@donatelo
I think I'm to some extent obliged to reply to his questions as I did invite comments, though I think we're reaching a point where I've conceded as much as my genuine opinion allows.
@debunker
You keep repeating this argument that since early Muslims (including Muhammed), who were ignorant of basic cosmology, read (descriptive) passages of nature and yet projected their own wrong understanding of how nature actually works, then this is an evidence that these passages must fit a flat earth model. i don't really see how this is "an evidence".
I acknowledge with example counterarguments in the last sentence you quote that these needn’t *must* confirm flat earth. It does increase the likelihood I’m correct though since it’s the circumstantial evidence you’d expect if these verses were just the words of Muhammad. You might say it’s also what you’d expect to see if they are Allah’s words and Muhammad himself misunderstood it in a flat earth way. However, a weakness there is that Allah would be using a poor choice of words if it doesn’t mean a flat earth, knowing that even Muhammad would misunderstand it because of contemporary beliefs and how these words were used at that time.
For example, you say that since a similar story exists in ancient texts, then this means that the author of the Quran necessarily plagiarized (and slightly? altered) the story.
I use them because the likelihood is higher than if these legends didn’t exist that these Quranic verses are the work of a man who had a flat earth in mind because it suggests an obvious source on which the story could be based and reduces the likelihood that he would never believe or say something with that meaning since it was believed by at least some contemporaries in the region. So yes, it isn’t *necessarily* Muhammad’s plagiary of the very similar Alexander Legend (or as I’d say, based on that or what he knew of an earlier version, though I personally think it highly likely).
So yes, I cannot rule out the possibility, for example, that whatever Muhammad thought these verses meant, these are the words of Allah and mean what you suggest or something else, and that the very similar contemporary legends are corruptions of the true story, which is revealed in the Quran.
Anyway, I'd like to know which evidence you personally think is the stronest one against the modern interpretation of the story?
I guess there’s 2 main modern ones for the 1st parts of 18:86 and 18:90. These are that he reached west-east at sunset-sunrise and the other that the words mean he reached the times of sunset-sunrise.
For east-west, I think the uncommon/maybe unique usage of the words if it is correct is the biggest blow to its likelihood of being correct. I accepted above that it can be defended with your arguments (though I must wonder how we can know what anything in the Qur’an means if it still uses uncommon/unique usages when it’ll make the true meaning so unobvious and suggest a different obvious meaning). Maybe the thing about “he found it” (wajadaha) refering back to the sun as a literal entity where it’s supposedly mentioned in an idiomatic sense for the west is just as significant. I accept it doesn’t make your interpretation impossible and I guess you might say that it was just for poetic/aesthetic reasons.
As for Zakir Naik’s interpretation – he reached the setting & rising times of the sun (as a distinct interpretation from reaching west-east at those times), I can’t *necessarily* rule it out, but the biggest blow to its likelihood is that the same 6 Arabic introductory words are used in 18:92-93 for reaching a location (the valley) rather than a time.
As for the modern interpretation for the next part of 18:86, that it just looked like or he thought it set into a muddy sea/muddy spring on the horizon, maybe the biggest dent to its likelihood (though it doesn’t show it’s *necessarily* wrong) is a tie between the lack of any obvious reason to mention how the sunset looked (perhaps you think it’s for some sort of poetic reason – if so I accept that’s possible) and that it needs an uncommon/maybe unique and problematic usage of wajada. I’ll accept as above that this doesn’t *necessarily* mean it is wrong.
By the way, have you ever thought, even with the assumption that the author of the Quran was only a 7th century poet ignorant of basic cosmology, why would the author "supposedly" emphasize the *actual* rising place of the sun, by giving a desciption as thought the sun were too close to people, while he would ignore to make the same point about the people of the West (being too close to the setting sun)? I mean if the author wanted to say that ThulQarnayn reached the actual rising place of the sun, by "supposedly" emphasizing its closeness, then wouldn't it be fair to say that the author did NOT mean to say that ThulQarnayn reached the actual place of the setting sun, since no description was used to emphasize its "supposed" closeness, when the author mentioned the people of the West?
It’s an interesting point, but I don’t see that as much of a problem since as I said above, in my opinion it is likely (though not provable) that the Quranic story is following the outline of the Alexander Legend (or an earlier version), which itself only emphasises the lack of shelter for the people at the rising place. Even if we reject that it was influenced by the AL, an alternative explanation is that unlike the people in 18:90, it was perhaps imagined that the ones near the spring did have shelter of some sort. Or alteratively perhaps Muhammad just didn’t think it worth mentioning, just as he doesn’t bother mentioning what (if anything) DQ said or did to the folks in 18:90. I can see that it does increase the likelihood for your interpretation though.
To summarize, I agree that none of the arguments I give against alternative interpretations (or their cummulative effect) *necessarily* mean they are wrong (except for some of the more obscure ones). Nor do those supporting (or their cummulative effect) *necessarily* mean the flat earth one is right.
Topic: sunset and sunrise in sura al-kahf