Aside from the Ploitical rhetoric the authur starts out with we will get straight to the point.
Growth of science was slow during the medieval period, and few high points of embryological investigation undertaken during this time are known to us. However, it is cited in the Qur'an (seventh century A.D.), the Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are produced from mixture of secretions from the male and female. Several references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa (small drop). It also states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning. Reference is also made to the leechlike appearance of the early embryo. Later, the embryo is said to resemble a "chewed substance." For more information about embryological references in the Qur'an, see Musallam (1990).
The author quotes Mr Moore in which we disagree with Moores interpretation of
Nutfah as
a small drop. No where in our presentation of the Arabic that was backed up by dictionaries confirms no such meaning of the word. Thus we did not set an arguement by means of such modern rendering but rendered the word in its original meaning as was understood over 1400 years ago according to its root.
The author says
First we realize that Moore is not at all familiar with the Qur'an. His claim about "6 days" is no where to be found in the text, thus we realize that Moore probably based his comments on what others told him was in the Qur'an - he had not investigated the text in depth for himself..
We realized the same thing from his comments whom never knew the original meaning of the word Nutfah.
The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed substantially with Galen's scientific account. In De Semine, for example, Galen spoke of four periods in the formation of the embryo: (1) as seminal matter; (2) as a bloody form (still without flesh, in which the primitive heart, liver, and brain are ill-defined); (3) the fetus acquires flesh and solidity (the heart, liver, and brain are well-defined, and the limbs begin formation); and finally (4) all the organs attain their full perfection and the fetus is quickened. There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages: (as in Ibn Sina's account of Galen): nutfa for the first, 'alaqa for the second, "unformed" mudgha for the third, and "formed" mudgha for the fourth.
The Author dictates Galen whom lays the following which are contradictory to the Quran
(1) as seminal matter
The Quran asserts we are created from a Nutfah and an alaqah which have been distinguished in the Quran from semen.
(2) as a bloody form (still without flesh, in which the primitive heart, liver, and brain are ill-defined);
The Quran makes no mention of blood in the embryo development. This again has nothing to do with what the Arabic actually says but was based on the rendered interpretation of others.
(3) the fetus acquires flesh and solidity (the heart, liver, and brain are well-defined, and the limbs begin formation);
The Quran mentions idzhaam ~ bones first then the bones are clothed with
Lahm muscle/flesh (which expresses what holds the bones together) that comes after.
(4) all the organs attain their full perfection and the fetus is quickened.
Quran makes no mention of organs
There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages: (as in Ibn Sina's account of Galen): nutfa[a trickler] for the first, 'alaqa [a clinger] for the second, "unformed" mudgha [a chewing] for the third, and "formed" mudgha for the fourth
Which of course those words do not parallel with Galen's philosophy.
Moore also hints at amazement with the Garbha Upanishad in almost the same breath. Regarding this text, he writes:
A brief Sanskrit treatise on ancient Indian embryology is thought to have been written in 1416 B.C. This scripture of the Hindus, called Garbha Upanishad, describes ancient ideas concerning the embryo. It states:
From the conjugation of blood and semen the embryo comes into existence. During the period favorable to conception, after the sexual intercourse, (it) becomes a Kalada (one-day-old embryo). After remaining seven nights it becomes a vesicle. After a fortnight it becomes a sperical mass. After a month it becomes a firm mass [12]
Thus again the author unaware of the actual meaning of the words runs down the dirt road with his shoes off to show a parallel of embryology from the Hindu scripture.
(1)From the conjugation of blood and semen the embryo comes into existence.
Quran make no mention that man a created from conjugation of blood or semen. It says man is created from an
alaq = clinger and
nutfah = trickler . The bones, and the flesh clothing the bones are not even mentioned in the Hindu text.
Obviously the language is certainly not precise and unambiguous
I guess this is where you picked up saying " vague " in your statements.
However, we do strongly object to those who wish to argue that the scientific miracles of the Qur'an are so clear that it is obvious the Qur'an is the word of God. The issue here is an aggressive form of pseudo-apologia that is quite unfounded.
Actually, it is clear only to those who have knowledge in this scientific field and whom have been introduced to that actual original meanings of the Arabic word aside from their modern terms.
khalaqakum min nafsin waahidatin thumma ja'ala minhaa zawjahaa wa anzala lakum mina al-an'aami thamaaniyata azwaajin yakhluqukum fee butooni ummaahatikum khalqan min ba'di khalqin fee thulumaatin thalaathin dhaalikumu Allahu rabbukum lahu al-mulku la ilaha illa huwa faanna tusrafoona
He created you from a single man, then made from it its wife, and He has sent down eight kinds of cattle. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, in three veils of darkness, such is Allah your Lord. His is the kingdom, there is no god but He. How can you turn away?
The verse is more a rant on random things rather than any sort of amazingly accurate scientific statement. Nonetheless, the relevant part for Dr. Moore is first the portion that speaks of "creation after creation". However, Moore uses the Yusuf Ali translation, which renders khalqan min ba'di khalqin as "in stages" (note that khalq means "creation," thus the translation used above is more accurate than Yusuf Ali's generalization).
I would like to know when since the arabic word
nafs [a feminine noun] means
man. He criticizes Ali but yet but yet falls into a hole himself as the first sentence:
"
khalaqakum min nafsin waahidatin thumma ja'ala minhaa zawjahaa " means "
He created you all from one single soul (nafsin) and then made from it its companion "
The Author of the website did not realize that the first phrase is all in the femine that is speaking about the creation of the soul inreference to the soul of Adam and his wife and not their physical being.
It is obvious he doesnt know Arabic as teh text does not give the notion of such a thing as he interpreted.
Moore uses the Yusuf Ali translation, which renders khalqan min ba'di khalqin as "in stages" (note that khalq means "creation," thus the translation used above is more accurate than Yusuf Ali's generalization).
Of course he knows his audience more than likely are English speaker who more than likely wont know better, but the Arabic word "
Khalq" also means
creature. I will let you people think about it a little on what a sperm and ovum are.
From there Moore continues his commentary on Soorat az-Zumar, making the odd claim that the "three veils of darkness" could be a reference to: "(l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane." Upon what this is based, Moore gives no indication, though such exegesis does seem to fall roughly under Rule IV (of the rules noted above). Why should we assume that the author of the Qur'an had these things in mind when he spoke of "three veils of darkness"? Surely the abdominal wall is not "inside the womb," so why not the uterine wall, the amnion, and the chorion? Why not the endometrium, the amnion and the chorion? Why note the uterine wall, endometrium, and amniochorionic membrane? The choice seems rather arbitrary.
First of all the word
hijab or ghishaa meaning
veil is no were to be found in the Quranic text of that verse. The text says "
zhulumaatin thalaathin" meaning "
three darknesses" which is understood in Arabic as three different shades of darkness in the Womb which is not refering to any layers of skin tissue specifically.
Aristotle actually mentions a meeting of the male and female contributions in the uterus...
Quran never makes mention of us such a thing.
...Furthermore, Aristotle mentions membranes called "choria" that form, and that this happens inside the uterus. Thus we have Aristotle mentioning the chorion, the uterus, and obviously this happens inside the abdomen, so there is your "threefold darkness."
Unfortunate for him Quran makes no mention of veils.
Muslims who support the embryology polemic may argue that Aristotle only mentioned the chorion, but not the amnion
We dont support any of it. If others wich to follow such interpretations without verifying their works this seems to be their problem.
Such comments are wholly duplicitous, as it means that saying "threefold darkness" is clearly a reference to the abdominal wall, the uterus, and both the amnion and chorion at the same time. So, saying "choria" is only the chorion, but saying "veil/fold of darkness" clearly means the amniochorionic membrane? Indeed, the amnion and chorion are separate, but if we're going to focus on this so closely, why not just assume that the Qur'an got it wrong by not mentioning four folds of darkness (abdomen, uterus, amnion, chorion)?
Actually if they used the other examples of the Quran that makes mention of
Zhulumaat which means
darkness in the plural sense is refering to light density as to that of the ocean and clouds. The thicker the water is or the cloud is there is less light which developes into shades of darkness. Light can pass through the human body and skin depending how dense it is ie fat you have on you. Put a flash light to your hand and look from the other side.
The relevant words in the above are drop (nutfa), clot (alaqa), morsel (mudgha), and bones (izhaam). Dr. Moore wants nutfa to mean "zygote" without any real justification. All the Muslim commentators had nutfa, which is from the Arabic natafa, for to drip, to dribble, to ooze, mean a reference to a seminal discharge. Rather laughably, Dr. Muhammad Saifullaah of Cambridge University noted that a drop can be round, and then further noted that "semen comes out as drops and ovum is also resembles a drop, i.e., it is round-shaped."[18] What a way to correlate "drop" with both the semen and the ovum! Of course, nutfa is not a reference to roundness - the shape is irrelvant, as nutfa is the result of dripping, dribbling, oozing (not necessarily a single drop in mid air). Interestingly, Maurice Bucaille noted that one commentator had it "describe what remains at the bottom of a bucket that has been emptied out."[19] Some have even tried to argue that because the Qur'an later refers to nutfa al-amshaaj ("mixed drop," or "mingled semen"), the plural amshaaj ("mixings") is a reference to chomosomes inside the zygote!
Is this what you are talkign about ? The original meaning of
Nutfah does not mean
drop, the origianl meaning
alaqa does not mean
clot, the original meaing of the word
mudhgha does not mean morsel. We never used any of these rendering in our exergeses as posted.
They also contradict the Quran as the Quran distinguishes the
Nutfah from the
semen.
Moore goes on to interpret the word alaqa, yet now he is no longer using the Yusuf Ali translation (as Yusuf Ali translates alaqa as "clot of congealed blood"). The translation employed by Moore renders the word as "a leech-like structure."
Can you please show us Loki where we used these renderings. We backed up our rendering with Lexographies they back there work up with none but interpet from an interpretative opinion.
This is a rather strained translation. Indeed, one of the possible meanings of alaqa is "leech," but Dr. Moore (or those who advised him) chose "leech-like structure" so as to push the claim that the Qur'an means to argue that the embryo resembles a leech. Of course, the Qur'an does not say the embryo resembles or looks like an alaqa, rather it says it is an alaqa. Regardless, Moore sides with "leech" (see Rule II above), and then from there makes a huge logical leap, concluding that this means the Qur'an is stating that the embryo looks like a leech at 24 days, despite the fact that no date is given (see Rule VI).
Such meanings rendered are modern medical terminologies. The original meaning of
alaqa is
something that clings reflecting its root derivitive.
The point was to then note the similarity between a 24 day old embryo and certain types of leeches. Of course, the logic simply doesn't follow. Another possible meaning (and indeed most translations side with this meaning) is "blood clot". Since this is a possible meaning, we have a natural explanation for a man using "alaqa" to describe the embryo. Of course, because there is no stage at which the embryo is a blood clot (or mass of congealed blood, which is one of the meanings Hans Wehr gave for alaqa), most proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach prefer not to choose that as the intended meaning. This is a perfect example of Rules I & II, and is also something that Imran Aijaz touched on when he wrote:
Quran makes no mention of Blood clot or blood being created from.
But if this can be considered a scientific miracle, then why not also say the same about Galen, when he described the second stage of embryonic development being one where the embryo is "filled with blood"?
We presented nothing that parallels with Galen's philisophic explanation which mereles contradicts what the Quran actually says distinguish from interpretations.
Popular to these same sites is the claim that because the ayn-lam-qaf root from which alaqa is derived can also mean cling, be suspended, hang,[22] this can be correlated with a period where the embryo clings from or is suspended from the umbilical cord which is attached to the uterus. Of course, the umbilical cord is never mentioned, but if we're going to play such games, we can correlate Aristotle with the same period, in light of his far more descriptive depiction:
Then we can play games to. Make up your mind whom did Muhammad get his info from Galen, Aristotle, the Witch Doctor, Mother Goose, Peter Pan, The Devil, or an Alien ? We can also state that stages are exact with science. When does the clinging start ? Aristotle or Galen make no mention when the clinging occured. The Quran makes mention that the clinging occures after the trickler is placed inside the thing that rests and implants.
Lets take a look of the Authors quote of Aristotle:
So nature has first designed the two blood vessels from the heart, and from these smaller vessels branch off to the uterus, forming what is called the umbilicus [...] Round these is a skin-like integument, because the weakness of the vessels needs protection and shelter. The vessels join to the uterus like the roots of plants, and through them the embryo receives its nourishment.[23]
Thus contradicts with the Quran in every manner.
Aristotle's description is quite accurate, as in early development the umbilical cord is attached to the heart
This dude is amazing. Look at the picture above which shows when the clinging start that develops into an umbilical cord way before the heart is formed.
From there we move to mudgha, a word from a root that means to chew or bite. Based on this, one possible translations is "something chewed" (though it can also be a reference to a bite-sized morsel, and most translations render it as a small lump or bite sized piece). Proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach then make a wild logical leap and conclude that "chewed" is used as a reference to somites (the early traces of the spine that appear around 27 days). Such a correlation is laughable, but those who push this polemic actually try to do comparisons between a drawing a of a 28 day old embryo and a piece of gum that was deliberately bitten so as to resemble the image.
Lets see whos laughing at who. It is a wonder why he never shows microscopic images cause they due in fact confirm the Quranic discription.
Then the thing that clings is made as a chewing (True or False)
And then the chewing is made as bones (True or False)
Sure looks like its chewed to me
One wonders why, if the author of the Qur'an wanted to say that traces of the spine appear between 26 and 28 days, they did not just say so? To claim that the word "chewed" (or "bite sized morsel") is an accurate way of describing the first traces of the spine in the form of somites seems rather cautelous. Proponents of this polemic claim that this was a way to explain development in simple laymen's terms, but if that were the case one would again have to wonder why it took 1400 years for anyone to realize this was what the Qur'an was making reference to?
Duh, this wasnt founded to confirm Quran until after the microscope was invented and then used in embryo research and developement.
When we reach izhaam we find another problematic part of the verse. Consider that the text reads: khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, fa-kasawnaa al-izhaaman laHman. First note that khalaqnaa is past tense, and the pre-fix fa means "then." So the verse reads: "we formed the morsel into bones, then we clothed the bones with flesh." Thus, it implies bone forms before soft tissue, which is a blatant error, not to mention one that parallels Galen
Obviously this dude doesnt know his embryology. Before the bones are formed the substance is not flesh but plasma organic without blood vessels or a heart. He dares call something an error when he makes an error himself in rendering mudhghaa as morsel. Again his interpretation is done based on the interpretation of others.
Lahm also means muscle as flesh is muscle. The Quran strickle used the word "Clothes" in statement of "
Clothes the bones with Lahm" which is entirely refering to muscle tissue.
In the above text we put emphasis on the word thumma ("then"), as there are some who claim this hadith is referring to only a single forty day period (id est, all three stages happen within forty days). Of course, it is only those who have a deep emotional investment in this twisted polemic that would argue such. The text has clearly been understood as being a reference to three forty day periods; consider what Musallam wrote:
[Soorat al-Hajj 22:5 and Soorat al-Moominoon 23:13-14] describe the first three stages of the foetus. The first stage of development, a period of forty days from conception, is the nutfa (semen). The second, also lasting forty days, is the 'alaqa ("blood-like clot"). And the third, another forty days, is the mudgha ("lump of flesh"). In these three early stages the foetus lacks the human soul and has only the life of plants and animals. But at the end of 120 days from conception, the foetus is ensouled. [...] The division of these stages into forty-day periods is not Quranic, but first occurs in the hadith:
The Prophet said: Each of you is constituted in your mother's womb for forty days as a nutfa, then it becomes a [sic] 'alaqa for an equal period, then a mudgha for another equal period, then the angle is sent and he breathes the sould into it.
Lets see, can someone please show us where in that hadeeth in Arabic it uses the word "Nutfah" .
"...إن أحدكم يجمع خلقه في بطن أمه أربعين يوما ثم يكون في ذلك علقة مثل ذلك ثم يكون في ذلك مضغة..."
..inna (verily) ahadu (everyone) kum (you all) yujma'u (accumulates) khalqa(creation) hu (it) fee (in) baTni (inside) ummi (mothers) hu (it) arba'ien (fourty days) yawman (days) thumma (and then/later) yakoona (become) fee (in) dzaalika (that) alaqatan (a something that clings) mathlu (likewise) dzaalika (that) thumma (and then/later) yakoona (become) fee (in) mudhghatan ( a thing that is chewed)..
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... =&Tag=&SP=
..Verily the creation of everyone of you accumulates inside its mother for fourty days and then (later) it becomes in that a thing that clings, Likwise that (thing) then (later) becomes into a chewing...
Remember "Nutfah" or Sperm is feminine. In the hadith "hu" ~" it " is masculine which is not refering to "Nutfah" which is feminine. The gender here of "hu" is refering to the female Ovum or the "Qararin Makeen" ~ "a thing that sojourns and implants" which is masculine.
In the the light of the Quran, the "hu" ~ "it" that is refered to in the Hadith is the "Qararin Makeen" or the Ovum that takes 40 days or 5-6 weeks as a Follicles to be produced as an Ovum within the Ovary before being released from it.
http://www.endotext.com/female/female13 ... rame13.htm
http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/conten ... 18/1/71/F1
Again the Author has based his criticism on the interpretation of others of teh Quranic verses and Hadeeth.
Thus we see that even Muslim historians read the text the way we have (also note that the Hilaalee-Khan translation of Saheeh Bukhaaree also agrees with our translation). Of course, some may argue that Musallam, Hilaalee, and Khan are modern Muslims. That is fine, as I can also cite a medieval Muslim who understood this as three forty-day periods: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. Summarizing and quoting Ibn Qayyim's al-Tibyaan fee Aqsaam al-Qur'aan, (1st ed., Cairo, 1933), p. 337, Musallam wrote the following
I would agree here, they just didnt understand the hadeeth and contradicted the gender reference of the hadeeth inferes to, whom added there own interpolations such as "Nutfah" to the translation that the hadeeth in Arabic make no mention of.
We should be able to close here, as the argument has been pretty much demolished in our opinion (though the readers will be the final judge)
And he is right it is their opinion. All he has done in his illusion is demolished the interpretation of those interpreters but has not approach the Quran in its uninterpreted character in which we have rendered in our previous posts.
[/quote]