sun is in the fourth. Zahrah (Venus) is
in the third. ʿAṭārid (Mercury) is in the second and the moon is in the
first sky.

The Arabs regard the knowledge of the settling of these stars/planets

at their stations as a most important branch of knowledge. Through it,
they calculate time, seasons and find their routes.”

The position of the planets in the different skies has not been mentioned in any
Ḥadīth. Rather, this was how some scholars and philosophers of the past understood
its positions.

Note: When they speak of the different levels of the skies, they do not refer to the
‘seven heavens’, but rather to the layers of the atmosphere that exists between the
earth and the barrier which prevents man exiting the atmosphere. In Arabic, the
word »‫ «فلك‬is generally used to refer to this.

In the explanation of the verse ‫ ﱡﲸ ﲹ ﲺ ﲻ ﲼ ﱠ‬Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās

has mentioned:

‫ه‬
‫الشمس والقمر يف أبواب ه‬
‫ (تغليق اتلعليق ّلبن‬.»‫السماء كما تدور الفلكة يف المغزل‬ ‫ تدور‬:‫«قال‬
)‫حجر العسقالن‬

“The sun and the moon rotate in the doors of the sky, as a whorl (small
wheel/pulley) rotates in a spindle.”

71
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

The above explanation of ibn ʿAbbās, whilst explaining the word ﴾‫ ﴿ﲹ ﲺ‬shows
clearly that the word »‫‘ «سماء‬sky’ would many a time be used in the meaning of »‫«فلك‬
‘atmosphere’.

Imām al-Awzāʿī quotes Ḥassān ibn ʿAṭiyyah (a leading scholar of the Tābiʿīn) 42 as
saying:

‫ه‬
‫الشمس والقمر وانلُّجوم يف فلك بني ه‬
)‫ (العظمة أليب الشيخ األصبهان‬.»‫السماء واألرض تدور‬ ٍ «

“The sun and the moon rotate in the atmosphere between the earth
and the sky.”

Note: Since the moon exists between the earth and the barrier, after which the sky
(i.e., the heavens) begins, it shall indeed be possible for man to reach it. However,
there is much to indicate that as yet they have not reached the moon and had merely
faked a landing for purposes known best to them.43

‫ُّ ه‬
ِ ‫ أيب أمامة ابلاه‬:‫حدث عن‬ ِ ،‫ِب موّلهم‬ ‫ ه‬،‫ اإلمام‬،‫ِب موّلهم‬
ُّ ‫ أبو بكر المحار‬،‫احلجة‬ ُّ ‫حسان بن عطيهة أبو بكر المحار‬
‫ « ه‬41
،‫ّل‬ ،‫ادلمشِق‬
‫عيد‬
ٍ ‫ وأبو م‬،‫اع‬ُّ ‫ األوز‬:‫ ح هدث عنه‬،‫ وطائفة‬،‫ وُم همد بن أيب اعئشة‬،‫ان‬ ‫ وأيب األشعث ه‬،‫ويل‬
ِ ‫الصنع‬ ‫ وأيب كبشة ه‬،‫وسعيد بن المسيِب‬
ِ ‫السل‬
‫ وأبو ه‬،‫حفص بن غيالن‬
)‫ (سي أعالم انلبالء‬.»‫غسان ُممد‬

43
Was Man’s Landing on the Moon Real?

As the years pass since the last recorded landing of man on the moon in 1972, the numbers
of those who no longer believe in it ever happening continue increasing. There are many
reasons why the truthfulness of this episode has been questioned but perhaps the most
glaring proof of it most likely not having occurred is that from that time, despite the growing
calls of man’s quick return to the moon, man has not as yet gone back. Why?

Explaining the reasons behind this most lengthy delay Dave Mosher, writing for the ‘Business
Insider US’ writes:

Astronauts often say the biggest reasons why humans haven’t returned to the lunar surface
are budgetary and political hurdles — not scientific or technical challenges.
(Jul 16, 2018, 09:30 PM - Astronauts explain why nobody has visited the moon in more than
45 years — and the reasons are depressing. https://www.businessinsider.co.za/moon-
missions-why-astronauts-have-not-returned)
=

72
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

8. A Model, in Which Mountains Serve the Purpose of Pegs, i.e. To

Hold the Earth in Place

 Almighty Allāh says:

]15 :‫ﱡﭐ ﱁ ﱂ ﱃ ﱄ ﱅ ﱆ ﱇ ﱠ [انلحل‬

“And He has placed in the earth anchors (i.e., mountains) so that the
earth does not push you off.”

Explaining this verse, Qatādah  has mentioned:

‫ ما هذه بم ه‬:‫ فقالت املالئكة‬،‫ ملا خلقت األرض اكدت تميد‬:‫ عن قتادة أنهه قال‬،‫«وروى معمر‬
‫قرة‬
ً ‫لع ظهرها‬
‫ (بر العلوم‬.»‫ فأصبحوا وقد خلقت اجلبال فلم تدر املالئكة م هم خلقت اجلبال‬،‫أحدا‬
)‫أليب الليث السمرقندي‬

“When the earth was created, it seemed as if it was going to shake. The
angels said, ‘This shall never allow anyone upon its back!’ The next
morning, they found mountains created. They had no idea of the
material from which the mountains were created.”

 Qutbī has explained the meaning of ‫‘ ﱡﱅ ﱆ ﱇ ﱠ‬so that the earth does not
push you off’, by saying:

Had it been too expensive to send anyone to the moon, even after a period of 45 years passing
since the last recorded landing, one doubts that America would have easily managed to send
12 people to the moon, in 6 operations, between July 1969 and December 1972. It does seem
weird that a country (i.e., America) could afford 6 man-operated flights to the moon in a
period of 3 and a half years, yet no other country could ever afford doing the same even once,
nor has America been able to save enough to make one further trip after that.

The truth regarding the landings in the years 1969 to 1972 shall perhaps never be known but
if the possibility does exist that the entire episode was made up, as many do feel today, then
in the same light one could say that a similar possibility exists with regards to much of the
information and pictures that NASA and similar institutes feed the gullible public of the
world. If agencies could create an image of man landing on the moon which could fool
millions of people for so long, there should hardly be any difficulty in creating images of the
shape of earth, of satellites in space, etc.

73
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

)‫ (بر العلوم أليب الليث السمرقندي‬.»‫ احلركة وامليل‬:»‫ «امليد‬:‫«وقال القتيب‬

“The meaning of »‫ «امليد‬is movement/slight movement.”

According to this explanation, the purpose of mountains was to stop all movement of
the earth, even slight movements.

 Qatādah has also mentioned:

‫ ولوّل ذلك ما‬،‫ أثبتها باجلبال‬:‫ قال‬،﴾‫ ﴿ﱅ ﱆ ﱇ‬،‫ اجلبال‬:‫ ﴿ ﱄ﴾ قال‬:‫«عن قتادة يف قوهل‬
ً
)‫ (تفسي ابن أيب حاتم‬.»‫أق هرت عليها خلقا‬

“Had it not been for the mountains, no creation would ever have
remained upon the earth.”

 Under the explanation of this verse, ʿAllāmah Qurṭubī has written:

‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ِ ‫ه‬

‫ وأن حركتها إنما‬،‫ ومدها‬،‫ وسكونها‬،‫ القول بوقوف األرض‬:‫«والي عليه المسلمون وأهل الكتاب‬
)‫ (أحاكم القرآن‬.»‫تكون يف العادة بزلزل ٍة تصيبها‬

“And the view which the Muslims and the people of the Book (i.e., the
Christians and the Jews) hold is of the earth being stationary, with no
movement, and being spread out. The only movement that does occur
on earth is due to earthquakes, etc.”

 ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās , through a sound chain has been quoted as

saying:

‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ وما أكتب؟‬:‫ فقال‬،‫ اكتب‬:‫ فقال هل‬،‫ «إن أ هول ش ٍء خلقه اَّلل القلم‬:‫ قال‬، ‫«عن ابن عبهاس‬
‫ئن إىل أن تقوم ه‬
،‫ «وكن عرشه لع الماء‬:‫ قال‬،»‫الساعة‬ ٌ ‫ فجرى من ذلك الوم بما هو اك‬،‫ القدر‬:‫فقال‬

‫ واألرض لع ظهر‬،‫ثم خلق انلُّون فبسطت األرض عليه‬ ‫فارتفع ُبار الماء ففتقت منه ه‬
‫ ه‬،‫السماوات‬
‫ه‬
‫ )رواه‬.»»‫ فإن اجلبال تفخر لع األرض‬،‫ فأثبتت باجلبال‬،‫انلُّون فاضطرب انلُّون فمادت األرض‬
(‫ لع رشط ابلخاري ومسلم‬:‫ وقال الهيب‬،‫احلاكم يف املستدرك‬

“The first of Allāh’s creation was the pen, and it wrote what was to
become. Almighty Allāh’s throne was on water. Then water vapor rose
and from it the heavens were created. Then he created the whale, and
the earth was spread on the whale’s back. When the whale moved
slightly, it caused the earth to shake. So, it was fastened by the

74
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

mountains, for it is the mountains that have dominance over the

earth.”

It is clear from the narration of ibn ʿAbbās  that the purpose of the mountains
is not merely to prevent earthquakes from occurring, but rather to keep the earth in
one specific position, thus according to him there is no continuous rapid spinning of
the earth, as modern science claims.

9. A Model, in Which the Moon is to a Great Extent Similar in Size

to that of the Sun

Almighty Allāh, regarding the scenes of the day of Qiyamah, states:

]9 :‫ﱡﭐ ﲣ ﲤ ﲥ ﲦ ﱠ [القيامة‬

“And the sun and the moon shall be folded up.” (i.e., their light shall
be covered)

In this verse, and in many similar verses, mention of the moon is made together with
that of the sun. It’s like is that of Zakāh, which is always mentioned together with the
command of Ṣalāh. Had the size difference between the sun and the moon been that
which modern-science claims, i.e., roughly 400 times larger44, these two creations of
Almighty Allāh would not have always been mentioned together.

For example, big ants’ range in size from 2.5 cm – 5 cm, whilst a man’s general height
is about 170 cm, which is only 68 times bigger than the 2.5 cm ant, yet when the two
stand side by side, the ant is never noticed. So, when the difference between two
objects is 400 times, where then shall the smaller ever be given any notice.

10. A Model, in Which the Moon too is a Source of Light, as well as

a reflector of the Light of the Sun

There is much in the texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah to indicate that just as the
sun is a source of light, so too is it with the moon, i.e., it holds its own light Some of
those indications are as follows:

Modern science claims that the sun measures 1.4 million km across, while the moon is a
44

mere 3.474 km across.

75
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

 With regards to the day of Qiyāmah, Almighty Allāh states:

]9 :‫ﱡﭐ ﲣ ﲤ ﲥ ﲦ ﱠ [القيامة‬

“And the sun and the moon shall be folded up.” (i.e., their light shall
be covered)

Rasūlullāh  explained the manner of its being folded up, by saying:

‫ه‬
‫الشمس والقمر ي ه‬
45
.»‫كوران يوم القيامة يف انلهار‬ «

“The sun and the moon shall both be folded up, on the day of Qiyāmah,
and placed into the fire.”

Due to its being folded up, its light shall now be effaced, as explained by ʿAllāmah al-
ʿAynī.46 If the moon was merely reflecting the light of the sun, there would be no need
to wrap it up as well. Effacing the light of the sun alone would have been sufficient.

Explaining the reason for its being placed into fire, ʿAllāmah ibn Quṭaybah ad-
Dīnawarī (d. 276 A.H.) has written:

‫ه ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه ه‬
‫ثم ردا‬ ،‫ ولكنهما خلقا منها‬،‫ فيقال ما ذنبهما‬،‫«إن الشمس والقمر لم يعذبا بانلهار حني أدخالها‬
(‫ (تأويل متلف احلديث‬.»‫إلها‬

“The sun and the moon will not be punished in the fire, when they will
be placed therein. Thus, there is no need to ask as to what was its sin.
Rather, both were created from the fire and on the day of Qiyāmah it
will merely be returned to its origin.’

What becomes clear from this explanation of ʿAllāmah ad-Dīnawarī is that during the
first few centuries of Islām it was understood that both the sun and the moon were
objects created from the fire, and thus both should have its own light.

‫ه‬
،‫ (ابلخاري) ورواه الزبار‬.»‫ «الشمس والقمر يك هوران يوم القيامة‬:‫ قال‬ ‫ عن انلهيب‬ ‫ عن أيب هريرة‬44
.»‫ يف ابلعث عن أيب هريرة بزيادة «يف انلهار‬،‫وابليهِق‬

‫ه‬
)‫ (عمدة القاري‬.»‫ «مطويان ذاهبا الضوء‬45

76
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

 In the commentary of the verse:

[8 :‫ﱡﭐ ﲠ ﲡ ﲢ ﱠﭐ] القيامة‬

And (when) the moon shall eclipse (at the onset of Qiyāmah)

The recognized Imām of ʿAqā’id, Allāmah Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 333 A.H.), wrote:

)‫ ذهب ضوؤه ونوره» (تفسي املاتريدي‬:‫«أي‬

“i.e., when its light shall disappear”

Had he been of the view of the moon drawing its light from the sun, he would have
commented with a phrase such as ‘when the light of the sun shall no longer reach the
moon’, or something similar.

 Sayyidunā Saʿīd ibn ʿĀmir  narrated from Rasūlullāh :

‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ وألذهبت ضوء‬،‫«لو أن امرأة من نساء أهل اجلنة أرشفت إىل أهل األرض؛ مللت األرض ريح مسك‬
47 ‫ه‬
.»‫الشمس والقمر‬

“If a woman from the women of paradise had to make a slight

appearance to the inhabitants of the earth, the earth would fill with
the smell of musk and she would efface the light of the sun and the
moon.”
(i.e., in front of her radiance the light of the sun and the moon shall
not be noticed)

Take note of how mention is made of the light of both the sun and the moon.

 ʿAllāmah Ālūsī, in his Tafsīr of Sūrah Yūnus, verse 5, has discussed the issue of
the moon having its own light, in the following words:

‫ه‬
‫ ولكون الشمس ن ِية‬،‫ وما اكن بالعرض فهو نور‬،‫ فما اكن بالات فهو ضياء‬،‫ هما متباينان‬:‫«وقيل‬
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ً ِ
‫ وتعقبه العالمة اثلهان‬،‫ ولكون نور القمر مستفادا منها نسب إله انلُّور‬،‫بنفسها نسب إلها الضياء‬

‫ وإسناده حسن يف‬:‫ «قال احلافظ املنذري‬:‫ وقال‬،»‫ وذكره احلافظ ابن حجر يف «اإلحتاف‬،»‫ رواه قوام السنة يف «الرتغيب والرتهيب‬47
.»‫املتابعات‬

77
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 
‫ه‬ ‫ه‬ ُّ ‫ه‬
‫ (روح املعان‬.»‫ وليس من اللغة يف شء؛ فإنه شاع نور الشمس ونور انلهار‬،‫بأن ذلك قول احلكماء‬
)5 :‫ سورة يونس‬-

“It has been said that there is a difference between the words »‫«ضياء‬
(light, which has been mentioned as a quality of the sun) and »‫ «نور‬light,
which has been mentioned as a quality of the moon). According to this
opinion, »‫ «ضياء‬is that light, which emanates from the object itself,
whilst »‫ «نور‬is that light which is derived from something else. ʿAllāmah
Taftāzānī has however objected to this opinion, and has mentioned
that it is a mere claim of the philosophers. In the Arabic language, the
word »‫ «نور‬is used, many a time, for light, which emanates from an
object itself. Thus, we hear »‫( «نور الشمس‬light of the sun) as well as ‫«نور‬
»‫( القمر‬light of the moon).”

 Up until the renaissance, and perhaps even for years after, there existed a sort
of consensus amongst the Muslim scholars of astronomy that the sun’s orbit
is much higher than that of the moon, either in the 4th or 5th sky, whilst the
moon’s orbit is in the lowest sky, known as the sky of this world. (Note: the
‘seven skies’ in this context refer to the seven layers that exist between the
earth we live on and the firmament, after which comes the 1st heaven)

Mention of this has been made by many great scholars.

For example:

1. Tāj al-Qurrā’, Burhān ad-Dīn Kirmānī (d. 505 A.H.) wrote under the
commentary of this verse:

‫ﱡﭐ ﱛ ﱜ ﱝ ﱞ ﱟ ﱠ ﱡ ﱢ ﱣ ﱤ ﱥ ﱦ ﱧ ﱨ ﱩ ﱪ ﱫ ﱠ‬
[16 – 15 :‫]نوح‬

Have you not seen how Allāh created the seven skies in layers? And He
placed therein the moon as a light and he made the sun a lantern

‫ وأجعوا لع أن الشمس‬.‫ فحذف دلّللة األول عليه‬،‫ ﱡﱨ ﱩ ﱪ ﱫ ﱠ أي فيهن‬:‫«قوهل‬

)‫ (غرائب اتلفسي‬.»‫يف السماء الرابعة‬

78
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

As for the verse ‘and He made the sun a lantern’, (similar to the moon),
it too has been placed within the skies. The word ‘therein’ was not
repeated, since mention of it was already made before it. And the
scholars have consensus that the sun is in the 4th sky.

2. ʿAllāmah Nasafī (d. 710 A.H.) explained the above verse as follows:

‫ ألن بني السماوات مالبسة من‬،‫ يف السماوات وهو يف السماء ادلنيا‬:‫«ﵟﱤ ﱥ ﱦ ﱧﵞ أي‬
‫ كما يقال يف املدينة كذا وهو‬،‫ فجاز أن يقال فيهن كذا وإن لم يكن يف جيعهن‬،‫حيث أنها طباق‬
.»‫يف بعض نواحيها‬

The moon has been described as a light within the seven skies, whereas
its place is in the sky of this world (1st sky). The reason for this is that
due to the close connection between the skies, with each being a layer
above the other, it is allowed to describe something as being within
the whole piece, even though it is only in one part of the entire piece.
It is said, ‘such as such is in the city’, whereas it is only in one part of
the city.

He further writes:

)‫ وأجعوا لع أن الشمس يف السماء الرابعة» (مدارك اتلنيل‬،‫«وضوء الشمس أقوى من نور القمر‬

The light of the sun is stronger than that of the moon. And they (the
scholars) have agreed that the sun is in the 4th sky.

3. ʿAllāmah ibn Ajībah (d. 1224 A.H.), in his Tafsīr, al-Baḥr al-Madīd, quoted the
above text of ʿAllāmah Nasafī, from which we understand that the notion of
the sun being in the 4th sky and the moon being below it, was an accepted-fact
even during his era.

4. In the explanation of the verse:

[33 :‫ﱡﭐ ﳆ ﳇ ﳈ ﳉ ﳊ ﱠ ]إبراهيم‬

“And He (Allāh) made the sun and the moon subservient to you,
constantly in motion.”

Shaykh Muḥammad Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān Qinnaujī (d.1307 A.H) writes:

79
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

‫ وهو السماء الرابعة‬،‫« واملعىن يريان إىل يوم القيامة وّل يفرتان وّل ينقطع سيهما يف فلكهما‬
)‫ (فتح ابليان‬.»‫ وسماء ادلنيا للقمر‬،‫للشمس‬

The meaning of this is that, till the Day of Qiyāmah, the sun and the
moon will continue in its movement, not getting tired and never
ceasing to move in its orbits, which is the 4th sky for the sun and the
sky of the world (1st sky) for the moon.

Since the sky was understood by a vast group of scholars to be at a higher position
than that of the moon, it is clear that in their understanding the moon would then
not be able to reflect the light of the sun unto the earth. Rather, if the moon happens
to come in line with the sun at any point, it would in fact block its light, resulting in
a solar eclipse. That which is lower cannot reflect the light of something above it, to
those below it.

Yes, it is however possible for the moon to still act as a reflector of the light of the
sun, not towards that which lies below it, but rather towards that which lies above it.
To understand this, the following narration will prove helpful:

It has been narrated from Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās ,

through a sound chain, that the face of the moon is directed towards
the Throne of Almighty Allāh, whilst its nape (i.e., the back of its head)
is directed to the earth.”48

In the Tafsīr of ʿAbd ar-Razzāq, Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr is quoted

to have said that the face of both the sun and the moon is directed
towards the Throne of Almighty Allāh, and its nape (i.e., the back of
the head) is directed towards the earth.49

ٌ
ٌ ‫حديث ص‬
‫حيح‬ ‫ هذا‬.»‫ «وجهه إىل العرش وقفاه إىل األرض‬:‫ قال‬،]16 :‫ ﵟﱤ ﱥ ﱦ ﱧﵞ [نوح‬، ‫ عن ابن عبهاس‬46
‫ه‬
.‫ لع رشط مسلم‬،]‫ من تلخيص الهيب‬،‫ [اتلعليق‬.‫ ولم ي ِرجاه‬،‫لع رشط الشيخني‬

‫ه ه‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ه‬
‫ «إن الشمس‬:‫ أن عبد اَّلل بن عمرو بن العاص قال‬،]16 :‫ ﵟﱤ ﱥ ﱦ ﱧﵞ [نوح‬:‫ يف قوهل تعاىل‬،‫ عن قتادة‬،‫ عن معمر‬47
‫ه‬ ً ‫والقمر وجوههما قبل ه‬
‫ ﱡﱤﱥﱦﱧﱨﱩ‬:‫ وأنا أقرأ بذلك آية من كتاب اَّلل‬،‫ وأقفيتهما قبل األرض‬،‫السماوات‬

)‫ (تفسي عبد الرزاق الصنعان‬.»‫ﱪﱫ ﱠ‬

80
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

According to the above, the light of the sun and the moon is to be found only at the
back of its heads, and not on the front. Thus, on the day of Qiyāmah, when both shall
be folded up, the outer portion, i.e., the face, will merely cover the inner portion, i.e.,
the nape, and in this manner the light of both shall be effaced.

On the other hand, clear mention has been made of the light of the moon traversing
through the skies above it. For example:

In the explanation of the verse ‘And He (Allāh) made the moon a light in the skies’,
ʿIkramah has said:

‫هن كما لو اكن سبع‬ ‫ إنهه يضء نور القمر فيه هن لك ه‬:‫ قال‬،]16 :‫« ﵟﱤ ﱥ ﱦ ﱧﵞ [نوح‬

‫ (ادلر‬.»‫هن لصفائه هن‬

‫السموات لك ه‬ ‫ فكذلك نور القمر يف ه‬،‫هن‬
‫زجاجات أسفل منها شهاب أضاءت لك ه‬

)‫املنثور‬

“The light of the moon lights up the skies. Just as a flame lights up
seven glass objects above it, so too does the moon light up all the skies,
due to each being of a clear nature.”

ʿAllāmah Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUmar Biqāʿī (d. 885 A.H.) wrote in the commentary of the above
verse:

)‫ (نظم ادلرر‬.»‫ واثلان ألهل السماوات‬،‫«أحد وجهيه يضء ألهل األرض‬

One side of the moon creates light for the people of the earth, and the
other side for the inhabitants of the skies.

Keeping the above statements in mind, a possibility regarding the nature of the moon
that comes to mind, is that of a round ball, half of which is full of light, and the other
half, despite not having its own light, is a wonderful reflector of light. When the half
that contains light faces earth, we enjoy a bright, full moon. And due to the other side
reflecting the light of the sun, that shines from way above it, its reflection lights up
the skies above it. But when the dull side faces earth, since there is now no light for
it to reflect, the inhabitants of the earth find no light coming from the moon.

Also, we can draw from this a possible reason of the inhabitants of the earth
witnessing the various stages of the moon, from it being totally black to it becoming
a bright, full moon. When it is totally black, its face is towards the earth. Then, as it
daily rotates, more and more of its nape faces the earth, and thus its light daily

81
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

increases, until its full nape is directed towards the earth, thus displaying to us a
bright, full moon. As for the sun, since it does not make this sort of rotation, its nape
remains continuously focused towards the inhabitants of the earth, as it passes over
the different sections of the earth. And Almighty Allāh knows best.

Which Model Should Be Considered?

To summarise, any model which allows for the above 10 issues, or at least some of
them, shall be a much more acceptable model than the one modern-science describes.
Jewish and Christian scholars drew sketches of what they felt to be close models to
the system of the world. These drawings were based upon how they understand the
world, through the texts of the scriptures and perhaps based upon what the
astronomers of their eras taught. An example of a drawing from the scholars of the
previous scriptures is the one given below:

Looking at the picture above, one understands that the Ancient Jewish scholars
viewed the sky as a dome-like covering structure, connected at its furthest ends to
mountains, with doors in the sky that, at times, let in huge amounts of rain, as in the
case of the floods during the era of Nabi Nūḥ . As for the land »‫«األرض‬, upon
which man resides, this they understood to be of a roundish, flat nature, similar to
that of a disc, floating on the waters below it, but held into place with deep mountains.
The entire structure, comprising of the land, the waters around and below it, the
space above it, and the surrounding skies would finally form the shape of a ball.

82
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

According to this understanding of the ancient Jewish as well as the early Christian
scholars, man resides within a ball, and not on the outside of a ball.

Within this ball, in the various levels »‫ «أفالك‬that exist between the land and the sky,
movement occurs amongst most of the stars, but not all.

It cannot be said for certain that the world is as the sketch above shows. However,
this much is certain, that the above conforms much closer to the indications found in
the Qur’ān, the Sunnah and the statements of the Ṣaḥābah , compared to the
model that modern-science has presented.

Another model, quite similar to the above could be the following:

The description of the earth, attributed to Imām al-Haramain, Abdul Malik ibn Yusuf,
Juwaini, as quoted in Rūh ul Bayān50, portrays a similar type of model. He writes:

»‫«واألرض مدورة مسية خس مائة اعم كأنها نصف كرة مدورة فيكون وسطها أرفع‬

.38 :‫ روح ابليان – سورة يس‬50

83
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

The earth (land, and sea) is round, covering a distance of a 500-year

journey51. It is as though it is half of a ball, thus its centre protrudes
out the highest.

(Explanation: With regards to its horizontal shape, it is round. As with regards to its
vertical shape, it resembles a half-ball. The area at the centre of the disk is higher
than the rest. For this protrusion, it is necessary that the shape of the land not be that
of a flat disk, but rather that of a domed-shape disk. The area (land and sea) upon
which man resides and travels would, according to this, look something like this:

If such a shape is considered, and it is understood that the continents are spread out
on all sides of this domed-shape disk, it will result in a picture quite similar to half of
what modern-science describes as ‘earth’s globe’. The only difference will be that
instead of having mankind living on all sides of a globe, in this case the area of ‘land
and sea’, which man calls earth, will be only ‘half the globe’.

If this half-globe is placed at the centre of the model shown before it, with the skies
above and the mountains and waters below itself assuming a globe shape, a unique
possible picture of earth, with its surroundings will be formed. And Almighty Allah
knows best – Abū Muḥammad)

51
A journey of 500 years could be anything from 3 to 5 million km. The distance between
South America to China is about 16500km. According to this, after the inhabited lands which
man knows about, there is still a few million km’s of unexplored area, after which comes ‘the
surrounding waters’.

84
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

»‫ قبة األرض‬:‫«وللك سموا اجلزيرة اليت ه وسط األرض لكها املستوي فيها الليل وانلهار‬

“For this reason, the island, which is at the centre of the earth, where
day and night are equal, has been called the ‘dome of the earth’.”

‫ وحول هذا ابلحر‬،‫«وحول األرض ابلحر األعظم املحيط فيه ماء غليظ مننت ّل جترى فيه املراكب‬
.»‫ وسماء ادلنيا مقبية عليه‬،‫جبل قاف خلق من زمرد أخض‬

Surrounding the earth (land) is the ‘great surrounding ocean’ (al-baḥr

al-muḥīṭ), the waters of which are thick and foul-smelling, through
which ships are unable to sail. Surrounding these waters is Mount Qāf,
which has been formed from a green emerald. The skies of this world
(Dunyā) form a dome over it.

It is without doubt that there shall be questions left unanswered if a model, similar to
what has been described above, is to be considered. However, what is important to
know is that the model that modern-science proposes, that too has failed to answer
many questions, perhaps even more than the one described above. There indeed
exists a need for much more research to be conducted in this direction, before any
specific model can be determined. The research that is needed however is not what
NASA regards as research, but rather an independent research, by an independent
organization, and after studying the works of the great Muslim astronomers that
wrote on the topic, prior to the rise of the renaissance. Perhaps Almighty Allāh shall
create the means for this, and the world may then find that much of what we regard
today as ‘known and proven scientific facts’ are indeed far from what the reality is.
As Almighty Allāh says:

]53 :‫ﱡﭐﲽ ﲾ ﲿ ﳀ ﳁ ﳂ ﳃ ﳄ ﳅ ﳆ ﳇ ﱠ [فصلت‬

“And We shall show them Our signs in the skies and in their own
selves, until it shall become clear to them that this is indeed the truth.”

And if one wishes to know why the continuous research of NASA cannot be relied
upon, whereas this organization has perhaps spent the most amount of wealth and
effort in understanding the happenings of the universe, the next chapter would
hopefully help in understanding why.

85
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

It is a well-known fact that the USA has made great strides in the last century, in many
fields of exploration and has thus become accepted as the leading authority in the
field of astronomy. Based on the reports obtained from NASA, through satellites, etc,
much information regarding the universe has been acquired and upon it many a
scholar has based his ruling. In fact, the prime reason behind certain scholars
regarding texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah pertaining to the universe to be in a
metaphorical sense is that NASA-based research has revealed much regarding the
universe which contradicts the apparent/surface meanings of the Divine texts.

As time passes, the credibility of astronomical research, carried out by NASA is being
questioned more and more. The issue of pictures taken of a round earth not being
actual pictures, but rather computer-generated images, and the issue of why man has
not travelled to the moon since 1972 are amongst the reasons why the number of
people that no longer regard everything explained by NASA to be ‘the absolute truth’
are increasing by the day.

For example: Over the years many pictures have been taken of the earth from
satellites believed to be in orbit in space (beyond earth). When brought together, the
pictures seem to vary, especially with regard to colour and the position and size of
continents. Due to this, some have gathered these pictures together and asked the
following question:

86
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Whilst discussing this issue, one who seems to be an expert in the field attempted
answering the discrepancies between the various pictures taken of earth over the
years. His answer is as follows:

“This month (July 2015) NASA released a new photo of the earth from
space, taken from the DSCOVER satellite, 930,000 miles above the
earth.

Some people have claimed that this new image shows an increasingly
hazy earth, and that this is evidence of an increase in pollution, or a
secret geoengineering program (using “chemtrails”). Some more
extreme theorists have suggested that the image is fake because the
continents (particularly North America) appear to be a different size
to earlier photos.

The misconception comes from a misunderstanding about how the

photos are taken. This new 2015 image is noteworthy because it’s the
first time since 1972 that a good quality single image photograph has been
taken of the earth. The previous last image (in 1972) was taken by an
astronaut from onboard the Apollo 17 spacecraft during the last
manned mission to the moon. Although there had been similar images
taken before (such as the 1967 images taken by the ATS3 satellite), the
1972 Blue Marble image became iconic, and remains the last such
image taken by an actual person.

The differences (amongst the photos) comes down to the way the
photos were taken, and what was done to them after they were taken.
In particular, the bright blue 2002 image is not a photo at all. It’s a composite
image made of many individual photos taken by a very low orbit satellite
(Terra). The images were stitched together in three dimensions, and then
various projected images were generated by computer - in much the same
way that Google Earth creates images of the globe from multiple
satellite images. A similar image was created in 2012 with the NPP
Suomi satellite.

87
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

The 1967 image is a single photograph, but taken by a very unusual

camera. The ATS-3 satellite was essentially a kind of colour scanner in space.
It did not take photos as such, but instead “scanned” a single line across the
earth every time the satellite rotated, and then scanned another line on the
next rotation, continuing for 2400 scan lines to create a complete image of the
earth. The colour sensitivity was dependent on the photomultipliers,
and as you can see resulted in very dark contrast, with the oceans
seeming almost black.

The 1972 image was taken on a traditional film camera, and provides a
more realistic look at the earth. The contrast though is still very
dependent on the type of film used, and possibly was slightly affected
by being taken through a window.

The 2002 image, as noted already, is a composite image made of several

images taken with the digital camera on the Terra satellite. It’s
designed to look pretty. Part of this comes from the camera itself, but
the contrast and colour saturation has been deliberately adjusted to
give the oceans a deep blue look. We can actually recreate the 2015
image with Terra images from the same day using Google Earth.

So, given the vast difference between the camera systems of the 1967,
1972, 2002 and 2015 images, there’s simply no way to make any kind of
direct comparison between them. This is especially true when we don’t
know what post-processing has been done to the image.

88
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

But what of the more unusual suggestion that the images are fake,
because they show the continents being different sizes. Like many
such things, it’s all about perspective, and the way our brains work. We
look at these images of the earth, and our brain thinks of it as a flat
object. You’d think if you get close to something, then it will get bigger,
but not change shape. But this breaks down for three dimensional
objects. If you get close to a globe, then you can see less of it, so the
visible objects seem a lot bigger relative to the visible disc of the globe.
The part of the globe in the middle is also a lot closer to your eye
(relative to the edges) so seems bigger, like it’s bulging out more than
it actually is.”

(https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-
changing-earth)

Whether or not the above answer is found satisfactory is of no interest to me. All that
I wish to show is that the many pictures that we have seen of a ‘round earth’, which
we always understood to be ‘exact pictures’, are in fact ‘photo shopped’ images.
Speaking about the process for “The Blue Marble” image, NASA Data Visualizer and
Designer Robert Simmons, said:

“The hard part was creating a flat map of the earth’s surface with four
months’ of satellite data... My part was integrating the surface, clouds,
and oceans to match people’s expectations of how earth looks from
space.”

Thus, the concept of the round shape is not based upon actual sighting. Rather,
pictures taken of strips of the earth (as mentioned above) have been fitted together

89
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

to create a round shape. If one wishes he could easily fit these strips together to create
other shapes as well, as is evident upon examining the strips as shown below.

The question thus rises against NASA as to why has this not been made clear right
from the very beginning, that till today there is no true picture of a ‘rotating-round
earth’? Would it not have been fair to have rather shown the pictures of earth, as the
satellite captures it, and then leave it to man to decide how he would like to piece it
together?

 Researchers have collected the names of NASA astronauts who

professed, either verbally or through indication, their links to
freemasonry:

1. John Glenn, two-time US senator and one of NASA’s first astronauts is

a known Mason.
2. Buzz Aldrin Jr., the second man to claim to have walked on the moon
is an admitted, ring-wearing, hand-sign flashing 33rd degree Mason
from Montclair Lodge No. 144 in New Jersey.
3. Edgar Mitchell, another supposed moon-walker aboard Apollo 14 is an
Order of Demolay Mason at Artesta Lodge No. 29 in New Mexico.
4. James Irwin of Apollo 15, the last man to claim to have walked on the
moon, was a Tejon Lodge No. 104 member in Colorado Springs.
5. Donn Eisele on Apollo 7 was a member of the Luther B. Turner Lodge
No. 732 in Ohio.
6. Gordon Cooper aboard Mercury 9 and Gemini 5 was a Master Mason in
Carbondale Lodge No. 82 in Colorado.
7. Virgil Grissom on Apollo 1 and 15, Mercury 5 and Gemini 3 was a
Master Mason from Mitchell Lodge No. 228 in Indiana.
8. Walter Schirra Jr. on Apollo 7, Sigma 7, Gemini 6 and Mercury 8 was a
33rd degree Mason at Canaveral Lodge No. 339 in Florida.
9. Thomas Stafford on Apollo 10 and 18, Gemini 7 and 9 is a Mason at
Western Star Lodge No. 138 in Oklahoma.
10. Paul Weitz on Skylab 2 and Challenger is from Lawrence Lodge No. 708
in Pennsylvania.

(Note: NASA astronauts, Neil Armstrong, Allen Sheppard, William Pogue, Vance
Brand, and Anthony England all had fathers who were freemasons too!)

90
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

The number of astronauts known to be Freemasons or from Freemasonic families is

astonishing. It is likely that more astronauts and people of key importance in NASA
are affiliated with the brotherhood as well, but not so open about their membership.
For there to be this many Masons involved with NASA’s promotion and propagation
of its heliocentric theory, from its outset till today, this should surely raise some
serious suspicion!

Thus, it would only be fair that the so-called ‘accepted and researched facts’ of NASA
be subjected to a re-investigation, by an independent, reliable organization. As
Almighty Allāh says:

]6 :‫ﱡﭐ ﱏ ﱐ ﱑ ﱒ ﱓ ﱔ ﱕ ﱖ ﱠ [احلجرات‬

“O people of Īmān, if a transgressor brings you news, first verify its

authenticity.”

Similarly, as long as permission to explore is not given to independent researchers,

findings based upon what a selected group of individuals have divulged can never be
fully trusted. For example, the nature of the land and waters that lie beyond the
North-Pole will never be truly understood until and unless independent researchers
are allowed to explore it, which has still today not been given. Rather, special military
have been stationed to ensure that such expeditions do not ever take place.

Until then, the advice rendered by Shaykh Ṭanṭāwī, in his Tafsīr al-Jawāhir, as to why
the view of modern-science, with regards to shooting-stars, should not be considered,
is the line of action that I find myself most inclined to, i.e. to hold unto the apparent
meaning of the texts, and not resort to interpretation , merely on the basis of modern-
scientific ‘research’ not agreeing with it, until and unless clear-cut proof is provided
for their view, such proof which gets subjected to an independent investigation from
reliable sources.

The wording of Shaykh Ṭanṭāwī, as quoted by Muftī Muḥammad Shafīʿ Ṣāḥib in

Maʿārif al-Qur’ān (under verse 10 of Sūrah aṣ-Ṣāffāt), is as follows:

“Our forefathers, and the philosophers of the past would feel greatly
perturbed whenever they would find verses of the Qur’ān apparently
contradicting the astronomical research of their era. The scholars of
Tafsīr however were not prepared to leave the apparent meaning of
the texts, due to these philosophical views. Rather, they disregarded
what the scientists of their eras said, and they held onto the apparent

91
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

texts of the Qur’ān. As time passed, it became apparent to all that the
views of the philosophers were totally incorrect.

Thus, if we today choose to accept that shooting-stars are utilized to

hit, injure and burn the evil Jinn (despite modern-science not
agreeing), why should that be a problem? We shall indeed accept what
the Qur’ān has stated and wait for what the future holds, (i.e., we shall
patiently await the time when modern science itself accepts what the
Qur’ān has stated).”

And it should in no way be regarded as an impossibility for modern-science to one

day back-track from all its current views and opinions, since very few of it are truly
based upon solid substance. As discussed throughout this book, it is only on account
of the propaganda machines of the modern-world, that the vast majority today
regard the theories of science as undisputable facts. Had it not been for propaganda,
and had the minds of people been allowed to investigate for themselves, the matter
would have indeed been different. Despite this, there are still many who refuse to
blindly accept the claims of modern-science, and with the passing of each day, their
voices are becoming louder and louder.

An article, regarding the possibility of the earth having a geocentric nature, has been
produced below, which adequately illustrates how questioning minds have begun
criticising ‘modern scientific’ theories. It is not necessary that every point in the
article be valid. It serves merely as an eye-opener to the fact that there is much that
still needs to be investigated with regards to scientific ‘breakthroughs’, and very little
in this field has been conclusively proven. The article, with slight addition, is as
follows:

Food for Thought:

Throughout ancient times it was obvious that the moon went around the earth. This
is still accepted today. But in the past, it was also just as accepted that the sun went
around the earth. This was not because the men of the past lacked fantasy and forgot
to imagine non-existent movements of themselves and their surroundings. Rather,
as it has now become apparent, many of them did make their homework and did
examine all the evidence before them.

Contrary to today’s assumptions, the geostatic and geocentric nature of the earth was
repeatedly tested and verified as being factual. This has been done for a long time

92
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

(going back thousands of years) by knowledgeable, civilized, free people of all stripes.
They were not crackpots, but rather, astronomers, natural philosophers (scientists),
explorers, teachers, traders, seamen, navigators and various other men of science,
maths and other fields of education. Indeed, they were highly educated, not just
simply schooled like the current institutionalized, homogenized, wage enslaved
experts of theoretical-science academia, who wouldn’t dare bite the hand that feeds
them.

Then, all of a sudden, around 400 plus years ago during the age of renaissance, a band
of court astrologers began pushing this idea that the earth orbits the sun, and that the
sun stands still at the centre of the celestial realm (hence the claim of the system
being a solar system). Nevertheless this (relatively) new claim was not accompanied by
any new proof. It was simply invoked and declarations were made that the fixed nature
of earth needed to be questioned and subsequently discarded. Then, as new questions
arose as a result of this new unsubstantiated claim, various kinds of movements by
earth were suddenly invoked to have existence and, subsequently abstract
calculations were made of the alleged speed and other attributes of these imaginary
movements...presenting the results as if they have measured actual motions. The major and
in fact the only reason that was brought up in order to justify advancing this whole
idea was that the then somewhat mainstream Ptolemaic model of the universe was
deemed outdated and inconvenient in sufficiently predicting the movements of the
planets as they appear in the sky (especially one particular kind of movement: the
retrograde motion of the planets in the sky).

But all along it was (and still is) a fact that a stationary earth, situated at the centre of
the universe also accounts for those retrograde motions, as shown by astronomer
Tycho Brahe and others. And, although Ptolemy’s epicyclical system was one of the
more established ones, it did not have exclusive monopoly. There were many ideas
and many models in circulation - like those of Pythagoras, Philolaus, Jean Buridan,
Martianus Capella, Nicholas of Cusa and René Descartes to name a few. After all, even
Copernicus’ own system was by his own admission (read the unrevised original, i.e.,
first edition of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) nothing more than a synoptic rehash
of the already existing and diverse (part geocentric, part heliocentric, fire centric,
animal centric...) ideas that the German astronomer-priest knew about, specifically
ideas of men like Hicetas, Ecphantus, Heraclides and Aristarchus.

So then, all those years - and right up to now - nobody has ever succeeded in showing
or even detecting any movement of the earth in space. However, this complete lack
of scientific evidence is not admitted. Instead a smokescreen of hearsays, popular

93
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

opinions, organizational rulings, majority votes, superficial analogies, “expert”

testimonies, personal convictions and such other means of persuasion (none of which
qualify as scientific proof) are proposed and presented in order to support the
heliocentric theory that the sun is at the centre of the universe.

Heliocentricity is not a logically plausible (let alone irrefutable) theory that is based
on scientific data but it’s actually, purely based on a series of assumptions that were
built-up over the last 200 years. For example, many (but not all) of the assertions
regarding astronomical distances between celestial bodies are invented and put into
calculations on the assumption that the earth must be revolving around the sun. But
then at the same time, these assumed distances have another function whereby they
are deployed to indicate that the sun must be at the centre, because of that distance!

Here is one example of how it’s done: we are told that sun is too big to revolve around
the earth. But wait a minute, isn’t the sun’s size determined in the first place by
assuming how big it must have to be in order to allow a heliocentric premise? Yes, it
is! Go figure that. Other needed assumptions include:

1) The bend-over earth assumption (the alleged ‘tilt’ of the earth’s axis, a
desperately needed heliocentric variable that has no basis in the physical
world where the sun simply spirals from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of
Capricorn annually. Both of these tropic latitude lines are not tilted - they are
at a 0° angle (= parallel) to the equator. The word “tropic” itself comes from
the Greek term tropos, meaning turn, referring to the fact that the sun “turns
back” at these lines that aren’t tilted in any way,

2) The earth supposedly tittering around the sun at various speed levels (it
orbits at a faster speed at one time, and then it goes relatively slower at
another - then back faster again) but somehow, all this alleged speed-change
remains unnoticeable)

3) The moon also being dragged along exactly at those same speed levels
(100% complete synchronization with the wobbly earth despite being
hundreds of thousands of miles away from it(!) Now how about that?

4) Even atmospheric gas (the air) being attached to the earth’s surface (again
completely synchronized but somehow (simultaneously) free-flowing enough
to blow in every direction). These are just samples of the never shown, never

94
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

detected, never scientifically observed absurdities that are required to save

the appearances of the heliocentric model.

Facts Are Facts

Heliocentrists have been known to point to certain geophysical and astronomical

features as arguments which they claim supports their sun-centred view. For
example, they claim that the Cape Canaveral area in Florida is chosen as a site for
NASA’s rocket launch centre because it is one of the more southern points on the U.S.
mainland and therefore closest to the equator. The same argument comes up
regarding the reason why Europe’s rocket launch centre is located in French Guyana
(in South America). There is supposed to be an advantage to being close to the equator
when the goal is to get a vehicle into orbit: the “rotating” earth supposedly creates a
centrifugal force that supposedly “lifts” the missiles. Well, the truth is that there is
no real advantage: China’s Jiuquan space centre is found all the way up in the far
north of the country. Why did the Chinese choose this site, when they have vast
territory much further south which is closer to the equator? In fact, portions of
southern China are closer to the equator than to their northern Chinese space station,
from where they toss their taikonauts into orbit. The Russians are also reported to be
developing a new space launch facility, which will be located in a location further
away from the equator than their current Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
There’s applied science providing practical proof that, contrary to helio-story-tellers
assumption, a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth’s equator doesn’t really
provide any extra advantageous escape-velocity!

Getting closer to the supposed existence of an “equatorial centrifugal force” on the

surface of the “rotating” earth (and other bogus heliocentric claims) is like getting
closer and closer to an apparent pool of water in the desert: it dissolves and
disappears right before your eyes in a spectacular fashion!

Another bogus argument that some solar system advocates bring up from time to
time is inertia and momentum. What is it that the moving-earth theorists believe is
the substance (or the vector field) that supposedly exerts a huge gravitational force
on air molecules which prevents the atmosphere around the earth from trailing
behind the allegedly speeding earth (as is the case for comets)? Their answer:
Nothing. Instead, heliocentrists usually propose a fraudulent analogy of how the
earth’s motion is comparable with some person walking inside a moving train. They
claim that since the walking individual inside the train feels more or less the same as

95
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

he or she feels when walking on the ground, that somehow is supposed to reassure us
that the earth could also be moving without us feeling it.

The problem with this analogy is of course the fact that once the person inside the
train opens a window and faces the elements, he or she will feel it soon enough what
the real speed is that the train is traveling at! Therefore, the only correct analogy for
someone walking on the ground of earth is someone walking in an open train or
better yet - on the roof of a moving train. What will happen then? Well, the person
will encounter a force that’s proportional and in opposite direction to the moving
train. But why?

Isn’t the surrounding air supposed to be following the train, just as we are told the
atmosphere is allegedly doing so by keeping-up with the supposedly faster-than-
bullet rotating earth? Looks like heliocentrists have decided to suspend the laws of
physics (aerodynamics) just for this case of a badly needed moving earth theory! But
still somehow, this indispensable law of motion is supposed to apply in all other cases
of moving things in the universe?! This contradiction is quietly adopted in order to
hide the fact that there always is a force that is causing an air drag or friction
whenever something moves in the presence of air around it. But a friction with the
supposedly moving earth’s surface isn’t there because, unlike the train, the earth
doesn’t move!

Getting to the Bottom of it

The star whose location is closest to the point vertically above north pole (celestial
pole) is Polaris, a.k.a. the North Star, around which all the other stars appear to rotate
(as visible during the night). Now, why is it that only one single star is a pole star
throughout the whole year? All kinds of other stars should have taken turn to become
pole stars if the earth was slinging around the sun. But since that is not the case and
Polaris remains the most northerly of the stars all year round, it can only mean that
the earth is not orbiting the sun. Moreover, a moving and orbiting earth would have
caused the paths of stars to appear as (spiral) lines instead of fully circular tracks that
we observe night after night, and consequently the shapes of the constellations would
have changed considerably over the course of a single year.

Truth has a way of being indestructible. It may or may not be popular at any given
time, it may even be barely noticeable, but it is always there. And it turns out that the
truth actually gets in the way of “science”! Modern theoretical physics is not really
science-driven but agenda-driven. It is populated with heavily politicized academia.

96
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

It has become nothing much more than a sham propaganda-exercise of empty

eloquence with false authority. The inventor of the electric world we live in, Nikola
Tesla was spot-on when he remarked that modern non-applied science has become
nothing more than manipulative indulgence in fancy “thought experiments” and
abstract, fuzzy math which have no relation to reality. Instead of the theories being
made to fit reality, what we have is the opposite: reality being adjusted or in fact
completely overthrown, in order to fit agenda-driven theories and models.

Despite the many superficial assumptions that the media would promote, the
geostatic and geocentric view never died out. For example, right up until after World
War I (1920) there were organizations out there which openly refused to accept the
Copernican/Galilean perspective. In other words, it took a civilization-devastating
world war in order to finally push geocentric cosmology out of mainstream view in
the developed world. But that was only a prelude to the resurgence of it during the
post-war period by many distinguished professionals: Walter van de Kamp (The Heart
of the Matter), Gerardus D. Bouw (With Every Wind of Doctrine & De Labore Solis),
Marshall and Sandra Hall, Malcolm Bowden, James Hanson (A New Interest in
geocentricity), Paul Ellwanger, Richard G. Elmendorf (heliocentric Humbug! A critical
investigation of the Foucault Pendulum), Edward F. Hills (Space Age Science), Robert
Bennett, Robert Sungenis... and so on. Paula Haigh provided a beautiful description
on the recent history of the systems of the cosmos. (Her article has been included in
the footnote52)

52
“To begin with, there are presently at least five good sources for obtaining the truth on this
important matter of geocentricity. The first of these is included in the extensive scientific
work of the French scholar, Fernand Crombette (d. 1970). His works have not yet been
translated but some of them have been expounded in English, and all may be obtained from
the Cercle Scientifique et Historique [CESHE]. ‘The Bible does not make mistakes’ was the
watchword of this gifted Catholic scientist. Secondly, there is the first-rate paper by Solange
Hertz entitled Recanting. Mrs. Hertz’s work always possesses a spiritual dimension not to be
found anywhere else. It is her unique gift. Thirdly, there is the work of the Dutch [-Canadian]
Protestant scholar, Walter van der Kamp (d. 1998), founder of the Tychonian Society (Canada)
and its quarterly journal, The Biblical Astronomer, formerly known as The Bulletin of the
Tychonian Society. Mr. Van der Kamp has published a book entitled De Labore Solis: Airy’s Failure
Reconsidered [1988] ... Fourthly, a disciple of Mr. Van Der Kamp, Dr. Gerardus Bouw,
professional astronomer, computer scientist and current editor of The Biblical Astronomer, has
=

97
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

authored a book entitled With Every Wind of Doctrine: Biblical, Historical, and Scientific Perspectives
of Geocentricity

Lastly, there has recently appeared The Earth is Not Moving by Marshall Hall. His is a quint
essentially popular treatment of this difficult subject, and he must be given much credit for
bringing the arena of modern mathematical physics down to the level of us scientifically
illiterate mortals. Whatever may be the shortcomings of Hall’s book, it is impossible not to
enjoy his literary panache. Needless to say, none of these works is known beyond a very
limited circle of interested people because, contrary to the generally-held media-imposed
assessment of things, there is very little real science these days.

Instead, we labour beneath a scientific imperialism which, having usurped the place of
theology and of metaphysics in the true hierarchy of sciences, puts upon unwitting school
children and witless TV addicts, its own preferred heliocentric-evolutionary ideology into
which it bends every empirical fact. This monstrous establishment of academic sophistry lords
it over every aspect of intellectual life today and has succeeded in convincing almost
everyone that this science falsely so called is the sole possessor and distributor of all truth
and rationality. But the truth is irrepressible and will break forth from under the dead weight
of error willy-nilly, sometimes here, sometimes there, as in a footnote in Bernard Cohen’s The
Birth of a New Physics. Artfully hidden among some details of Galileo’s life, we find this gem of
an admission: ‘There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is
moving in an orbit around the sun’. Sir Fred Hoyle is quoted by Walter van der Kamp in his book
as admitting that the ‘geocentric model of the universe is no worse and no better than the heliocentric
one’. The works listed above cite many other similar admissions of like-nature by scientists of
our time.”

The following excerpt is by Jewish columnist Amnon Goldberg:

“Bertrand Russell admitted that ‘whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as
Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors
held, the observed phenomena will be the same; a metaphysical assumption has to be made’.
Yet today everybody ‘just knows’ that the earth goes around the sun (heliocentrism). ‘We
cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment ever proved that the earth is
actually in motion’, admit Einstein’s leading disciples.

Invoked ‘proofs’ such as the phenomenon of the earth’s oblateness (slight flattening at the
poles), the Doppler Effect(the apparent change in frequency of light as it moves towards or
away from the observer), the Sagnac Effect, stellar aberration and [stellar] parallax, nutation,
Herschel’s star streaming, the Coriolis forces (the cause of water tending to drain clockwise in
the northern hemisphere, anticlockwise in the southern), and Fouccault’s Pendulum (which
=

98
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

can be seen in the entrance of the Science Museum, S. Kensington), are more easily and
comprehensively explained by the entire universe rotating about the earth every 24 hours.
No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous
precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the
motion of the earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the
earth of exactly ZERO mph.

Hundreds of experiments have failed to detect even a smidgen of the purported 67,000 mph
translational and 1000 mph rotational velocity of the earth. Not only can it not be disproved
that “the earth stands forever” (Ecc. 1:4) and has no velocity; it cannot be disproved that the
earth is the centre of the universe. And the toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in
the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre’s induction, Fizeau, Fresnell’s drag,
Hoek, Jaseja’s lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley’s interferometer, Lord
Rayleigh’s polarimetry, Troughton-Noble’s torque, and the famous ‘Airy’s Failure’
experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the
earth, whatsoever.”

Long ago Alexander von Humboldt admitted:

“I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system
of Copernicus. . . but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it.”

“In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma,
its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the
unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth. When confronted
with demands for substantiation of their claims, heliocentricity’s adepts are not above taking
refuge in ad hominem arguments, relegating the geocentrist to the fundamentalist snake-
handling contingent, the lunatic fringe or gratuitous membership in the Flat Earth Society.
The fact remains that the well-known Michelson-Morley experiment, mounted in 1887 to prove
the theory, backfired and actually seemed to support geocentricity, or at least an earthly
inertia which cannot be overcome.

No significant progress has been made in that direction since. Heliocentricity not only
remains unproven, but the Newtonian physics which were its main support are being openly
questioned, if not discredited, ever since Maurice Allais and others have shown
experimentally that Newton’s theory of gravity can no longer account for proven facts.
Creationist scientists worldwide like those organized by CESHE 1 in Belgium and France, are
making serious headway against the old myths, which even atheists are beginning to
abandon.”

99
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

Einstein’s theories do not disprove geocentrism. At the end of a letter in the Bulletin of the
Tychonian Society, No. 54, Charles Long, Ph.D. of Minnesota, cogently explains the lack of
definitives: ‘Einstein is the fellow who went on to compose the General Theory of Relativity.
The basis of this theory is that all motion is relative! Einstein wrote his equations describing
how the Universe works. If the earth spins and the stars are at rest – the equations explain all
observations. But if the earth is at rest and stars whirl – the equations still explains all observations.
They must, for the theory begins with the assumption that all motion is relative. You can’t
say positively that anything is at rest. Take your choice – the equations of General Relativity
come out the same. Einstein put Mach’s (Principle) into mathematical form and what
emerged is surely one of the ultimate creations of the human mind. Like Galileo, Newton the
alchemist, and many others who support godless science, Einstein proved nothing.”

Even the atheistic philosopher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), correctly asserts:

“Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus
taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his
predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same.
That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought
not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or
disproved by observation.”

“These occult-influenced scientists have trespassed into the sacred realm of metaphysics, that lofty
philosophy which seeks to methodically explain ultimate realities. And this crime, in the 16th
century, immediately set off alarms heard in the Church, especially by those scholastically
sensitive and educated. Having no competence to function in a metaphysical consideration,
science’s failure could be predicted from the start; its effort to prove geocentrism wrong
failed. But to continue - the very name ‘Einstein’ (saviour of heliocentrism) is ‘sacred’ and
synonymous with ‘genius’, thanks to the conspiratorial propaganda so thoroughly
disseminated.

And in addition to his fallacies as detailed in De Labore Solis, not to mention the common
fallacy among writers who confuse Newton’s relativity with Einstein’s, the latter’s fantasy
cannot be reconciled with the Sagnac effect. This experiment reveals that the speed of light is
not the same in every direction, while the theory of relativity relates that it is the same in every
direction. And there is the “quasar distribution problem”. In 1976, a heliocentrist of sorts, Y.
P. Varshni, analysed the spectra of three hundred and eighty-five quasars (the farthest
known stars from earth). One hundred and fifty-two of them fell into fifty-seven groupings,
all of which had the same red shift. This red-shift hypothesis is not debated among
astronomers.” To quote Varshni, who arrives at the paradoxical conclusions:

100
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

In Their Own Words

Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (d.1928), who shared the 1902 Noble Prize in physics
with Pieter Zeeman (noted that: “Briefly, everything occurs as if the earth were at rest...”

His great contemporary Henri Poincaré (d. 1912) confessed:

“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the

influence of the earth’s movement. The results were always negative

“The earth is indeed the centre of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on
certain spherical shells is only with respect to the earth. These shells would
disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the
cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies that a coordinate
system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the
Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity
must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.”

“In short, modern textbooks lie when they claim proof for heliocentrism. After four hundred years
it ‘appears’ that God is right. Have we not now ‘evolved’ full circle to the pre-16th century
world view? St. Robert Bellarmine saw no proof nor does Van der Kamp, who said: “Numerous
experiments have confirmed its (geocentrism’s) stability; none have dislodged it.”

Malcolm Bowden summarized all the body of evidence as such:

a) The Sagnac experiment [also known as “the Sagnac Interference”] proved that
there was the aether which could be used as a reference frame for movements. This
demolished Einstein’s theories of Relativity;

b) Using the aether as a frame of reference, the Michelson-Morley experiment

showed that we were NOT going around the sun;

c) Airey’s experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at
an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether;

d) The Michelson-Gale experiment [also called the “Michelson-Gale-Pearson

experiment”] showed that the aether was going around the stationary earth, 1
rotation per day. (The alternative that the earth was spinning 1 rotation per day
inside a stationary aether is disproven by Airey’s experiment. Note - to be pedantic,
Airey’s experiment involved measurements of a small angle due to the high 30 km/s
“speed of the earth around the sun”. The rotation of the earth at the equator is only
0.45 km/s and is too slow to register any angle change.)”

101
  HOW SHOULD A MUSLIM VIEW MODERN SCIENCE 

(...) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are

carried along in a uniform motion of translation...”

Arthur Eddington (d. 1944) dared to contemplate that:

“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through
space might happen to have been nil.”

Lincoln Barnett (d. 1979) agrees:

“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in

motion.”

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name, Albert A.
Michelson (d. 1931), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric
reflex:

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which

presupposes that the Earth moves.”

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (d. 2001) sums it up:

“Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the
Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense. Science today is
locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are
wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you
will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down.”
(End of Article)


And Almighty Allāh knows best and His knowledge is the most complete.

ِ ‫ واحلمد هلل‬،‫ ولع آهل وصحبه‬،‫األّم‬

ِ ‫انليب‬
ِ ‫ه‬
.‫رب العاملني‬ ‫وصّل اهلل لع‬

Completed, by the grace of Almighty Allāh, on the 18th of Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1441. (9 August
2020)



102