Where does the moon's light really come from?

[Haich]

I wasn't saying that you claimed it means reflected light. I was just responding to the general claim that's out there where people try to paint it as meaning reflected light.

I do have issue with what I think is wrong approach to tafsir (not meaning you, just meaning in general), that is true. And of course, tafsir is a huge deal.

So putting the moon issue aside, what other areas do you think Tafsir isn’t used?

 

[Lalas]

Please note that a huge number of most diverse people observe and follow with interest the development of the thread. Both devout (by virtue of their Muslimism) Muslims, and simple Christians, also a few Buddhists and Hindus, and very likely some cunning Jew will catch his eye from time to time. So just as you have the great honor, so also do you have the tremendous responsibility to ultimately show us exactly whether this damn moonlight is reflected or one's own.

We look forward to the positive development towards the ultimate truth, supported, as it should, with the most accurate quotes. Keep that in mind.
10X

 

[bubblebludrop]

Talk is cheap, Bubble. the question is- what are we doing to protect the dome?? I say all of us conspiracy people unite, work together, overthrow the elite and PROTECT THE DOME.

flat earth, though... I don't believe in that. if the earth is flat, how come there are different time zones? I don't think flat earth makes sense and I think the Muslim scholars have been unanimous that the earth is round.

I don't believe in flat earth. It seems to me, you do. I don't think everything is a conspiracy. Science has made its advancements, provided humankind with technology, anyone who denies it, is infact ignorant but I also believe evil higher-ups use it for shady purposes. You brought one theory up and without going deep, you brought another one. Thats not how we look into things and I repeat, its not your subjective opinion which matters, in order to study scientific principles, your mindset needs to be different.
Also about Ibn Kathir, his work indicates towards a geocentric model. First have a deep understanding of a particular subject before starting a thread so you don't get distracted, just a suggestion brother.

 

[bubblebludrop]

Please note that a huge number of most diverse people observe and follow with interest the development of the thread. Both devout (by virtue of their Muslimism) Muslims, and simple Christians, also a few Buddhists and Hindus, and very likely some cunning Jew will catch his eye from time to time. So just as you have the great honor, so also do you have the tremendous responsibility to ultimately show us exactly whether this damn moonlight is reflected or one's own.

We look forward to the positive development towards the ultimate truth, supported, as it should, with the most accurate quotes. Keep that in mind.
10X

What is Muslimism? Its Islam brother.

 

[Zakat]

Allah is An Nūr.

The Light of the heavens and the earths.



In other words, God Is Unimaginable, but still the Reason for any physical light, 'Abdun Nūr.

This will be the sun, the moon, and the stars, but remember that the sun itself is but a star too.

In other words, things are interchangeable should He So Will, who has Power over all things.

Lā ilā

No thing is as one thinks them to be

Illallāh

Except as He Can Make them be, therefore anything is possible.

It is very simple for God Is Absolutely Independent of any thing to Create the effect thereof.



Is not the sun itself in need of being kept in existence by Him?

So it goes for every other thing that is just as creature as the sun itself is.

So what if the moon can be a source of light without its light source having to be the sun?

He can certainly make it so.

And what if one should happen to be engulfed in total and utter pitch black darkness?

What would be the most important form of spiritual light in such a situation if not to know and be dead sure and certain that it is still Allah Exercising Perfect Authority over all things.

For the record,

God has seventy thousand veils of light and darkness; if He were to remove them, the radiant splendors of His Face would burn up whoever (or 'whatever creature') was reached by His Gaze.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ka...
Kashf - Wikipedia

 

[90sWereBetter]

I don't believe in flat earth. It seems to me, you do.

I just said I don't believe in flat earth. Do you have mind reading abilities that you are more of an authority than myself on what I believe?

I don't think everything is a conspiracy.

Okay but this is a conspiracy board.

Science has made its advancements, provided humankind with technology, anyone who denies it, is infact ignorant

"Science," "science". People can invoke science all they want, I'm not eating the bugs, I'm not taking the vax and I don't really care what scientists tell us.

You brought one theory up and without going deep, you brought another one. Thats not how we look into things

According to what part of Quran and Sunnah? Yes, I talked about more than one topic. I have to stick to the rules of Quran and Sunah but not to a rule you just made up. I can talk about more than one topic, Quran and Sunnah doesn't forbid this.

I repeat, its not your subjective opinion which matters, in order to study scientific principles, your mindset needs to be different.

Science can go take a hike. I don't believe in this modern culture of singing poems to science. "it's not your subjective opinion which matters".... look, I express my viewpoint and I'm free to. Leave the rhetorical game of declaring my viewpoint as "subjective opinion" as though yours isn't and simply disprove my claim based on evidence.

Also about Ibn Kathir, his work indicates towards a geocentric model.

I believe in geocentrism.

First have a deep understanding of a particular subject before starting a thread so you don't get distracted, just a suggestion brother.

Instead of belittling my understanding (are you implying you have a deep understanding?), just go and illustrate your superior understanding by refuting my claims with proof and evidence.

For example, you could bring a classical tafsir that says the moon light is reflected light... but you can't. Whereas I brought the interpretation of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taymiyyah, neither of whom said anything about the moon light being reflected light- which Ibn Taymiyyah actually contradicted, saying the moon has its own light. Don't play this rhetorical game of talking down to me, just bring evidence.

 

[90sWereBetter]

So putting the moon issue aside, what other areas do you think Tafsir isn’t used?

I focus on the moon issue because this specific case I'm familiar with. Anyways, there is tafsir and there is usool al tafsir. The issue here is usool al tafsir, principles of tafsir.

If we say- this verse is talking about embryology. Is that how the salaf understood the verse? Is it how the sahaaba understood it? Did Ibn Masood understand it that way? Ibn Abbas?

Or is this a brand new understanding of the verse?

This is what I'm saying- we need to follow the earlier understanding of the verse. If the salaf understood the verse to be talking about embryology, we should take it that way. If they didn't understand it that way, we shouldn't take it that way. We should understand it how they understood it.

And if we say- this verse is talking about embryology- then we are making a tafsir of the verse, irrespective of whether we print it in a book labelled "tafsir". By doing this, we're making tafsir. So therefore if we say this, we need to follow the proper rule and understand the verse how the salaf understood it and not formulate a new understanding.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Please note that a huge number of most diverse people observe and follow with interest the development of the thread. Both devout (by virtue of their Muslimism) Muslims, and simple Christians, also a few Buddhists and Hindus, and very likely some cunning Jew will catch his eye from time to time. So just as you have the great honor, so also do you have the tremendous responsibility to ultimately show us exactly whether this damn moonlight is reflected or one's own.

We look forward to the positive development towards the ultimate truth, supported, as it should, with the most accurate quotes. Keep that in mind.
10X

I am done with this thread, at least for now.

I want to summarize what I've said in this thread- The idea that we should not refute incorrect ideas is wrong. The truth is not a secondary consideration. If I say "the Quran says this" and what I say is wrong, people can and should show how what I said is incorrect- without attacking me personally.

I have simply aimed to defend the correct understanding as well as the correct approach to tafsir.

And notice how some of the posters opposing me- they take umbrage that I attack the false interpretation but whereas I simply attacked the incorrect view, they take aim at me personally. Which is an incorrect approach. We should be as brutal as we like in attacking incorrect understanding but not focus on the individual. The aim is the truth. That is the first aim, second aim, third aim. We should not compromise when it comes to the truth and defending it.

Moving forward, the false view that the Quran says the moon is a reflected light and this is a scientific miracle of the Quran has been completely debunked. I have brought Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir to the stand. Neither of them have asserted this view and Ibn Taymiyyah actively contradicted it. The Quran says the moon is a nur which means light. It doesn't mean reflected light.

We should defend the Quran (and from defending the Quran is defending the correct understanding of it) but we shouldn't use bad or false arguments such as retroactively reinterpreting it to project dubious "scientific miracles" into its text.

Whether people love me, hate me, feel however about me- it is clear that the false interpretation of the Quran has been irrefutably debunked. I am quite confident that Ibn Taymiyyah understood Arabic.

Now as to whether the moon light is reflected or its own light I believe remains up in the air. I believe it has neither been proven or disproven.

 

[Haich]

I focus on the moon issue because this specific case I'm familiar with. Anyways, there is tafsir and there is usool al tafsir. The issue here is usool al tafsir, principles of tafsir.

If we say- this verse is talking about embryology. Is that how the salaf understood the verse? Is it how the sahaaba understood it? Did Ibn Masood understand it that way? Ibn Abbas?

Or is this a brand new understanding of the verse?

This is what I'm saying- we need to follow the earlier understanding of the verse. If the salaf understood the verse to be talking about embryology, we should take it that way. If they didn't understand it that way, we shouldn't take it that way. We should understand it how they understood it.

And if we say- this verse is talking about embryology- then we are making a tafsir of the verse, irrespective of whether we print it in a book labelled "tafsir". By doing this, we're making tafsir. So therefore if we say this, we need to follow the proper rule and understand the verse how the salaf understood it and not formulate a new understanding.

Are you referring to the book written by Dr Bilaal Phillips? He has a lot of verses and examples of how people have used opinion over Tafsir to derive meaning from ayats but I don’t recall a verse about the reflective moon. You’d have to post the verse or page number of the book as I don’t have that info at hand, I came across his book years ago.

I’ve tried to answer your moon question so I’ll leave that aside. There’s nothing more that I can add to that. You seem to have an issue with Zakir Naik’s conclusions but that’s not the consensus. You won’t find any verse explicitly stating that moon is reflective or derives light from the sun. Bubbleblu’s example was clear enough from my perspective but if you’re still having issues I’d suggest seeking knowledge from those disciplined in those fields. Layman Muslim like myself are limited in what we know.

The average Muslim reads the Tafsir that is mainstream and widely accredited. Some sects may read into things differently, but there is usually more than one opinion on a verse or chapter. The majority view is taken by most Muslims. If you want to scold those who don’t take the mainstream view that’s fine but you’ll need to bring your evidence and clearly argue your case. You’re a layman like myself and I’m pretty sure you aren’t fluent in Arabic so that will hinder us both.

I’ll post the Hamza Tztortiz article again. It covers the issues of the Scientific miracle argument.

Does the Qur’an Contain Scientific Miracles? A New Approach on how to Reconcile and Discuss Science in the Qur’an

Download the PDF here. Pre-release Draft 0.9.4 ~ 21/08/13 Fixed some typographical errors and amended the "Inaccurate History" section Since the eighties there has been a growing movement of Muslim academics and apologists using science to...

www.hamzatzortzis.com

 

[90sWereBetter]

Are you referring to the book written by Dr Bilaal Phillips? He has a lot of verses and examples of how people have used opinion over Tafsir to derive meaning from ayats but I don’t recall a verse about the reflective moon. You’d have to post the verse or page number of the book as I don’t have that info at hand, I came across his book years ago.

I’ve tried to answer your moon question so I’ll leave that aside. There’s nothing more that I can add to that. You seem to have an issue with Zakir Naik’s conclusions but that’s not the consensus. You won’t find any verse explicitly stating that moon is reflective or derives light from the sun. Bubbleblu’s example was clear enough from my perspective but if you’re still having issues I’d suggest seeking knowledge from those disciplined in those fields. Layman Muslim like myself are limited in what we know.

The average Muslim reads the Tafsir that is mainstream and widely accredited. Some sects may read into things differently, but there is usually more than one opinion on a verse or chapter. The majority view is taken by most Muslims. If you want to scold those who don’t take the mainstream view that’s fine but you’ll need to bring your evidence and clearly argue your case. You’re a layman like myself and I’m pretty sure you aren’t fluent in Arabic so that will hinder us both.

I’ll post the Hamza Tztortiz article again. It covers the issues of the Scientific miracle argument.

Does the Qur’an Contain Scientific Miracles? A New Approach on how to Reconcile and Discuss Science in the Qur’an

Download the PDF here. Pre-release Draft 0.9.4 ~ 21/08/13 Fixed some typographical errors and amended the "Inaccurate History" section Since the eighties there has been a growing movement of Muslim academics and apologists using science to...

www.hamzatzortzis.com

The issue again is usool al tafsir. And I'm not attacking any person, I'm criticizing an approach to tafsir.

The claim was made that the Quran says the moon is a reflected light and this is a scientific miracle. This is false and I showed it's false.

Usool al tafsir is not a book by Bilal Phillips (although he may have a book with that title). Usool al tafsir means the fundamental principles of tafsir. Usool al fiqh is fundamental principles of fiqh.

Any idea that we can come and we can come up with new interpretations of the Quran, this is incorrect. This goes against the correct understanding of usool al tafsir. We should understand the Quran how the salaf understood it. We have no business coming up with new reinterpretations. This would be wrong. We don't need new modern interpretations of the Quran, we should understand it how the salaf understood it, this is the correct approach. If this person Tzortis... if he is advocating that we can come up with new interpretations of the Quran based on our reasoning, this is wrong.

Also, I am not bringing any weird or unusual approach to tafsir. No classical tafsir as far as I'm aware says the moon light is reflected light. And what I've talked about in terms of usool al tafsir is in line with Sheikh Fawzan, as well as simply the correct approach in general of following the understanding of the salaf

 

[Haich]

The issue again is usool al tafsir. And I'm not attacking any person, I'm criticizing an approach to tafsir.

The claim was made that the Quran says the moon is a reflected light and this is a scientific miracle. This is false and I showed it's false.

Usool al tafsir is not a book by Bilal Phillips (although he may have a book with that title). Usool al tafsir means the fundamental principles of tafsir. Usool al fiqh is fundamental principles of fiqh.

Any idea that we can come and we can come up with new interpretations of the Quran, this is incorrect. This goes against the correct understanding of usool al tafsir. We should understand the Quran how the salaf understood it. We have no business coming up with new reinterpretations. This would be wrong. We don't need new modern interpretations of the Quran, we should understand it how the salaf understood it, this is the correct approach. If this person Tzortis... if he is advocating that we can come up with new interpretations of the Quran based on our reasoning, this is wrong.

Also, I am not bringing any weird or unusual approach to tafsir. No classical tafsir as far as I'm aware says the moon light is reflected light. And what I've talked about in terms of usool al tafsir is in line with Sheikh Fawzan, as well as simply the correct approach in general of following the understanding of the salaf

Bilal Phillips has a book by that name hence why I mentioned it. It’s not illegal for learned men and academics who have graduated out of university to add to the canon of Tafsir. They follow the original scholarship anyway so the likes of Bilal Phillips wouldn’t be changing anything. He actually breaks it down in English so his book is worth a read since you’re interested in this topic.

The verse Daze posted did state that but I don’t understand why you’re so caught up on it, it’s been addressed. Now what?

There are absolutely no modern interpretations of the Quran which are accepted so what are you referring to? First you mentioned you had an issue with scientific miracles, that’s fine, I’ve given you a link to an essay explaining the issues with it and the widely accepted approach.

Hamza Tzortis is a British Greek revert academic who specialises in Philosophy and Atheism. I referenced the article as it directly explains the issues of scientific miracles and our approach to them.

The video you posted about Sheikh Fawzan again, I’ve addressed. He didn’t mention the moon but simply stated that you shouldn’t conclude your own opinions about the Quran as the Tafsir is the trusted authority. No one has contested this and you haven’t stated who or what has. The scientific miracle argument isn’t a Tafsir so you can’t use that clip you posted to justify your stance.

 

[90sWereBetter]

The scientific miracle argument isn’t a Tafsir so you can’t use that clip you posted to justify your stance.

What stance do I have exactly that you're objecting to?

I've said I don't agree with the moon reflected light thing and I said I don't agree with the scientific miracles approach to the Quran. and I elaborated saying by this I mean coming up with new interpretations of the Quran based on aligning it with modern science. What of this is not justified and why?

 

[Haich]

What stance do I have exactly that you're objecting to?

I've said I don't agree with the moon reflected light thing and I said I don't agree with the scientific miracles approach to the Quran. and I elaborated saying by this I mean coming up with new interpretations of the Quran based on aligning it with modern science. What of this is not justified and why?

I’m objecting to the idea that scientific miracles are akin to Tafsir. From what I understood from your argument, you’re saying some people use scientific miracles to justify things like the moon reflection as opposed to relying on Tafsir. I argue that Tafsir is always at the forefront and some people use the term scientific miracles to explain concepts in the Quran. I don’t see scientific miracles similar, a replacement or akin to Tafsir.

What new interpretations of the Quran based on science are you referring to? I haven’t seen any ‘new interpretations’ of the Quran.

 

[90sWereBetter]

I’m objecting to the idea that scientific miracles are akin to Tafsir. From what I understood from your argument, you’re saying some people use scientific miracles to justify things like the moon reflection as opposed to relying on Tafsir. I argue that Tafsir is always at the forefront and some people use the term scientific miracles to explain concepts in the Quran. I don’t see scientific miracles similar, a replacement or akin to Tafsir.

What new interpretations of the Quran based on science are you referring to? I haven’t seen any ‘new interpretations’ of the Quran.

I'm still not understanding exactly what view I have that you take issue with.

"I’m objecting to the idea that scientific miracles are akin to Tafsir".

Okay. If we are making an interpretation of what the Quran is saying, we are making a tafsir. If we make an interpretation of the Quran based on modern science, we are making a tafsir based on modern science. Do you object to this? You agree that tafsir is interpretation of the Quran, right? And that how we interpret the Quran has to follow the proper rules of tafsir, right? I think you would agree with these things, I'm not seeing where there is an issue.

"I haven’t seen any ‘new interpretations’ of the Quran." The example I've dealt with is the Quran saying the moon light is reflected light. I've shown what Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taymiyyah said, neither held this interpretation- or at leash Ibn Kathir didn't mention it and Ibn Taymiyyah contradicted it. This interpretation to my knowledge is not in any classical tafsir.

 

[Haich]

I'm still not understanding exactly what view I have that you take issue with.

"I’m objecting to the idea that scientific miracles are akin to Tafsir".

Okay. If we are making an interpretation of what the Quran is saying, we are making a tafsir. If we make an interpretation of the Quran based on modern science, we are making a tafsir based on modern science. Do you object to this? You agree that tafsir is interpretation of the Quran, right? And that how we interpret the Quran has to follow the proper rules of tafsir, right? I think you would agree with these things, I'm not seeing where there is an issue.

"I haven’t seen any ‘new interpretations’ of the Quran." The example I've dealt with is the Quran saying the moon light is reflected light. I've shown what Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taymiyyah said, neither held this interpretation- or at leash Ibn Kathir didn't mention it and Ibn Taymiyyah contradicted it. This interpretation to my knowledge is not in any classical tafsir.

Ok I’ll try one more time. Maybe I’m not being clear. This is how Tafsir is approached (I think Fawzaan’s video you posted mentioned this anyway)

1. An ayat or surah is explained by the Qur’an itself (for instance explaining one Ayah by referring to another Ayah).
2. An ayat or surah is explained by the means of the Sunnah.
3. An ayat or surah is explained through the statement of the Sahaba, the companions of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH).

You argued people who use scientific miracles negate the above. I disagree. If something has been found out via science and it was already mentioned in the Quran (let’s say the forming of the foetus in Al Alaq) then this is a legit scientific miracle. If it hadn’t been mentioned by the sahaba and prophet pbuh then that knowledge of the foetus formation clearly didn’t exist. I’m saying do not dismiss every instance of scientific reference in the Quran, some are indeed miraculous like this one.

The moon reflection was not discussed in detail in the Quran, nor did the sahaba or prophet as refer to it. This omission doesn’t mean that the science we have today which shows that it does reflect light shouldn’t be accepted. The Quran isn’t a science book so you do need science to explore and make sense of Allah’s creation. By accepting that the moon reflects, you aren’t dismissing or ignoring what the tafsir originally stated or didn’t state. You’re adding to your knowledge of Allah’s creation. In the case that people say ‘look here it says that the moon shines/reflects’ their basis for that is the root words in Arabic which allow for that interpretation. I don’t believe there is a clear enough word which states the moon reflects light in the Quran but I can see how people have taken that particular translation. I don’t agree nor disagree.

I don’t think ‘new interpretation of the Quran’ is a good way to describe one tiny word (nur) that is being contested. Your statement implies there’s a whole new Quran with a whole load of interpretations out there and that simply isn’t the case.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Ok I’ll try one more time. Maybe I’m not being clear. This is how Tafsir is approached (I think Fawzaan’s video you posted mentioned this anyway)

1. An ayat or surah is explained by the Qur’an itself (for instance explaining one Ayah by referring to another Ayah).
2. An ayat or surah is explained by the means of the Sunnah.
3. An ayat or surah is explained through the statement of the Sahaba, the companions of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH).

You argued people who use scientific miracles negate the above. I disagree. If something has been found out via science and it was already mentioned in the Quran (let’s say the forming of the foetus in Al Alaq) then this is a legit scientific miracle. If it hadn’t been mentioned by the sahaba and prophet pbuh then that knowledge of the foetus formation clearly didn’t exist. I’m saying do not dismiss every instance of scientific reference in the Quran, some are indeed miraculous like this one.

The moon reflection was not discussed in detail in the Quran, nor did the sahaba or prophet as refer to it. This omission doesn’t mean that the science we have today which shows that it does reflect light shouldn’t be accepted. The Quran isn’t a science book so you do need science to explore and make sense of Allah’s creation. By accepting that the moon reflects, you aren’t dismissing or ignoring what the tafsir originally stated or didn’t state. You’re adding to your knowledge of Allah’s creation. In the case that people say ‘look here it says that the moon shines/reflects’ their basis for that is the root words in Arabic which allow for that interpretation. I don’t believe there is a clear enough word which states the moon reflects light in the Quran but I can see how people have taken that particular translation. I don’t agree nor disagree.

I don’t think ‘new interpretation of the Quran’ is a good way to describe one tiny word (nur) that is being contested. Your statement implies there’s a whole new Quran with a whole load of interpretations out there and that simply isn’t the case.

ok so your issue is not actually my position. I'm against reinterpreting the Quran, coming up with new interpretations based on modern science. if someone is simply following the classical tafsir, I don't have a problem with it. also, as a sidenote, nur means light. it doesn't mean reflected light. (i know you know this but I'm just mentioning so the non muslims know)

also nowhere have i said the Quran doesn't say the moon light is reflected light therefore that means it can't be reflected light. of course not all science is necessarily going to be mentioned in the Quran. you shouldn't attribute a position to me that I don't hold.

 

[90sWereBetter]

btw I'm done with this thread for now. my position is that the Quran shouldn't be reinterpreted on the basis of modern science. if people have to attribute a strawman position to me, then that just shows how strong my position is.

 

[Haich]

btw I'm done with this thread for now. my position is that the Quran shouldn't be reinterpreted on the basis of modern science. if people have to attribute a strawman position to me, then that just shows how strong my position is.

You started this thread with the intent to start up a discussion. Ideas are exchanged and you feel personally attacked when you’re challenged. I’m sorry that as a ‘born and bred’ Muslim I find issue with you saying that the Quran has new interpretations (when in fact your issue is with the moon and the meaning of the word nur).

You should know by now that if you say something about Islam or the Quran then Muslims will naturally flock to your thread and comment. There’s no need to get emotional, you can have your stances and I or anyone else can have theirs.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Flarepath]

ok here is my art depicting my issue here

View attachment 99166

That's a daylight pic and the sky would be normal blue so there's no mystery there is there?..

 

[bubblebludrop]

I just said I don't believe in flat earth. Do you have mind reading abilities that you are more of an authority than myself on what I believe?




Okay but this is a conspiracy board.



"Science," "science". People can invoke science all they want, I'm not eating the bugs, I'm not taking the vax and I don't really care what scientists tell us.



According to what part of Quran and Sunnah? Yes, I talked about more than one topic. I have to stick to the rules of Quran and Sunah but not to a rule you just made up. I can talk about more than one topic, Quran and Sunnah doesn't forbid this.



Science can go take a hike. I don't believe in this modern culture of singing poems to science. "it's not your subjective opinion which matters".... look, I express my viewpoint and I'm free to. Leave the rhetorical game of declaring my viewpoint as "subjective opinion" as though yours isn't and simply disprove my claim based on evidence.




I believe in geocentrism.



Instead of belittling my understanding (are you implying you have a deep understanding?), just go and illustrate your superior understanding by refuting my claims with proof and evidence.

For example, you could bring a classical tafsir that says the moon light is reflected light... but you can't. Whereas I brought the interpretation of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taymiyyah, neither of whom said anything about the moon light being reflected light- which Ibn Taymiyyah actually contradicted, saying the moon has its own light. Don't play this rhetorical game of talking down to me, just bring evidence.

Why you sound offended brother? I don't know you personally, I don't need to attack a Muslim brother. The other brother Haich is right that its exchange of ideas. No need to get emotional.

You did not premise it as issue with classical tafsir, you asked it as a scientific inquiry and now when I only presented my views which I'm in no shape or form consider as an objective reality, you got offended brother and brought the classical tafsir pov. Your approach is confusing to me, I only highlighted it.

Science also helped amputees be able to function without anyone's need. Are you seeing the destruction of war, its also science but the ones got effected are also treated with help of scientific advancement brother, don't downplay it. It depends on the purpose and intent. You and me exchanging ideas here is also because of science.