One Reason I Believe the Earth is Round

[Omar del Sur]

I know most people here believe the earth is round but... whether people realize it or not- there is a flat-earth presence on here.

If any flat earther would like to openly defend their view- my question is this... if the earth is flat how come the time is different in different places?

how come the sun is shining on some parts of the earth but not other parts? if it's flat like a monopoly board shouldn't it be the same everywhere? but the sun hitting some parts at different times and the time being different- this is very consistent with the earth being round. this makes me very confident that the earth is round. it is false however what some of the deceived people claim that we are revolving around the sun. that is nonsense- it is clear that the sun revolves around the earth. but it definitely seems to be the case that the earth is round.

 

[Bundasliga]

is false however what some of the deceived people claim that we are revolving around the sun. that is nonsense- it is clear that the sun revolves around the earth.

How do come to that conclusion ?

 

[Liban89]

I know most people here believe the earth is round but... whether people realize it or not- there is a flat-earth presence on here.

If any flat earther would like to openly defend their view- my question is this... if the earth is flat how come the time is different in different places?

how come the sun is shining on some parts of the earth but not other parts? if it's flat like a monopoly board shouldn't it be the same everywhere? but the sun hitting some parts at different times and the time being different- this is very consistent with the earth being round. this makes me very confident that the earth is round. it is false however what some of the deceived people claim that we are revolving around the sun. that is nonsense- it is clear that the sun revolves around the earth. but it definitely seems to be the case that the earth is round.

First of all, there is no singular doctrine of being a flat earther, they are so many groups I lost count, each one of them has a unique model of the flat earth with different mechanisms of operation. No matter the question you ask, there will be some farfetched stupid "answer".

They say we have a local sun which goes in circles of different redii and also too small to illuminate the surface of the plane at once, so when it is far away it is night time and vice versa

 

[Omar del Sur]

How do come to that conclusion ?

Extracted from Al Uthaimeens Faatawaa Arkaan-Ul-Islaam Pages 67-72, Darussalam Translation.



Question: Does the Sun revolve around the earth?



It is apparent from the Islamic evidences that they confirm that it is the sun which revolves around the earth, and by its revolving the alternation of night and day takes place on the surface of the earth. It is not for us to exceed the apparent meaning of these evidences without some evidence stronger than that, which permits us to explain them differently from their apparent meaning. (Meaning we cant interpret metaphorically)
Among the proofs that the sun revolves around the earth in a manner which causes the alternation of the night and day are the following:

Allah, the Most High says, that when Ibrahim, peace be upon him, disputed with the one who argued with him concerning his Lord:
Verily, Allah bring the sun from the east; then bring it you from the west. Al-Baqarah 2:259

He also tells us that Ibrahim, peace be upon him said:
When he saw the sun rising up, he said: This is my lord. This is greater. But when it set, he said: O my people! I am indeed free from all that you join as partner (in worship with Allah). Al-Anam 6:78

Allah the most High says:
And you might have seen the sun, when it rose, declining to the right from their Cave, and when it set, turning away from them to the left. Al-Kahf 18:17

Allah, the Most High says:
And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating. Al-Anbiya 21:33

And Allah, the Most High says:
He brings the nigh as a cover over the day, seeking it rapidly. Al-Araf 7:54

Allah the Most high says:
he has created the heavens and the earth with truth. He makes the night to go in the day and makes the day to go in the night. And he has subjected the sun and the moon. Each running (on a fixed course) for an appointed term. Verily, He is the All-Mighty, the OftForgiving. Az-Zumar 39:5

And His Words: "He makes the night to go in the day.

That is it turns around it, as a turban is wrapped around, which proves the revolving of the night and the day around the eary. If it were the earth which revolved around them, He would have said: He cause the earth to revolve around the night and day. And in His Words:

the sun and the moon, each running (on a fixed course).

It is clear from what precedes is that it is a proof that the sun and the moon move in a perceptible orbit, because subjecting something which moves to its movement is more apparent than subjecting something stationary which does not move.

Allah, the Most High says:
By the sun and its brightness. By the moon as it follows it (the sun). Ash-Shams 91:1-2

And the meaning of follows it.

Is that it comes after it and this is a proof of their moving and revolving around the earth, for if it were the earth which revolved around them, the moon would not be following the sun; rather it would sometimes be following it and sometimes it would be followed by it because the sun is higher than it. And deduction from this Verse requires study and reflection.

Allah the most High says: And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing. And the moon, We have measured for it mansions (to traverse) till it returns like the old drid curved date statlk. It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit. Ya-Seen 36:38-40
So, attributing the movement to the sun and describing it as a Decree from the Almighty, Most Wise proves that it is a real movement with a far-reaching Decree, since the consequence of it is the alternation of the night and day and the seasons.



The Measures of the moons mansion (i.e. stations) is a proof that it traverses them, for if it was the earth which revolves, the measuring of the mansions would be for the earths movement around the moon and not for the moons movement around it.



And negating the suns ability to overtake the moon, and the nights ability to outstrip the day are evidence of the rushing movement on the part of the sun and the moon, and the night and the day.

The Prophet (Sallah Allahu Alyhe wa Sallam) said to Abu Tharr, May Allah be please with him, when the sun had just set:
Do you know where it goes?

He said, Allah and His Messenger know best. He said:

Verily, it goes (i.e. travels) and it prostrates beneath the Throne and seeks permission to rise, and permission is granted to it. Then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered: Return from whence you came, and so it will rise in the west. [Reported in Al-Bukhari in the Book of the Beginning of Creation, in the Chapter: Description of the Sun and Moon (3199) and by Muslim in the Book of Faith, in the Chapter: Explanation of the Time When Faith Will not be Accepted (150).]

So and it is extremely clear from his words: Return from whence you came that it revolves around the earth and through its revolving the sunrise and sunset occur.

It is clear from the many Ahadith which attribute rising, setting, and declining from its zenith to the sun, that it is the sun which does so and not the earth.


There are most probably other proofs that are not present with me at the moment, but what I have mentioned is a summary of the subject, and it is sufficient for my purpose. And Allah is the granter of success.

 

[Omar del Sur]

No matter the question you ask, there will be some farfetched stupid "answer".

They say we have a local sun which goes in circles of different redii and also too small to illuminate the surface of the plane at once, so when it is far away it is night time and vice versa

I think that would be a very weak argument from them. I realize that it is wrong to worship the sun but many people historically have worshipped the sun as the sun is a very big deal. it is this huge giant thing, the sun is not small. it it so huge and magnificent that many people used to worship it. but this argument would portray the sun as being small and less impressive than it really is. everyone knows the sun is this huge giant thing. I couldn't accept this idea that the earth is flat like a table but the sun is so weak that it just illuminates some of that flat surface but isn't big enough to illuminate the whole thing.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I can name at least one flat earther on here and I know he posts a lot and I am sure he has seen this thread... if no flat earthers come to defend their position, this is an l for the flat earth people. if you really think the earth is flat, come explain why the sun is shining in one place while it's dark in other places.

 

[HiraanBorn]

Extracted from Al Uthaimeens Faatawaa Arkaan-Ul-Islaam Pages 67-72, Darussalam Translation.



Question: Does the Sun revolve around the earth?



It is apparent from the Islamic evidences that they confirm that it is the sun which revolves around the earth, and by its revolving the alternation of night and day takes place on the surface of the earth. It is not for us to exceed the apparent meaning of these evidences without some evidence stronger than that, which permits us to explain them differently from their apparent meaning. (Meaning we cant interpret metaphorically)
Among the proofs that the sun revolves around the earth in a manner which causes the alternation of the night and day are the following:

Allah, the Most High says, that when Ibrahim, peace be upon him, disputed with the one who argued with him concerning his Lord:
Verily, Allah bring the sun from the east; then bring it you from the west. Al-Baqarah 2:259

He also tells us that Ibrahim, peace be upon him said:
When he saw the sun rising up, he said: This is my lord. This is greater. But when it set, he said: O my people! I am indeed free from all that you join as partner (in worship with Allah). Al-Anam 6:78

Allah the most High says:
And you might have seen the sun, when it rose, declining to the right from their Cave, and when it set, turning away from them to the left. Al-Kahf 18:17

Allah, the Most High says:
And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating. Al-Anbiya 21:33

And Allah, the Most High says:
He brings the nigh as a cover over the day, seeking it rapidly. Al-Araf 7:54

Allah the Most high says:
he has created the heavens and the earth with truth. He makes the night to go in the day and makes the day to go in the night. And he has subjected the sun and the moon. Each running (on a fixed course) for an appointed term. Verily, He is the All-Mighty, the OftForgiving. Az-Zumar 39:5

And His Words: "He makes the night to go in the day.

That is it turns around it, as a turban is wrapped around, which proves the revolving of the night and the day around the eary. If it were the earth which revolved around them, He would have said: He cause the earth to revolve around the night and day. And in His Words:

the sun and the moon, each running (on a fixed course).

It is clear from what precedes is that it is a proof that the sun and the moon move in a perceptible orbit, because subjecting something which moves to its movement is more apparent than subjecting something stationary which does not move.

Allah, the Most High says:
By the sun and its brightness. By the moon as it follows it (the sun). Ash-Shams 91:1-2

And the meaning of follows it.

Is that it comes after it and this is a proof of their moving and revolving around the earth, for if it were the earth which revolved around them, the moon would not be following the sun; rather it would sometimes be following it and sometimes it would be followed by it because the sun is higher than it. And deduction from this Verse requires study and reflection.

Allah the most High says: And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing. And the moon, We have measured for it mansions (to traverse) till it returns like the old drid curved date statlk. It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit. Ya-Seen 36:38-40
So, attributing the movement to the sun and describing it as a Decree from the Almighty, Most Wise proves that it is a real movement with a far-reaching Decree, since the consequence of it is the alternation of the night and day and the seasons.



The Measures of the moons mansion (i.e. stations) is a proof that it traverses them, for if it was the earth which revolves, the measuring of the mansions would be for the earths movement around the moon and not for the moons movement around it.



And negating the suns ability to overtake the moon, and the nights ability to outstrip the day are evidence of the rushing movement on the part of the sun and the moon, and the night and the day.

The Prophet (Sallah Allahu Alyhe wa Sallam) said to Abu Tharr, May Allah be please with him, when the sun had just set:
Do you know where it goes?

He said, Allah and His Messenger know best. He said:

Verily, it goes (i.e. travels) and it prostrates beneath the Throne and seeks permission to rise, and permission is granted to it. Then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered: Return from whence you came, and so it will rise in the west. [Reported in Al-Bukhari in the Book of the Beginning of Creation, in the Chapter: Description of the Sun and Moon (3199) and by Muslim in the Book of Faith, in the Chapter: Explanation of the Time When Faith Will not be Accepted (150).]

So and it is extremely clear from his words: Return from whence you came that it revolves around the earth and through its revolving the sunrise and sunset occur.

It is clear from the many Ahadith which attribute rising, setting, and declining from its zenith to the sun, that it is the sun which does so and not the earth.


There are most probably other proofs that are not present with me at the moment, but what I have mentioned is a summary of the subject, and it is sufficient for my purpose. And Allah is the granter of success.

No offense but Sheikh Uthaymeen wasn't a scientist and it's clear from this that it is his own interpretation of the sources you gave. The scientific consensus is adamant about the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. We know this due to certain stars shifting their positions throughout the full year and how the seasons change due to the Earth orbiting a further distance from the Sun at certain stages of the year.

This doesn't contradict the Qur'an as it seems to me because what's being explained is simply the movement of the Sun and there's no mention it orbiting the Earth. The Sun and our solar system itself orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

 

[Omar del Sur]

No offense but Sheikh Uthaymeen wasn't a scientist and it's clear from this that it is his own interpretation of the sources you gave. The scientific consensus

no offensive but Quran > "scientific consensus"

and it isn't just Sheikh Uthaymeen, a number of scholars have held that position. I don't care what the scientists say, the Quran is infallible, I care nothing about the modern cult of science-worship.

 

[Omar del Sur]

This doesn't contradict the Qur'an as it seems to me because what's being explained is simply the movement of the Sun and there's no mention it orbiting the Earth. The Sun and our solar system itself orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

again, no offense... but when it comes to interpreting the Quran, I take Sheikh Uthaymeen, Sheikh Fawzan and Sheikh Ibn Baz who have all held the aforementioned position... I take their stance on interpretation of the Quran as being more authoritative than the interpretation of anyone on SomaliSpot. when it comes to these matters, it is my view that we should turn to the scholars and not to SomaliSpotters.

whenever I speak about Islam, it is my intent that insha'Allah I am only saying what has come from the scholars, I don't want any new ideas on Islam to have come from me and I don't want what I say to be my own ideas.

 

[Omar del Sur]

imo the whole reason this issue makes people react in a certain way is because people have bought into this culture of worshipping scientists....

this is sort of a modern quasi-religious thing that has been pushed onto people and that many people have bought into... "well the scholars are not scientists".... but this is backwards.... the highest branch of knowledge is the Islamic knowledge.... I respect the scientists... they are very skilled at things like developing computers, internet, bombs to drop on Third-Worlders, mass surveillance so the government can spy on us, weapons to massively kill people and other such things of a double-edged nature.... but when they contradict the scholars, the scientists can take a hike as far as I'm concerned

 

[HiraanBorn]

no offensive but Quran > "scientific consensus"

and it isn't just Sheikh Uthaymeen, a number of scholars have held that position. I don't care what the scientists say, the Quran is infallible, I care nothing about the modern cult of science worship.

I don't believe saying the Earth orbits around the Sun constitutes science worship at all. This is because it doesn't contradict the Qur'an in any way as it seems to me. Of course, when it comes to the Theory of Evolution and the origins of man I question the scientific consensus due to it having flaws which I came to realize myself and more importantly it completely contradicts the word of God.

 

[HiraanBorn]

again, no offense... but when it comes to interpreting the Quran, I take Sheikh Uthaymeen, Sheikh Fawzan and Sheikh Ibn Baz who have all held the aforementioned position... I take their stance on interpretation of the Quran as being more authoritative than the interpretation of anyone on SomaliSpot. when it comes to these matters, it is my view that we should turn to the scholars and not to SomaliSpotters.

whenever I speak about Islam, it is my intent that insha'Allah I am only saying what has come from the scholars, I don't want any new ideas on Islam to have come from me and I don't want what I say to be my ideas.

Do the words of 3 scholars or perhaps a few more constitute a majority opinion according to you? As you know, the legal basis for a view is based on a majority consensus, without that such a view can be reasonably questioned.

 

[HiraanBorn]

imo the whole reason this issue makes people react in a certain way is because people have bought into this culture of worshipping scientists....

View attachment 257758

this is sort of a modern quasi-religious thing that has been pushed onto people and that many people have bought into... "well the scholars are not scientists".... but this is backwards.... the highest branch of knowledge is the Islamic knowledge.... I respect the scientists... they are very skilled at things like developing computers, internet, bombs to drop on Third-Worlders, mass surveillance so the government can spy on us, weapons to massively kill people and other such things of a double-edged nature.... but when they contradict the scholars, the scientists can take a hike as far as I'm concerned

I understand where you're coming from because I myself had this dilemma when I was obsessed with the theory of evolution a few years ago. It made me question everything in my faith and my purpose for existence. It almost drove me to despair and near to the point of madness but I realised that whatever contradicts Islam should be abandoned completely and whatever doesn't can do no harm to it.

Science isn't perfect and at least most scientists are open-minded to admit that they're mistaken about things. Many in fact are believers in God.

 

[Bringer of Wisdom]

again, no offense... but when it comes to interpreting the Quran, I take Sheikh Uthaymeen, Sheikh Fawzan and Sheikh Ibn Baz who have all held the aforementioned position... I take their stance on interpretation of the Quran as being more authoritative than the interpretation of anyone on SomaliSpot. when it comes to these matters, it is my view that we should turn to the scholars and not to SomaliSpotters.

whenever I speak about Islam, it is my intent that insha'Allah I am only saying what has come from the scholars, I don't want any new ideas on Islam to have come from me and I don't want what I say to be my own ideas.

But why do you only take from these Saudi scholars? These scholars hold controversial views on this matter which were seen as controversial then and still are today. You're making it seem that most scholars reject the heliocentric model when that is not true. The contrary is in fact the case.

 

[Omar del Sur]

But why do you only take from these Saudi scholars? These scholars hold controversial views on this matter which were seen as controversial then and still are today. You're making it seem that most scholars reject the heliocentric model when that is not true. The contrary is in fact the case.

I don't only take from the Saudi scholars. also... I mean... who are these views controversial among? I don't think these views are controversial. anyways, those are all major modern scholars. it isn't my fault many of the top scholars come from Saudi. I don't have an anti-Saudi thing. it shouldn't make any difference where the scholars are from. I'm a big fan of Shaykh Raslan from Egypt, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah from I think what is today Syria.... Imam Ibn Hazm from Al-Andalus.

I knew a guy from Eritrea who complained about Ethiopian food here in the US at a local grocery store not being authentic. well it makes sense that Ethiopia and Eritrea will have more authentic Ethiopian food than a grocery store in the US. Islam originated from within what is today Saudi Arabia, it is not a big shock to me that many of the top scholars will come from Saudi. but I don't care either way as to where scholars are from and I don't really pay attention to that.

anyways, if you have any fataawa from the scholars in favor of heliocentrism, you could post them. you say it's controversial- well amongst which scholars? I don't care where the scholars are from, the ones I mentioned are major scholars and I'm not going to downgrade their status due to them being from Saudi which happens to be the country that contains the areas where Islam originated

 

[Omar del Sur]

this whole thing I hear all the time.... often from people with a liberal, ikhwani or a sufi agenda.... "the Saudi scholars".... as though we should give a scholar less credit because they're from the land of Mecca and Medina.... it reminds me of something that went went on with chess during the Cold War. the Soviet Union used to dominate the chess world. time and time again- the world chess champion title was held by Soviet chess players.

this is why Bobby Fischer was made such a big deal of by the US. because he was a US player who could take on the Soviet chess players. or it reminds me of how there was some boxer who was called "the great white hope" because he was able to rival the African-American boxers.

well look... if you're in some way upset about the Soviets dominating chess or about African-Americans dominating boxing... or about Saudis being a lot of the top people in Islamic scholarship.... then I guess you could promote some sort of "Bobby Fischer" but you can't just give people less points because they're Soviet/African-American/Saudi

 

[Omar del Sur]

I mean look how much of the area is covered by Saudi... I don't think it's anything weird that a lot of the top scholars come from there... I would imagine a lot of the top scholars would have been from there before there was a Saudi Arabia... I would guess probably most of the sahaaba would have been from that area.... if there's anything in Quran or saheeh hadith that we need to reject people who came from the area where Islam originated then I'm happy to follow that but if not then I don't see a need to follow such a rule

 

[Liban89]

I couldn't accept this idea that the earth is flat like a table but the sun is so weak that it just illuminates some of that flat surface but isn't big enough to illuminate the whole thing.

No sane mind can accept this, but unfortunately they do. @ the user you speak of I am sure they'll corroborate what I said.

 

[Omar del Sur]

No sane mind can accept this, but unfortunately they do. @ the user you speak of I am sure they'll corroborate what I said.

I don't want to embarrass anyone. I don't want to call the user out but I'm taking it as capitulation if they don't willingly come here and give an explanation.

 

[HiraanBorn]

this whole thing I hear all the time.... often from people with a liberal, ikhwani or a sufi agenda.... "the Saudi scholars".... as though we should give a scholar less credit because they're from the land of Mecca and Medina.... it reminds me of something that went went on with chess during the Cold War. the Soviet Union used to dominate the chess world. time and time again- the world chess champion title was held by Soviet chess players.

this is why Bobby Fischer was made such a big deal of by the US. because he was a US player who could take on the Soviet chess players. or it reminds me of how there was some boxer who was called "the great white hope" because he was able to rival the African-American boxers.

well look... if you're in some way upset about the Soviets dominating chess or about African-Americans dominating boxing... or about Saudis being a lot of the top people in Islamic scholarship.... then I guess you could promote some sort of "Bobby Fischer" but you can't just give people less points because they're Soviet/African-American/Saudi

The issue is not that it's Saudi scholars saying this but the fact that their statements are not in the field of their knowledge. They are religious scholars first and foremost and not physicists that have studied the motion of the planets.

It's like when evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins whom I used to take seriously but not so much anymore started getting involved in refuting religion and theism. This was despite the fact that you could see he wasn't well-versed in theology or knew much about the religions he was debating against (excluding Christianity I suppose).

However, when it came to his knowledge on the mechanism of evolution through natural selection, it was intelligent and expert. What I'm trying to say is people, in general, should stick to what they know best and not present views that they are not well versed in. This saves people from much confusion in an already confused world.