I. Significance of the verse:

1.

“…if "a mass of clouds" is an apt description, then how does it show ignorance to describe it that way?”

The ignorance is in believing that it is just only materialistic in its origins, absolutely nothing else, and not a sign of God’s existence and greatness.

The ignorance is in explaining it away as a mere mechanical phenomenon.

The analogy is that just as disbelievers see the miracles of the Quran and explain them away, some see the signs of God in nature and just explain it away.

The Quran frequently describes actions in nature as being signs of God and for people to reflect upon them to understand that God is behind them and to then be grateful and awed.

2.

“…what sense would 52:44 make if we assume that Allah was referring to stars falling into black holes?  It would be a total non sequitur. “

It makes perfect sense. There is a place in the universe so amazing that time stops, space itself moves at the speed of light, and the regular laws of physics break down. Something that awesome should amaze people into believing in God. It shows that nature is in God’s hands, and not the other way around.

It shows God’s greatness to create and control such a thing.

It shows that time is controlled by God, and not God controlled by God such as those who say, “what existed before God.”

The laws of physics, causality, all these things are in the hands of God, and not God in the boundaries of the laws of physics.

And yet, some say, things like, how could God have existed before time started with the big bang?

Even when people see the wonders of nature, they explain it away as mere coincidence and accident and mechanics, much as they explain away the miracles of the Quran as mere coincidence. 

II. Is the Quran’s mentioning of stars falling a nonsensical cosmology?

And

How is this among the valid interpretations?

A disbeliever in the Quran may believe that a mere mortal who authored the Quran thought that stars are like small shiny objects in the atmosphere which may fall.

If that is the case, then why would they appear like masses of clouds if the mortal thought that they were just little shiny objects? How does a little shiny object become like masses of clouds?

When a primitive man would have thought that a star was like a floating spark or a tiny glowing gem, or something like that, then he would have expected that upon falling, he could pick it up, or that it might break into tinier pieces, but not turn into heaps of clouds.

So, we can see that it doesn’t make sense to assume that the author of that verse was a mere primitive mortal perceiving stars with the typical perception of people back then.

So, from what author’s perception would it make sense that stars falling would be described as they have been described in the Quran?

Well, if the author had the perspective of someone who not only knew how actual stars react when they fall, but also has the perspective to see into the future and witness the reaction of unbelievers when they finally witness it as well.

What author at that time could have had the perspective of not only knowing how stars actually appear when they fall, but also had the perspective of knowing how disbelievers in the future would react?

So, we can see that the Quran’s real Author did not see the stars as just tiny little shiny objects in the sky as the disbelievers had assumed. 

III. Other uses of the word star in the Quran

It is interesting to note that nowhere in the Quran in which it mentions that stars fall does it say that they actually fall to the earth.

For example,

{ And when the stars fall } -  Quran, 81:2

The word the Quran often uses for star above is:

l-nujumu

And the word used for falling there is:

inkadarat

The word "inkadarat" can also mean, "to dim," which is interesting because some stars do indeed dim to become what are known as white dwarfs.

Stars like our sun that run out of fuel can become dim white dwarfs. Sometimes they can become so dim that some scientists state that they qualify for one of the two types of dark matter, or the inelastic, baryonic dark matter, as opposed to the exotic, heavy-particle dark matter, which can be read about here:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0103/23darkmatter/

and here:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/feb/11/warm-white-dwarfs-could-reveal-inelastic-dark-matter

Also, according to:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/searchlight-beams.html

Some stars that run out of nuclear fuel . . . are very dim, requiring powerful telescopes to be seen. This combination of rarity and faintness means they were only discovered comparatively recently.

I find it interesting that God chose the Arabic language for the Quran because a word like "inkadarat" can be used to describe stars and it is correct in any definition of itself that is used.

In other words, whichever definition of "inkadarat" is used to describe stars (l-nujumu), it is correct !

The word “l-nujumu” appears again in 77:8

{ When the stars are obliterated }

Interestingly, we know that some stars are destroyed in super nova explosions. How did someone living in Muhammad’s time know that stars become obliterated?

However, “l-nujumu” is not the only word in the Quran used to describe stars.

In modern English, a star is a massive sphere of gas that burns with nuclear fusion.

In Arabic, however, a heavenly object that gives off its own light is called a “l-nujumu” which is translated as “star,” and a heavenly object that reflects light is called a

“l-kawakibu” and that is also translated as star.

So, in English translations, both “l-kawakibu” and “l-nujumu” are translated as star, but the latter refers to heavenly objects that reflect rather than emit, and the former refer to those that reflect.

For example,

{ When the stars scatter } Quran, 82:2

In that verse, the word being used for star is “l-kawakibu,” and the word being used for scatter is “.”

Interestingly, in none of those cases where stars or planets that reflect light are mentioned, does it actually say that they fall to the earth either. It says that they scatter, or they fall, but it doesn’t say that they fall to the earth.

So, we have one verse shown here where it says that a fragment of the heavens fall, another where it states that stars (l-nujumu) fall, another where it says that light reflecting planets scatter or disperse (intatharat); but in none of those instances does it state that they fall to the earth. 

IV. When the word star in the Quran does not mean star because of the grammar

By the way, as a side note, be careful of English translations that use the word “star.”

They usually do not differentiate between the words “l-kawakibu” and “l-nujumu.” They usually use both words for star.

Indeed, in some examples, English translations use the word star where neither of the above are mentioned.

For example, in 72:8, English translations translate “washuhuban” into star when it just means “flaming fire.” That is a correct description of a star, but it is not “l-nujumu” which is used elsewhere.

In some other instances, it is necessary to understand the grammar in order to understand what the word l-nujumu means.

For example, in 53:1 it uses the genitive masculine noun form of “l-nujumu” which is “najmi.” Then, the second word of 53:4 “huwa” which means it, is a reference to “najmi.” There, it explains that it refers to the revelation of the Quran.

So, whereas “l-nujumu” translates literally as star, the grammar of that verse indicates that it is being used metaphorically for the Quran itself.

Here it is:

{ By the star when it descends } 53:1

. . . .

{ It is not but a revelation } 53:3

There, it is by the grammar that we know the meaning of “l-nujumu,” or “najmi” in this case.

I can go on at some more length about this subject, but I should cut it short for brevity’s sake. 

V. Summary and Conclusion

If a disbeliever is going to insist that the author of the Quran meant that the stars fall to the earth, then they should explain why in none of those three instances does the Quran’s verse say that they fall to the earth because one would expect that if the author meant “to the earth” then that would probably have occurred in at least one of those instances.

The Quran mentions a segment of the heavens falling (not all) and that it appears like masses of clouds. It describes the segment of the heavens that fell.

If the Quran had stated in 52:44 that all the heavens fall instead of just a segment falling, then we would not be able to take this understanding.

That verse had to mention “a segment” as opposed to “all” and it had to leave out “to the earth.”

If either that verse had mentioned “to the earth” or had left out “a segment of the heavens” then we would not have been able to take the understanding that I have explained.

All the wording of the verse 52:44 had to be correct to take this understanding.

1. It had to mention “a segment” of the heavens to signify that it is not all of the heavens,

2. it had to leave out “to the earth”

3. it had to mention that it would have the appearance of masses of clouds

4. and that the disbelievers would dismiss it as a mere materialistic explanation.

We can see how well the description of stars falling fits with what we now know about how they fall near black holes.

Knowledge of black holes is with the Author of the Quran. The Quran mentions stars falling, but not to the earth, and describes the appearance of a segment of the heavens falling as masses of clouds after falling, and it describes the behavior of the disbelievers centuries after the verse was revealed to Muhammad, peace be upon him. We can see this phenomenon occurring near black holes, and so we can see that the Author had knowledge of them.

Even if a disbeliever insists that the Quran is not talking about stars falling into black holes, they must still at least concede and acknowledge that the Quran’s description is not nonsensical. They thought that the idea of stars falling was nonsensical in cosmology, but stars do indeed fall as the Quran states, and there are masses of clouds visible in the process which is also accurate.

Some Muslims take only a poetic and figurative interpretation of verse 52:44 mentioning a fragment of the heavens falling as the disbelievers would like us Muslims to take. Those Muslims believe that the verse means merely that even if the disbelievers were to see something astonishing and miraculous, they would still explain it away as something mechanical and materialistic. That understanding is also correct.

As I’ve stated in previous posts, the verses of the Quran are true on multiple levels. One correct understanding does not negate another. 

I would have expected that after Matt Browne had his hypocrisy and deception so thoroughly exposed point by point every time so far, he would be too ashamed to post anything again, and that he would realize that his arguments would get quashed in the future. Maybe he thought I was gone for good because I had not posted in a long time, and he thought he could slip in a final deceptive post.

Here are some of his deceptions that I will point out.

Some of the fallacies of the Matt Browne

1. strawman fallacy

2. incongruent analogy

3. Red Herring

1. Strawman fallacy,

He implies that we are trying to use the scientific method. We do not make that claim. We are using linguistic methods to point out

the very real fact that what the Quran states matches with what scientists using the scientific method have discovered. Matt Browne falsely claims that we are claiming to be scientific in our methodology, but are only using pseudoscience. This is known as a strawman fallacy because he is attacking a different argument than the one we are actually making.

Disbeliever's fallacy and deception exposed.

2. Incongruent analogy

The early earth creationists claim that science is wrong. We don't claim that scientists are wrong in their claim.

Early earth creationists claim that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that scientists are wrong about the earth being 4.5 billion years old. So, comparing us with them is not an equal analogy. So, here the disbeliever is making the fallacy of an incongruent analogy.

Disbeliever's fallacy and deception exposed.

3. Red Herring

He is changing the subject. He has not even attempted to show an actual divergence between what the Quran says and what science has discovered. That is his smoke screen here.

Disbeliever's fallacy and deception exposed.

In the study of logic, there are some classical categories of fallacies such as ad-homenim, begging the question, and others including the above. I've pointed out three of his fallacies.

The disbeliever's hypocrisy is also exposed because he insults Islam and spreads fear and paranoia about it by calling it intolerant, which makes some people want to murder Muslims like the gunman in Norway. He claims to be against insults, but he is the only one here throwing insults. Calling a religion false is not intolerant, but the beginning of a debate; and mentioning someone is a disbeliever is mere linguistic relativism. I would be a disbeliever in a Christian setting. That’s just like a Canadian would be an alien in Mexico and vice versa. I have never insulted him. But he has repeatedly insulted me, and now he is spreading hatred and fear against Muslims which could lead to more of our mass murder. It is also another red herring because this is supposed to be a discussion about Islam and science. Once again we see the deception and hypocrisy of the disbeliever.

So, today we have exposed 3 logical fallacies and deceptions of the disbeliever, and showed his rude insults which lead to hatred and violence against Muslims.

In summary of this post, we have exposed 3 fallacies and hypocrisy.

In summary of this thread, we Muslims have shown many miracles of the Quran where the Quran's statements match what scientists discovered much later, and the disbelievers, despite strenuous effort, have failed to show otherwise and behave exactly as the Quran predict they will behave.