Quran (& Hadith) full of scientific errors!!

[Loki]

Embryology
"We placed him as sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a clot of blood; then of that blood clot We made a lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create!" (Quran 23:13-14)
- Old Theory: The entire study of human life as mentioned in the Qur'an is not original at all. While Muslims try to claim that Muhammad made these statements before scientists discovered them, they are wrong. Theories of the formation of a child inside the womb was put forth by Aristotle nearly 1,000 years before the Qur'an was written. In fact Aristotle correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, something not mentioned in the Qur'an, showing that earlier philosophers were aware of such things mentioned by Muhammad and more. Every mention of human development in the Qur'an is similar to Roman and Greek theories.
- Wrong: The Qur'an stated that the blood clot was turned to bone and then God "clothed the bones with flesh" (Quran 23:13-14). It is scientific fact that living tissue forms first, and then bones grow at a later time, and continue to gain strength (by building calcium) for many years after birth. Therefore, this is one of many scientific inaccuracies in the Qur'an
- An embryo is not a "clot of thick blood" at any point in human development. Muhammad probably saw a miscarried embryo, and made this incorrect assumption. Incidentally, the clotted blood in a miscarriage is mostly from the mother, not the embryo. Another possible explanation for this error is that Muhammad believed the prevailing Aristotelian common "wisdom" of his day. Aristotle believed that children were conceived from the action of male semen upon female menstrual blood. (Aristotle (English trans. A. L. Peck, Heinemann, 1953), Generation of Animals, 717b)
- This hadith echoes sura 23:14, which mentions the three stages of embryological development (nutfah, alaqa and mudghah) then says the embryo is "another creation". According to this hadith the human foetus was not completely formed until 120 days of gestation, which contradicts what has just been said above.

Male or Female:
In another Hadeeth, "Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam) said: When forty-two nights have passed over the drop (nutfah), Allah sends an angel to it, who shapes it and makes its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones. Then he says, "O Lord, is it male or female?" and your Lord decides what he wishes. (Muslim)."
- Old Theory: Hippocrates taught that it took 30 days for the male genitals to form and 42 for the female embryo. No wonder the angel has to wait for forty-two days before it learns the child's sex. In reality, prior to 7 weeks of gestation the ovaries and testes appear identical and the external genitalia only start to diverge around 9 weeks.
- Wrong: Semen CANNOT remain viable in the womb for forty two days. Under ideal circumstances, a male sperm cell can only survive for approximately 7 days in the female reproductive system.
- The gender of a child is determined at the moment of conception, not 42 days after conception.

360 Joints:
Narrated Buraydah ibn al-Hasib: "I heard the Apostle of Allah peace_be_upon_him) say: A human being has three hundred and sixty joints for each of which he must give alms. The people asked him: Who is capable of doing this? He replied: It may be mucus in the mosque which you bury, and something which you remove from the road; but if you do not find such, two rak'ahs in the forenoon will be sufficient for you. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab), Book 41, Number 5222)"
- Old Theory: Chinese thinkers (like Lu Pu-wei, Tung Chung-shu), centuries before the advent of Islam, positively asserted that the human body had 360 joints. In fact, this claim is even repeated to this day in certain Kung Fu classes!
- Wrong: The average adult human body has roughly 206 bones, which would mean that the average human body has less than 206 joints. Precise numbers cannot be given because exact bone counts can differ from person to person, though it is nonetheless clear that the figure of 360 is way off.

The Atom:
And you are not (engaged) in any affair, nor do you recite concerning it any portion of the Quran, nor do you do any work but We are witnesses over you when you enter into it, and there does not lie concealed from your Lord the weight of an atom in the earth or in the heaven, nor any thing less than that nor greater, but it is in a clear book [10:61]
- The scientific Atomic theory have nothing to do with this Quranic Atom. This atom is used in Quran to denote small particle. When Arabs tried to talk about small particle, they could not find a suitable word to describe the atom; only appropriate the word they imagined was "zarah" which mean: the dust particle, and the small ants If Quran really talked scientifically about atom and molecules, then we should have some indication about electrons, protons neutrons. But there is no real indication of it in the whole Quran. If any scientist claim that Quran really talk about Atomic physics, then he must show us where we may get the scientific idea of Nuclear structure, how can one observe Rutherford scattering ? How can one acquire the knowledge of Static properties of nucleus such as angular momentum, parity, size shape, magnetic multiple moments, electric multiple moments etc. Quran can only imagine very ambiguously small particle as dust and the small ants. While Islamic scientists try to prove Quran super-scientific, they usually try to get the words out from it context.

Red Star Nebula:
“And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh rosy like red hide.” [55:37-38]
- Wrong: This verse, unfortunately has nothing to do with any Red Star Nebula. Actually in this verse Muhammad was just trying to scare people with tales of blazing fires and dreadful things. The above verse is another one of Prophet's scare mongering verses, when sky opens and becomes red (with fire)

The Big Bang:
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, .... [21:30]
- Wrong: This verse does not show any kind of explosion at all. So how can it be related with Big-Bang? Big B-A-N-G -the name is self explanatory. But where is the BANG here? Big Bang in Physics refers to the explosion of SPACE-TIME SINGULARITY (not matter). Matter was not even created when Big Bang happened. Earth was formed billions of years after the Big Bang. The above verses are clearly referring to earth and sky being "joined" (Which doesn't even have a common sense or scientific meaning) together and then being split apart (Again no scientific or common sense meaning), forget about comparing it to Big Bang!

Not Expanding Universe but The Flat Earth Theory:
And the earth, We have made it a wide extent; how well have We then spread (it) out. [51:48]
this quote is commonly used to discribe the expanding universe, rather it establishes century old incorrect Quranic flat earth theory
God made earth like a carpet spread out…[20:53]
The earth is like a carpet spread out…[43.10]
Allah has spread out the earth…[51:48]
Allah made the earth a carpet…[71:19]
Allah made the earth as a wide expanse…[78:6]
- Old theory: From the above analysis it is clear that nothing in those Qur'anic verses come any close to what an expansion of universe really means. Those who wants to relate the verse with expansion of universe, is just their wishful interpretation. It is based on a dogmatic Catholic theology of that time
- Wrong: proven wrong by many scientist from Copernicus and Galileo Galilei to modern astronomy

Gassy origin of the Universe?
Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.[41:11]
- Contradictionary: Allah first created the earth and then filled the earth with mountains and plants (It is quite understandable that mountains and plants could not be made before the earth was made, thus 41:10 follows 41:9 in a quite reasonable order). But then we see that verse 41:11 establishes an undeniable context in which the universe exists as smoke at the same time that the earth already exists, since God "rose over towards the heaven when it was smoke" and spoke to it and to the earth, therefore no Muslim can rationally deny that this verse clearly says the earth existed at the same time as the smoke which is totally irrational and absurd.

Stars and comets are rockets fired by God at devils eavesdropping on Him.
- "We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, missiles to pelt devils with." Sovereignity (67) #4.
- "We have decked the heavens with constellations and made them lovely to behold. We have guarded them from every cursed devil. Eavesdroppers are pursued by fiery comets" Al-Hijr 15:~18
- Wrong: Star and comets are celestial bodies, not rockets that shoot jinns who never see it comming. Alltough you can't 'see' jinns, the theology doens't blend in with science... even if supposed so 'jinns' are being hit by suns or commets that are in orbit. Must make these jinns pretty damn stupid for being hit by stones that have a predictable orbit. On top of that, i am not suprised that commets and suns are used in this theology. Since the Ka'aba is to be of a meteorite origin, i have no doubt in my mind. That such fables about jinns being attacked by the flying lamps existed in the pre-islamic era. so it's most likely to be an old theory as well.

Water cycle:
"(God) is the One Who sends forth the winds like heralds of His Mercy. When they have carried the heavy-laden clouds, We drive them to a dead land. Then We cause water to descend and thereby bring forth fruits of every kind. Thus We will bring forth the dead. Maybe you will remember.'' [7:57] "Have you not seen that God sent water down from the sky and led it through sources into the ground? Then he caused sown fields of different colors to grow.'' [39:21]
- Old Theory: The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is clear, correct and less vague. Eccl 1:6-7;11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!
- Correct: but not that astonishing, first of all this was allready known. If not not by Marcus Vitruvius or the Bible, Then by another source... does it show special foreknowledge and thereby prove Divine Revelation? The answer must surely be "no''. Every man or woman, even those living in a city, could describe that clouds carry rain refilling wells and springs, and And every person in contact with farmers during a drought will hear them say that their wells and springs have dried up, thus showing common knowledge of that rain is the source and origin of underground water.

Very accurate solar system?
- WRONG: According to Quran our earth is flat and the Earth is bigger then the Sun and the Moon are to be much smaller. They are “lamps” hanging from the ceiling of the sky that is being supported by invisible columns. The Quranic solar system also contains invisible genies. They climb over each other’s shoulders and reach the heaven to eavesdrop the conversation of the “Exalted Assembly”. The stars are used as missiles (shooting stars) to hit them (genies). The moon is supposed to be above the stars. Then sun also must rise from muddy waters and enter in the murky waters just as Dul Qaranain witnessed (sura: 18:86, 18:90). So The Earth is much bigger. There there is also a position for the throne of Allah. But the throne is over the waters and the Sun has to prostrate in front of the throne and ask permission of Allah to rise.

Sperm Comes from between the backbone and the ribs:
"He is created from a drop (of sperm) emitted-- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs." (Qur'an 86:6-7)
- Old Theory: . Eleven centuries before Muhammad, the Greek physician Hippocrates theorized that sperm passed through the kidneys into the penis. For centuries this was an accepted (and incorrect) belief of the origins of sperm.
- Wrong: for sperm to originate between the back and the ribs would mean that it comes from the kidneys! We now know that semen is produced in the testicles, but people in Muhammad's time did not know this.
- The mention of sperm: This is nothing special. Since the beginning of time man has been aware of the "seed" that is released from the penis during sexual intercourse. The Bible, a text much older than the Qur'an, tells a story of a man who was struck down by God for "spilling his seed on the ground" (Genesis 38:9-10).

There are those who claim Muhammad had no contact with Greeks or Romans. Pre-Islamic Arabia definitely had contact with Byzantium, Syria, Egypt, Persia, and Babylon. There were many Jews and Christians living in the area, and they were familiar with Greek or Roman philosophy. The Christians were connected to Rome. The Jews were connected to Babylon and Persia. It is easy to see how such theories regarding embryonic development may have reached Muhammad.

[Kai Hagbard]

Good article Loke

One question, the name you use, Loke, you would not happen to be from a viking nation (some where in Scandinavia).

Kai

[Loki]

What's in a name?

Yeah, some ancient Norse God used it
but doesn't mean he owns that name :p
i just have it, because it sounds good
there is no harm in that, i hope

[Kai Hagbard]

Well I am a viking myself, that is why I was interrested, I guess you are right.

God bless

Kai

[Loki]

Well i'm from Europe, Belgium
and glad to meet a fellow Christian apologetic

[Alpha]

Well i'm from Europe, Belgium
and glad to meet a fellow muslim apologetic

You mean Christian apologetic.

[faithman]

Can't really say I have much to apologize for. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Best thing that has ever happened to me, and I ain't sorry for that at all. As a matter of fact, I wish every person on earth could experiance this great joy Christ has birthed in my heart!!! To be set free from myself in the river of eternal life! AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

Jump in, the water be fine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[H2O]

Here we Go again

O Well I am bored, so while I am here waiting for this Hurricane I might as well intertain my self .

Wrong: The Qur'an stated that the blood clot was turned to bone and then God "clothed the bones with flesh" (Quran 23:13-14).

"Blood Clot" ? That Quran says in that verse "alaqah" this word is a feminine verbal noun derived from the Arabic root "aliqa" which means "to hang, cling, dangle, cleave, suspend. Nothing in its root confirms "blood clot" or any association.

THe Original meaning of the word "alaqah" ~ something that clings, hangs, or dangles.

According to this hadith the human foetus was not completely formed until 120 days of gestation, which contradicts what has just been said above......

In another Hadeeth, "Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam) said: When forty-two nights have passed over the drop (nutfah), Allah sends an angel to it, who shapes it and makes its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones. Then he says, "O Lord, is it male or female?" and your Lord decides what he wishes. (Muslim)."

Do you have any IDea what () are. They are interpolations. There is no indication in the arabic text of the Hadeeth of "Nutfah" Sperm or "Manan" Semen. The Arbic word is "maa'a" water, liquid, fluid. Again this is a translators interpretation of the text and not the actual saying of the hadeeth.

- The scientific Atomic theory have nothing to do with this Quranic Atom. This atom is used in Quran to denote small particle

The Arabic word rendered as "Atom" is "Dharrah" it is a femine verbal noun derived from the Arabic root "dharaa and dharra meaning to emit, disperse, winnow, throw off; immeasurable particle.

The word "Dharrah" expresses an "immeasurable thing" THAT emits. The Quran says it is in the heaven and the earth. You mentions "ants" and "dust particles" . Lets see there sure arent any ants in the heavens so the closest out of your guessing is "dust particles". Hmm have you ever heard of space dust ? THere is dust in space ya know. Anyhow, still this doesnt conform to the meaning of the word, cause it describes that actions of this " immeasurable particle " That emits.

If Quran really talked scientifically about atom and molecules, then we should have some indication about electrons, protons neutrons

Blindness is a curse when you cant read and comprehend. What did the last phrase in the verse you quoted say ?

....nor any thing less than that (dharrah) nor greater, but it is in a clear book

The last phrase expresses things smaller than it (dharrah) and greater

Red Star Nebula:
“And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh rosy like red hide.” [55:37-38]

Where are you getting this red star Nebula from? In the context it is speaking about the future after man and Jinn are able to pass the zones of the heaven, they will be stoped then the next thing will happen is the firmament will be rent asunder being redish. If the OZONE layer of the earth is breached it will change color to red.

The Big Bang:
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, .... [21:30]
- Wrong: This verse does not show any kind of explosion at all. So how can it be related with Big-Bang? Big B-A-N-G -the name is self explanatory. But where is the BANG here?

"then We parted them" One thing that amazes me about you ANTI ISLAMIC christians is that you are very WANTON in your so called studies of another religion. Did you ever go and check other translations ? No you chose the one that best meets your criticism.

021.030
YUSUFALI: Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

MAUDUDI: Did the disbelievers (in the teaching of the Prophet) not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart, and We made every living thing of water? Will they, then, not believe (that We created all this)?

In Arabic it says " fa-fataq-naa-humaa " and then We ripped,tore,cleaved,rent(fataq) them both apart . This is the nature of what an explosion does.

Gassy origin of the Universe?
Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.[41:11]
- Contradictionary: Allah first created the earth and then filled the earth with mountains and plants (It is quite understandable that mountains and plants could not be made before the earth was made, thus 41:10 follows 41:9 in a quite reasonable order).

The verse said the mountians were placed ABOVE the earth:

wa (and) ja'ala (placed) feehaa (into it) rawaasiya (ancored mountains) fawqihaa (above it).....41:10

**and He placed into it (the earth) ancored mountains above it.**

The earth spoken of here is what is beneath the mountains



Nore does it say he MADE plants etc into it at this stage.

wa (and) baaraka (He blessed) feehaa (into it) wa (and) qaddara ( ordained) feehaa (into it) aqwaatahaa ( its sustenance).....

**and He blessed into it, and ordained into it its sustenance...**

The Sustenance of the earth was blessed and ordained for it, not made, there is nothign here that indicated the sustenance of the earth was produced at this time.

But then we see that verse 41:11 establishes an undeniable context in which the universe exists as smoke at the same time that the earth already exists

The verse is not refering to the universe, it is refering to the atmospher of the earth, you didnt finish read verse 12. Two types of Heavens are mentioned, the one of the earth and the other adorned with the sun and stars.

"as smoke" the Arbaic word used in the QUran is "Dukhaan" refered to gass,smoke, or fumes. the Universe comprised of Helium and nitrogen gasses when heated what do you have ?

Stars and comets are rockets fired by God at devils eavesdropping on Him.
- "We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, missiles to pelt devils with." Sovereignity (67) #4.
- "We have decked the heavens with constellations and made them lovely to behold. We have guarded them from every cursed devil. Eavesdroppers are pursued by fiery comets" Al-Hijr 15:~18
- Wrong: Star and comets are celestial bodies, not rockets that shoot jinns who never see it comming

You are wrong ! Commets are debris of a Super Nova that are hurled through space as shooting Missles.

Then sun also must rise from muddy waters and enter in the murky waters just as Dul Qaranain witnessed (sura: 18:86, 18:90).

This has been delt with http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... 8217#38217

There there is also a position for the throne of Allah. But the throne is over the waters and the Sun has to prostrate in front of the throne and ask permission of Allah to rise.

Does not the Sun ORBIT http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/StacyLeong.shtml
and how does it orbit with our Universe expanding at the same time ? http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Me ... 0201a.shtm l I think you should read these links

Sperm Comes from between the backbone and the ribs:
"He is created from a drop (of sperm) emitted-- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs." (Qur'an 86:6-7)

Here we go again THere is no word for sperm or anything refering to the sexual discharge of a man. Again do you know what () are ?

fa (then) yanzhuri (will notice) al-insaanu (Man ie male and female) mimma (from what) khuliqa (created) khuliqa (Created) min (from) maa'in (water/fluid) daafiq (flowing out)yakhruju (proceeding) min (from) assulbi (the back bone) wa (and) attaraa'ib (the ribs)...

then man will notice from what he was created, he is created from water/liquid flowing out proceeding from between the back bone and the ribs...

Between the Back Bone and the Ribs that connect to the back bone is the THORAX. The Fluid in the THORAX is called spinal Fluid. Thus we are created from. What is the Sperm and the OVum created from ? Is not the Ovum and the Sperm made of PLASM ? And where is this PLASM from ?

It is obvious you lack in science, but in the same sense I dont blame your criticism which again is based on a tranlators interpretation rather than what the Quran actually says. You have not found fault in the Quran. You have found fauly in the translators interpretation.

Can you all find an Arabic Speaking Christian to better argue this ? Its soo funny how manny Arabic Christians we have out there but you dont ever hear them criticizing such thing other than the statements made about Propeht Jesus, but never confront the scientific issues like western Christians do who dont even speak the language but rely on translations in which readers of their translations have been told over and over in their PREFACE TO THEIR TRANSLATIONS that their translation is NOT THE QURAN. but yet you all use these as an official authority but dont respect the comments of the AUTHORITY about his own translations. Thats to show how wanton some of you christians are.

[Loki]

1.

"Blood Clot" ? That Quran says in that verse "alaqah" this word is a feminine verbal noun derived from the Arabic root "aliqa" which means "to hang, cling, dangle, cleave, suspend. Nothing in its root confirms "blood clot" or any association.

- so then it should really read
"We placed him as sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a blood hang, cling dangle; then of that hanging, clinging, dangling blood We made a lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create!" (Quran 23:13-14)

- It still doesn't mention womb, and i can't imagine a dingling blood or whatever as a womb, i don't think a womb dangles either
- It still contradicts that living tissue is formed first and then bones grow at a latter time
- You've also proven that all translations of the quran are not correct, and that there is more then one quran
- You ignored the possibility of Muhammed just borrowing a 1000 year old known embrylogy theory

2.

Do you have any IDea what () are. They are interpolations. There is no indication in the arabic text of the Hadeeth of "Nutfah" Sperm or "Manan" Semen. The Arbic word is "maa'a" water, liquid, fluid. Again this is a translators interpretation of the text and not the actual saying of the hadeeth.

- Since Allah decides the genitalia of the man and woman what he wishes, this is ment in the plural (since it is in the contineous time, "Allah sends an angel to it", not "Allah had sent an angel to it") so it can't be brought back to the islam myth wich says man is made from water... if so then this hadith verse wouldn't been ment in the plural, unless Allah is making man from water daily in a timespan of 42 days... wich would be highly unscientific in my opinion
- Could you please then explain what it DOES mean?

3. Why do you leave out the 360 joints??

4.

The Arabic word rendered as "Atom" is "Dharrah" it is a femine verbal noun derived from the Arabic root "dharaa and dharra meaning to emit, disperse, winnow, throw off; immeasurable particle.

- so prior to the 20th century, this quran verse just didn't make sence
- this excuse theory is as much scienitific as someone saying "time is relative" before Einstein discovered it... would this mean, this person knew that time is relative? or that he was being scientific? That's why the need for emphasize on molecules, electrons, protons and neutrons is neccerary.

The last phrase expresses things smaller than it (dharrah) and greater

This is so vague that it could have been about a ant or a dust particle as well... if the verse would of said, "the smaller particles evolve around the center in a ecliptic movement and are opposed to one and another"

Such a verse would excluded missconceptions, but noooo Allah had to stay vague, and had to leave it's believers in confucion...
for a omniscient God, he isn't making a case here

5.

Where are you getting this red star Nebula from? In the context it is speaking about the future after man and Jinn are able to pass the zones of the heaven, they will be stoped then the next thing will happen is the firmament will be rent asunder being redish. If the OZONE layer of the earth is breached it will change color to red.

- Look up the Red Star Nebula if you don't know what i mean
- and do you know on top of that, that the colours are added to this picture due to infra red and x ray wich is invisible for humans... know that the color used could of been green or blue as well, then where would the argument be?
- Muhammad was a typical prophet of doom and gloom. He was very fond of scaring people with tales of blazing fires and dreadful things. In the verse he is threatening his gullible followers that one day the sky will open asunder and becomes red (with fire).
- This isn't scary!

6.

"then We parted them" One thing that amazes me about you ANTI ISLAMIC christians is that you are very WANTON in your so called studies of another religion. Did you ever go and check other translations ? No you chose the one that best meets your criticism. ?

- What's wrong with the translations? so people who devote their life with only reading one messed up translation will probably go to hell... since it ain't the pure word of God, you allready complained about three verses of the six given so far... if that is the rule for all quran translations then half of a quran translation is always wrongfully translated. and you can't except for every poor muslim to study arabic either.
- I only assumed there was one quran, like muslims claim, i'm sorry if you (and i) were wrong

In Arabic it says " fa-fataq-naa-humaa " and then We ripped,tore,cleaved,rent(fataq) them both apart . This is the nature of what an explosion does.

- even if this say big bang, by some wacky interpretation, what did it 'cleaved' apart ? heaven and EARTH? matter didn't excisted yet!

7. Why did you leave out the flat earth theory rebutal?

8.

The verse is not refering to the universe, it is refering to the atmospher of the earth, you didnt finish read verse 12. Two types of Heavens are mentioned, the one of the earth and the other adorned with the sun and stars.

So you gave it a little twist, that's not what i read on muslim sites, but still even with this twist, Allah isn't very accurate in his choice of words. Neither are you.

"as smoke" the Arbaic word used in the QUran is "Dukhaan" refered to gass,smoke, or fumes. the Universe comprised of Helium and nitrogen gasses when heated what do you have ?

The Arabic word used in this verse is dukhan, - "smoke.". Trying to relate smoke with gaseous material is nothing but a hide and seek wordy games played by Mullahs. Moreover, Smoke is made of ash, predominantly carbon, and is produced from burning (oxidation), not plasma condensation. Smoke looks nothing like heated hydrogen or helium, does not share its elemental mass or other properties, and does not even possess many of the general properties of a gas. Thus, Allah chose the wrong word. He could have used "hot gases" or "hot gases expanding in a vacuum" or anything which is more closer to the truth.

9. "You are wrong ! Commets are debris of a Super Nova that are hurled through space as shooting Missles."

- it's funny how mere stones can scare devils thou... you sure pre-islamic period didn't do stone worship?
- next to that, meteor showerwaves have a predictable orbit as much as a sun or a comet... the only thing that changes their orbits is the influence of gravity of other celestial bodies... these aren't rockets fired at some invisibile (jinns) targets like how a fighter Jet would do on visibile ones, this debris just flies around randomly in a predictable orbit

10. You forgot to rebute the water cycle as a scientific miracle

11.

This has been delt with http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... 8217#38217

I'm reasonable enough, to assume that the quran doesn't speak scientific here

Does not the Sun ORBIT and how does it orbit with our Universe expanding at the same time ?

There is no mention of ORBIT, it rises above a flat earth... muslims of that time saw a sun rise and a sun set, without the intention of calling it an orbit, you just added that into it. By your assumptions not by what they said or knew.

12.

then man will notice from what he was created, he is created from water/liquid flowing out proceeding from between the back bone and the ribs...

- No man is created from water/fluid... saying this isn't about sperm is even more far off then when it was about it.

Between the Back Bone and the Ribs that connect to the back bone is the THORAX. The Fluid in the THORAX is called spinal Fluid. Thus we are created from. What is the Sperm and the OVum created from ? Is not the Ovum and the Sperm made of PLASM ? And where is this PLASM from ?

- man is made from conception of the female egg and sperm, you can try all your live in trying to conceive a child with just spinal fluid. that comes from your backbone. good luck with that
- it's as illogical as saying: a sculpture is made from a rough stone, therefore all rough stones are art

You have not found fault in the Quran. You have found fauly in the translators interpretation.

Dare live up to my challenge, i just entered this forum... but i assure you, i won't make it easy for you on providing faults in the quran, and not just scientific I hope you are as firm in your beliefs as you think you are.


Now for a closing conclusion... you never adressed that Muhammed could and most likely borrowed old theories, since he didn't brought anything new, all the new ones being made are vague reverances summed up in one line, found AFTER the discovery was made... acctually insulting those who really did hard work in proving such stuff as atoms and big bang theories. who write whole thesises and books about the subject... some mullah takes a vague quote from the quran and says it's this... a quote wich is so vague or cryptic you could discribe anything with it. Everything discovered is what man had to discover, the quran never helped in any of this.

If Allah really is a man of science, he's an even worst scientist than man.

[H2O]

so then it should really read
"We placed him as sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a blood hang, cling dangle; then of that hanging, clinging, dangling blood We made a lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create!" (Quran 23:13-14)

It still doesn't mention womb, and i can't imagine a dingling blood or whatever as a womb, i don't think a womb dangles either
- It still contradicts that living tissue is formed first and then bones grow at a latter time

There is no word for blood such as dam or dima in the Quranic text.

[23:13] Then We placed him as a sperm into a thing that rests and implants

[23:14] Then We made the sperm as a thing that clings and then We made the thing that clings as a chewing, and then We made the chewing as bones and then We clothed the bones with muscle then He (Allah) brings it out as another creation; and sublime is Allah the best of makers.

[23:15] and then verily you all after that will indeed die

Before our death we were brought out. Brought out of what ? You mean to tell me you dont have enough sense here that this is refering to how were are created within our mothers wombs in which after a period of time we are brought out ?

V.13 stated the sperm ie nutfah literal meaning a trickler is placed into a thing that rests and implants "qaraarimmakeen". Does not the female Ovum rest and implants ? Does not an Ovum rest in the Fallopian tube before fertilization ?




V.14 Speaks of the next stage "alaqah" a thing that clings. After the egg implantation does not the ovum cling to the utterus of its mother ?

(((Then We made the sperm as a thing that clings)))



(((and then We made the thing that clings as a chewing)))



(((and then We made the chewing as bones)))




(((and then We clothed the bones with muscle)))

- You've also proven that all translations of the quran are not correct, and that there is more then one quran

Translation of the Quran are not the Quran. The works of those scholars are merely their interpretation of the science of the Quran, in which their translation were merely meant to convey a message. Their translation were not meant for critique

Translations of the Qur'an

On this Web site, there are three translations of the Qur'an(Yusuf, Picthal, Shakir). Note that any translation of the Qur'an immediately ceases to be the literal word of Allah, and hence cannot be equated with the Qur'an in its original Arabic form. In fact, each of the translations on this site is actually an interpretation which has been translated. The first-time reader is strongly advised to read the introduction to the translations we have made available. Corrections and suggestions are appreciated.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Translations of the Quran

Please keep in mind that ANY translation of the Qur'an will most definitely contain errors (e.g. see our online list of corrections). We have provided three translations here to emphasize this point. In its natural language (Arabic), the Qur'an is the direct Word of Allah (God) to mankind through the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Any translation of the Qur'an no longer retains that 'official' and perfect status, however it can be tremendously helpful to beginning students wanting to learn more about Islam.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/qmtintro.html

So to make this short rather than answering your long scrutiny, what you presented is based on a translators interpration wich is subject to error. And please stop with your emotional mind games of people going to hell cause they dont know arabic. I didnt know you needed to know arabic and science to obtain salvation, there is not such beliefs in islam. That is such a ridiculous statement you made.

What you would go to hell for is worshiping something else other than Allah himself, or believing He has a child , or partners in his divinity, or to do against his will, or rejecting his prophets, or doing evil that displeases your maker.

[Apple Pie]

All,

Koranic "embryology" is an idea (mis)taken from the ancient Biblical book of Job…

The Book of Job…..like all Biblical books….corrects and clarifies the Koran in all manner of things…


Thanks…

[farside]

 Dear Pie

You should consider starting your own website. The advantages are many. You can organize and present all your research in a systemic way. It will be easy for you to add new information at a later time. Free websites are available at many servers such as http://www.freeservers.com/ . If you do get your own website, please don’t stop posting in the Jesus Christ Forums!

Kind Regards,
Farside

[Loki]

H20

the theory is as ancient as when Aristotle came up with it NOT Allah and not Muhammed... making this not a miracle
- this is an OLD theory, made by a man of SCIENCE (Aristotles)
- and most likely copied by Muhammed in his quran, just like any man, could of known this!!!!
- it is Aristotles theory, AND even Aristotle was wrong on this one. as wrong as Muhammed when he copied it in his quran.
- you can keep on making interpretations of the quran in hundreds of different angles in your benefit... that's what vague statements give you the freedom to do... but that doesn't do justice to the truth.

so the translations are not of God... saying that your omnipotent God can't communicate in other languages? Everyone who doesn't learn arabic, hasn't ever heard the true word of God? so you can't be a muslim just by living your life based on a translation? because THAT's not a quran.

[H2O]

the theory is as ancient as when Aristotle came up with it NOT Allah and not Muhammed... making this not a miracle
- this is an OLD theory, made by a man of SCIENCE (Aristotles)

I am not debating with you if greek philosophy expounded on how human being are created. I have read such philosophical explanation from Aristotle. His Philosophy was wrong compared to modern knowledge.

He does not mention anything about the Sperm Gamette or the Ovum Gamette or the egg implantation, and the alaqah, mudhghah, stages of development mentioned in the Quran which are simple microscopic and had no way of discribing such phenominon.

Aristotle used the example of a chicken's egg to derive his THEORY based on philosophy, not science, to determine how we are created within the wombs of our mothers.

I would like to challenge you in presenting quotes from Aristotle and Plato's writtings and compare them to the Surah 23 of the Quran. THey have absolutley no relation. But anyhow I give you a chance to present quotes directly from their works and then explain how they are related to the Quranic passages to prove as you say Muhammad derived his info from. Funny christians cant make up their minds on where Muhammad got his Scientific indications from in which each party says something different.

so the translations are not of God... saying that your omnipotent God can't communicate in other languages? Everyone who doesn't learn arabic, hasn't ever heard the true word of God? so you can't be a muslim just by living your life based on a translation? because THAT's not a quran

Do you self a favor, go ask an orthadox Jew who speaks Hebrew if the English translations of the Bible are the same as the Hebrew, you will be told, NO. The translations of the Bible and the Quran are more so interpretations rather than literary expressions. You have the same problem thats why it is the duty upon us and you to educate people in the manner of scripture in its revealed language.

Unlike Christians We influence our brothers and sisters to study the source directly from the fountain it self so they can expand in knowledge, and not infuse the sick mentality that translators are inspired and for them to rely solely on their exegesis.

This is a problem with language in general as you cannot translate from one language to another language word for word, it is merely impossible. This is how Allah created language with its one unique conveyance in which the other will fall short of with the loss of meaning.

When dealing with the science of the Quran yes you would have to consult the Arabic it self, you do not need to go to the Arabic to understand principle, morals, ethics, and duties one is suppose to do to please Allah. The Standard message of the Quran is that there is no G-d except Allah and to obey him and to follow his will.

As I said to you before, there is no criterior in Islam that you must understand the science of the Quran explained in any language to obtain salvation. The Science of Quran is a challenge for people like you, disbelievers, but in its original language. You have no excuse now on the day of Judgement when we all come before our Lord that the sign or miracle was vague to you because of translators. Some way or another just like now it will be confirmed, and made clear to you and as proof against you self and others who follow your way.

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Farside,

I appreciate your comments…

You are correct; I need to give a dedicated website another serious look. I had pursued this earlier this year, but, it never quite materialized…

I have compiled ~400 pages of research material that needs a home…with more breakthroughs coming daily…

I will look into your suggestion…

Take care….

[Loki]

You sure you only want me to quote only Aristotles? cause i can give you many who knew about embryology WAY before Muhammed arived

History of Embryology:

Garbha Upinandas 1416 BC: the Hindus describing ancient ideas concerning the embryo

"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"

Book of Job ca. 1000 BC:

"Your hands formed me and made me - will you now absorb me? Remember that you formed me as if with clay - will you return me to dust? You poured me out like milk, and pulled me together like cheese. You clothed me with skin and flesh, and [inside me] did you interweave bones and sinews." -- Job 10:8-11

Hippocrates 460-370 BC:

1st stage: "Sperm is a product which comes from the whole body of each parent, weak sperm coming from the weak parts, and strong sperm from the strong parts." Section 8, p 321
2nd stage: "The seed (embryo), then, is contained in a membrane ... Moreover, it grows because of its mother's blood, which descends to the womb. For once a woman conceives, she ceases to menstruate..." Section 14, p. 326
3rd stage: "At this stage, with the descent and coagulation of the mother's blood, flesh begins to be formed, with the umbilicus." Section 14, p. 326
4th stage: "As the flesh grows it is formed into distinct members by breath ... The bones grow hard ... moreover they send out branches like a tree ..." Section 17, p. 328

Aristotle 384-322 BC:

"When the material secreted by the female in the uterus has been fixed by the semen of the male [...] the more solid part comes together, the liquid is separated off from it, and as the earthy parts solidify membranes form all around it [...] Some of these are called membranes and others choria[.]" -- Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Book II, 739b20-739b30, as per Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, (Princeton, 1985), Vol 1, p. 1148.

"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" -- Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Book II, 740a28-740a35, as per Barnes, opere citato, p. 1149

Diocles of Carystus 240-180 BC:

"on the ninth day a few points of blood, on the eighteenth beating of the heart, on the twenty-seventh traces of the spinal cord and head"

Galen 129-210 AD:

"let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time.
The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size,
this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus.
The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches.
The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed " -- Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10 pp. 92-95, 101

"... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow " -- Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10 pp. 92-95, 101

Talmud: Samuel ha-Yehudi 2nd century AD:

The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as

1. golem (formless, rolled-up thing);
2. shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac);
3. 'ubbar (something carried); v'alad (child); v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and
4. ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).

Muhammed 571-632 AD:

how it should read
"And we created man from a portion of clay. Then we made him a drop in a firm place. Then we formed the drop into a clot, then we formed the clot into a morsel, then we formed the morsel into bones, then we clothed the bones with flesh. Then we brought it forth as another creation. Blessed is Allaah, the best of creators." [23:13-14]

how it is read:
"Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (Alaqa, a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh (Mudghah), then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!" [23:13-14]

In conclusion then there is not a single statement contained in the Qur'an relating to modern embryology that was not well known through direct observation by the ancient Greek and Indian physicians many centuries before the Qur'an was written. Morever, much of what the Qur'an actually does say about embryology is scientifically inaccurate... Yet you still believe such vague and incorrect pseudo-science could only have come from Allah?

[Unite]

So Loki, with a little science, a little theology and no common sense and prudence one prove whatever he wants. I wonder if you are also critical of Bible as you are critcal of Qur'an. I liked the milk and chese analogy.

Anyways, you should listen to brother H2O's warning. You base your claims on translations, which reflect translators' own comments and interpolations.

Here's my own interpolation. If you find any error it will be my error, not Quran's.

The keywords are: nutfah, alaqah, lump, bones, flesh, another creation.

1) If the fluid nutfah can be interpreted as sperm, then the place of rest might be ovum, as the sperm is firmly fixed into the ovum.

2) H2O translated alaqah as something that clings. It sounds so true since alaqah is also translated as leech in some translations. So technically I believe alaqah is blastocyst.

3) Lump or chewing. This coincides with the phase of differentiation.

4) Bones in the lump. This might be about formation of notocord or the associated tubular structure. Or in any case bulk of organs came after formation of bones. You mix differentiation with formation of organs. See below.

5) Flesh around bones. This suggests formation of essential organs.

6) Another creation. This I think is when the material is breathed upon a soul.

Now the scientific material:

1) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 002398.htm

Conception usually takes place in the Fallopian tube. A single sperm penetrates the mother's egg cell, and the resulting cell is called a zygote.

The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube and divides to form a ball of cells. Further cell division creates an inner group of cells with an outer shell. This stage is called a "blastocyst". The inner group of cells will become the embryo, while the outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it.

The blastocyst reaches the uterus at roughly the fifth day, and implants into the uterine wall on about day six. At this point in the mother's menstrual cycle, the endometrium (lining of the uterus) has grown and is ready to support a fetus. The blastocyst adheres tightly to the endometrium, where it receives nourishment via the mother's bloodstream.

The cells of the embryo now multiply and begin to take on specific functions. This process is called differentiation, which produces the varied cell types that make up a human being (such as blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells).

(There's a timeline in the page. Bones start to form in week 4-5, and it is not until the week 7 that all essential organs have at least begun to form)

2) http://www.gynob.com/concepti.htm

The cells of the blastocyst that are destined to be fetus have already developed three different types of cells, ectoderm (the back of the fetus), endoderm (the front of the fetus), and mesoderm (the remainder).

The very first structure associated with an actual embryo is something called "the primitive streak" ...

Extending from the primitive steak is the notocord, which is the earliest structure of support for the embryo. It's what makes us vertebrates within the entire animal world. It is still in you and me as material in the discs between the vertebrae of our backbones, those discs that "slip" from time to time in the less fortunate among us. ... A lengthwise structure of ectoderm develops and its two edges of this long groove curl toward each other and finally close, creating a tube that will run the length of the fetus. It is associated with the notocord, and from it will develop the brain and spinal cord.

Mesoderm, flanking this tube on either side, will surround it as serial bones (or the vertebrae that make up the backbone), as well as the skull around the brain. Also important is a space that develops within the mesoderm, a cavity called the "coelum." This cavity, a space lined by the actively dividing cells which surround it, is very important, for it establishes your future baby as a tubular structure. A tubular structure, any physics teacher will tell you, will have its empty space within distorted when the tube itself is twisted. This is exactly what happens when different cells of the tube start growing and reproducing at differing rates. This is, thankfully, to our benefit, because as this tubular core splits and portions of it pinch off in ways consistent with the differing rates of growth outside of it, it allows us to have the digestive tract, central nervous system, cardiovascular system; and other quite necessary systems develop from their cell lines in positions that make us work as a correctly operating human machine.

Regards,
Unite

[Loki]

So Loki, with a little science, a little theology and no common sense and prudence one prove whatever he wants. I wonder if you are also critical of Bible as you are critcal of Qur'an. I liked the milk and chese analogy.

Acctually i am as critical too the bible as well as to the quran. I believe it could discribe certain truthfull observations of the world but not in a scientific way. And i unlike muslims would never use vague scientific references in the bible as a means of proving it's divinity. Just as i have been proving you right now, this would make a weak case. Embryology was known in the Uphinashad the oldest... therefore the Uphinashad must be of Brahman/God i guess?

Anyways, you should listen to brother H2O's warning. You base your claims on translations, which reflect translators' own comments and interpolations.

English isn't my main language, yet you understand what i say in english. Why is a quran incapable of translation without perverting or corrupting it, in such a way. That it's fully untruth concerning science. I raise my doubts with such. Even Aristotles, Hippocrates, Galen and such are open for translations... yet the all powerfull word of God can only be uttered in understanding only in arabic.

1) If the fluid nutfah can be interpreted as sperm, then the place of rest might be ovum, as the sperm is firmly fixed into the ovum.

can be? might be?
is interpretating stuff to your benefit... called science now?

2) H2O translated alaqah as something that clings. It sounds so true since alaqah is also translated as leech in some translations. So technically I believe alaqah is blastocyst.

acctually it should be translated in leech only... Dr. Moore who came up with this scientific myth, gave it the 'leech-like structure' translation.

4) Bones in the lump. This might be about formation of notocord or the associated tubular structure. Or in any case bulk of organs came after formation of bones. You mix differentiation with formation of organs. See below.

again: "might be", "or"... that surah isn't very clear is it, bur rather vague.

5) Flesh around bones. This suggests formation of essential organs.

aarghh, stop suggesting... the verse should speak for itself if it was really scientific!!!

6) Another creation. This I think is when the material is breathed upon a soul.

So abortion is allowed in the islam, before this stage?

1) Conception usually takes place in the Fallopian tube. A single sperm penetrates the mother's egg cell, and the resulting cell is called a zygote.

The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube and divides to form a ball of cells. Further cell division creates an inner group of cells with an outer shell. This stage is called a "blastocyst". The inner group of cells will become the embryo, while the outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it.

The blastocyst reaches the uterus at roughly the fifth day, and implants into the uterine wall on about day six. At this point in the mother's menstrual cycle, the endometrium (lining of the uterus) has grown and is ready to support a fetus. The blastocyst adheres tightly to the endometrium, where it receives nourishment via the mother's bloodstream.

The cells of the embryo now multiply and begin to take on specific functions. This process is called differentiation, which produces the varied cell types that make up a human being (such as blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells).

(There's a timeline in the page. Bones start to form in week 4-5, and it is not until the week 7 that all essential organs have at least begun to form)

This mentions alot of stuff that is excluded in the quran, where does all what is said in here comparable in utmost detail to that verse in the surah?

2) The cells of the blastocyst that are destined to be fetus have already developed three different types of cells, ectoderm (the back of the fetus), endoderm (the front of the fetus), and mesoderm (the remainder).

The very first structure associated with an actual embryo is something called "the primitive streak" ...

Extending from the primitive steak is the notocord, which is the earliest structure of support for the embryo. It's what makes us vertebrates within the entire animal world. It is still in you and me as material in the discs between the vertebrae of our backbones, those discs that "slip" from time to time in the less fortunate among us. ... A lengthwise structure of ectoderm develops and its two edges of this long groove curl toward each other and finally close, creating a tube that will run the length of the fetus. It is associated with the notocord, and from it will develop the brain and spinal cord.

Mesoderm, flanking this tube on either side, will surround it as serial bones (or the vertebrae that make up the backbone), as well as the skull around the brain. Also important is a space that develops within the mesoderm, a cavity called the "coelum." This cavity, a space lined by the actively dividing cells which surround it, is very important, for it establishes your future baby as a tubular structure. A tubular structure, any physics teacher will tell you, will have its empty space within distorted when the tube itself is twisted. This is exactly what happens when different cells of the tube start growing and reproducing at differing rates. This is, thankfully, to our benefit, because as this tubular core splits and portions of it pinch off in ways consistent with the differing rates of growth outside of it, it allows us to have the digestive tract, central nervous system, cardiovascular system; and other quite necessary systems develop from their cell lines in positions that make us work as a correctly operating human machine.

Again, nice scientific explenation, but what has it to do with the Surah?
Does the quran add unto science, or does science need to confirm the quran? what prevails above the other?

[Unite]

And i unlike muslims would never use vague scientific references in the bible as a means of proving it's divinity. Just as i have been proving you right now, this would make a weak case. Embryology was known in the Uphinashad the oldest... therefore the Uphinashad must be of Brahman/God i guess?

You might want to reconsider that.

8. The embryo lying (in the womb) for (a day) and night is a confused mass; after seven days it becomes a bubble; after a fortnight, a mass and in a month, it hardens. In two months develops the region of the head; in three months, the feet; in the fourth, belly and hip; in the fifth, the backbone; in the sixth, nose, eyes and ears; in the seventh the embryo quickens with life and in the eighth month, it becomes complete.

English isn't my main language, yet you understand what i say in english. Why is a quran incapable of translation without perverting or corrupting it, in such a way. That it's fully untruth concerning science. I raise my doubts with such. Even Aristotles, Hippocrates, Galen and such are open for translations... yet the all powerfull word of God can only be uttered in understanding only in arabic.

You well know that this has nothing to do with what we say. H2O gave a good example with translation of alaqah. Also surely understanding Qur'an in its original language is wiser than criticising its translations.

can be? might be?
is interpretating stuff to your benefit... called science now?

I said they are my interpolations and do not bind Qur'an.

6) Another creation. This I think is when the material is breathed upon a soul.

So abortion is allowed in the islam, before this stage?

You are right, Islam itself rules out this option. Then "maybe" the phrase "another creation" means that the physical characteristics that make each human unique appear at this stage.

This mentions alot of stuff that is excluded in the quran, where does all what is said in here comparable in utmost detail to that verse in the surah?

A Biology 101 textbook excludes many things in biology too.

And the fact is that Qur'an is not a textbook. The issue here is whether anything in Qur'an contradicts established knowledge of science. As you see Qur'an depicts gradual development of fetus, and we can make one-to-one match between Qur'an and science. Thats all.

[Loki]

You might want to reconsider that.

no i don't need to reconsider that, i gave you my clear answer and the explenation why you can't use it to proof divinity.

You well know that this has nothing to do with what we say. H2O gave a good example with translation of alaqah. Also surely understanding Qur'an in its original language is wiser than criticising its translations.

No it has everything to do with it. H20 was capable of translating Alaqah correctly, why can't others. Are all arabs such louzy translators? sure criticising copies of it's original language give you a more literal viewpoint for better or for worse. But it's impossible for me to think that all arab translators are so far off in translating the most holy book in the world without it being perverted into a entire other meaning? If there is a reason why you don't accept translations; then it's because of the chauvinistic nature of islam... If it's not possible to have a clear translation of the quran, then the only thing could be is that the quran is very vague in perspection wich opens it to imagination... and not clear at all

can be? might be?
is interpretating stuff to your benefit... called science now?

I said they are my interpolations and do not bind Qur'an.

so without your interpolations/help, the quran doesn't stand on it's own

So abortion is allowed in the islam, before this stage?

You are right, Islam itself rules out this option. Then "maybe" the phrase "another creation" means that the physical characteristics that make each human unique appear at this stage.

you're guessing again....

This mentions alot of stuff that is excluded in the quran, where does all what is said in here comparable in utmost detail to that verse in the surah?

A Biology 101 textbook excludes many things in biology too.

Yes but a biology 101 textbook alltough limited explains every subject in clear scientific detail. while the quran speaks about embryology as if muhammed is making a cake.

"And the fact is that Qur'an is not a textbook. The issue here is whether anything in Qur'an contradicts established knowledge of science. As you see Qur'an depicts gradual development of fetus, and we can make one-to-one match between Qur'an and science. Thats all."

Yes, but any vague refference, is this to nothing... "by force we are kept on this planet, like flying birds we shall leave it"

does this mean i am talking about gravity? and about hot and cold air wich makes planes possible to fly?

no not at all, you can assume that, because i am so vague but i never said that.

and acctually the issue was:
- this knowledge could not be known without Allah (proven wrong)
- this knowledge is scientificly correct (not science, not correct)
- this proofs it to be the word of God (not by a long shot)

and the only thing the quran despicts are known sciences of that time, Galen has more knowledge on the subject then muhammed, then Galen must have been speaking trough Allah, because out of nowhere he commes up with that theory!!! muhammed just as thousands of doctors in medicen, have copied his teachings in their practise... when the doctors in muhammed's time knew this as well, what argument do you have? a vague plagitarising of a previous more correct and detailed scientific version (but also wrong) can hardly be called a miracle

[Unite]

so without your interpolations/help, the quran doesn't stand on it's own

This frequent attitude of yours reminds me a character in a sitcom on TV. The bit of dialogue goes:

- It is very risky..
- You mean, I am incapable to handle that?
- No, you misunderstood me...
- Do you say I'm so dumb to understand what you say?

Whatever direction you are looking at, you are not looking at where I point. So I see no chance we can communicate. Good luck.

[Loki]

This frequent attitude of yours reminds me a character in a sitcom on TV. The bit of dialogue goes:

- It is very risky..
- You mean, I am incapable to handle that?
- No, you misunderstood me...
- Do you say I'm so dumb to understand what you say?

Unite: "I assume stuff in the quran wich i think it presumes"

My response is legimite and to the point, as what most muslim claim, then the quran is the ultimate, literal en clear word of God. What you are doing is making translating errors like the translaters you oppose so much. You read things wich aren't their, in benefit of what you belief that it says.

Unless you have some other explenation for what you are doing...

Whatever direction you are looking at, you are not looking at where I point. So I see no chance we can communicate. Good luck.

Your point is nothing but trying to proof assumptions for basis of manupilation.... you disregard
- that the scientific findings excisted before muhammed
- that wich is in the quran is a vague interpretation of what was allready known at that time
- that those scientific experts on embryology that you are posting, are all stuff being discovered after when muhammed copied that line in the quran... embryology didn't start with muhammed founding it, but with Hippocrates, Aristotles and Galen laying the foundations, if scientists continued research on this, it came from them who had studied it into detail, and not from muhammed who only copied a vague verse, what others allready had discribed

[H2O]

English isn't my main language, yet you understand what i say in english. Why is a quran incapable of translation without perverting or corrupting it, in such a way.

Because it is the natural character of Language in general, especially with the semetic language vs the English Language, you cannot translate from one langauge to another language word for word in which you loose meaning. This is a universal fact among all languages.

That it's fully untruth concerning science

If it is concerning science then it make everything more critical as the original language needs to be refered back to. Remember we are not dealing with instruction of how to live ones life, it is trying to have a proper understand of it meaning in your case being that you dont speak Arabic.

yet the all powerfull word of God can only be uttered in understanding only in arabic.

My challenge still stands with you, ask any Orthadox Jew who speaks Hebrew if the English translation of the Hebrew is the same ? NO. And if someone who reads Hebrew/Aramaic would have a better understand of the scripture than someone reading a translation of the Bible ? YES. SO does this fall to your above statement ?

That it's fully untruth concerning science. I raise my doubts with such. Even Aristotles, Hippocrates, Galen and such are open for translations...

I find it amazing that you said this. My reason for this is to this matter, your sources you quoted used terms like "SPERM" but what did Hippocrates mean in his original writing before the translator rendered it as "Sperm" to his understanding ? What did he mean, The Sperm as to the Sperma ie Gamete or The Sperm as to Semen ?

Back then they did not know anything about the Sperma ie gamete cause they could not see it until after the 16 century AC when the telescope and microscope were invented.

The use of the word Sperm in Greek strickly meant "semen" or "seed" of a man. The term "Seed" did not describe the gamete, it expressed semen ie the liquid from a man that produces offspring. Also "seed" is an old english term to express semen not gamete. "Seed" would be more accurate to apply to a woman's ovum (singular) but unfortunatley it was not but applied to a mans reproductive sexual discharge as you quoted the bible saying:

This is nothing special. Since the beginning of time man has been aware of the "seed" that is released from the penis during sexual intercourse. The Bible, a text much older than the Qur'an, tells a story of a man who was struck down by God for "spilling his seed on the ground" (Genesis 38:9-10).

When in fact to say he spilled his "SEED" singular to refer to the gamete would contradict science as there are billions of gemetes in a single drop of emited semen. SO did he spill a gamete or did a spill billions of gametes ?

The Quran goes beyond this and says and describes the gamete:

[23:13] Then We placed him as a nutfah into a thing that rests and implants

The original meaning of "nutfah" is a trickler or something that trickles.

In the Quran it is given more discription:

[80:19] Verily We create mankind from a trickler a mixture (Nutfatin amshaajin) for Us to try him, and We made for him hearing and sight.

The "nutfah" ie Trickler is called "amshaaj" a Mixture or Something that mixes.

This Trickler that mixes is from semen and it itself is not semen:

[Quran 75:37]Is he (man) not a Nutfah from semen emitted.

We gather three discriptive ideas of this thing that is PLACE INTO something that rests and implants.

1) "Nutfah" this is thing is called by deffinition a "Trickler or Something that trickles"

2) It is a Mixture or Something that Mixes

3) it is FROM semen but not semen.

*Does not a male gamete TRICKLE ?

*Is not the male gamete FROM semen ?

*Does not the male gamete mix ?

Sperm is made in the man's testicles. The sperm then travels from the testicle through a tube called the vas into the body where it enters the prostate gland. In the prostate, the sperm mixes with seminal fluid. Seminal fluid is fluid that does not contain sperm and is made in the seminal vesicles and prostate. The sperm mixes with seminal fluid in the prostate to make semen. The semen then is ejaculated out the urethra

http://www.usadelaware.com/prostate.htm

Seminal vesicles - secrete a fluid that mixes with sperm to produce nourishment and makes them more mobile

http://www.texashste.com/html/hlh_rep.htm

Sperm is produced in the testicles and transported through tubes to the prostate gland. Semen, the solution that carries sperm, is produced by both the prostate gland and the seminal vesicles, glands attached to the prostate. Prior to ejaculation, tubes from the testicles carry sperm to the prostate, where sperm mixes with semen. This fluid is then ejaculated during orgasm by a connection to the urethra called the ejaculatory ducts.

http://www.prostatecanceruk.org/erictil ... ction.html

This thing that Trickles and mixes which is FROM semen is PLACED INTO something that RESTS and IMPLANTS.

This is directly refering to the fertilization stage. The OVUM is what RESTS and IMPLANTS. The Ovum rests in the Falopian tube after ovulation until fetilized where the gamete literally penetrates INTO ovum, in which thereon after the fetilized cell proceeds to the Uterus where it literally IMPLANTS which is called the egg implantation.


[23:13] Then We placed him as a nutfah into a thing that rests and implants

Where is this statement found in Greek writings you posted ?

Garbha Upinandas 1416 BC: the Hindus describing ancient ideas concerning the embryo

"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"

The Quran in Arabic makes no mention of ""From the conjugation of blood and semen" Needles to say the it is not discriptive.

Book of Job ca. 1000 BC:

"Your hands formed me and made me - will you now absorb me? Remember that you formed me as if with clay - will you return me to dust? You poured me out like milk, and pulled me together like cheese. You clothed me with skin and flesh, and [inside me] did you interweave bones and sinews." -- Job 10:8-11

Job is discribing his well aware physiology

while the Quran is speaking about a micrscopic phenomina

[23:14]..and then We made the chewing as bones and then We clothed the bones with muscle...

Hippocrates 460-370 BC:

1st stage: "Sperm is a product which comes from the whole body of each parent, weak sperm coming from the weak parts, and strong sperm from the strong parts." Section 8, p 321
2nd stage: "The seed (embryo), then, is contained in a membrane ... Moreover, it grows because of its mother's blood, which descends to the womb. For once a woman conceives, she ceases to menstruate..." Section 14, p. 326
3rd stage: "At this stage, with the descent and coagulation of the mother's blood, flesh begins to be formed, with the umbilicus." Section 14, p. 326
4th stage: "As the flesh grows it is formed into distinct members by breath ... The bones grow hard ... moreover they send out branches like a tree ..." Section 17, p. 328

*Sperm here is refering to reproductive fluid from both male and female. The Quran makes mention of Nutfah ie Trickler (Sperma) not being a fluid which is produced from males only.

*Now the seed is to mean now an embryo while you claimed and also the bible referes to it a semen. Any how the Quran makes no mention of a membrane, blood, in teh Arabic text

*Quran makes NO MENTION of "coagulation of the mother's blood, flesh begins to be formed" in such a matter of stage developement.

*This anology has no refelection to the Quran discription:

[23:14] Then We made the trickler (Sperma) as a thing that clings and then We made the thing that clings as a chewing, and then We made the chewing as bones and then We clothed the bones with muscle then He (Allah) brings it out as another creation; and sublime is Allah the best of makers.

Where is the Trickler mentioned, the stage of when it looks like it is chewed, and after this is stage bones are made from the chewing and then the bones are clothes with muscle ? All that blood and other stuff not even mentioned in the Quranic text.

Aristotle 384-322 BC:

"[bWhen the material[?] secreted by the female in the uterus has been fixed by the semen of the male [...] the more solid part comes together, the liquid is separated off from it, and as the earthy parts solidify membranes form all around it [...] Some of these are called membranes and others choria[.]" -- Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Book II, 739b20-739b30, as per Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, (Princeton, 1985), Vol 1, p. 1148.

"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" -- Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Book II, 740a28-740a35, as per Barnes, opere citato, p. 1149

* Aristotle is WAY OFF HERE. There are no liquid seperating from anthing. There is no material secreted in the Uterus that is fixed my the semen.

* There is no sold part that comes together.

*The QUran mentions nothing about membrains etc related to what Aristotle is saying

* Quran makes no mention of any 2 blood vesels branching off to the uterus for the life cord.

Diocles of Carystus 240-180 BC:

"on the ninth day a few points of blood, on the eighteenth beating of the heart, on the twenty-seventh traces of the spinal cord and head"

Quran makes no mention of any of this development [points of blood,beating of heart, spinal cord and head] to say it was derived from .

Galen 129-210 AD:

"let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time.
The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah).

Wrong, quran makes no mention of Nutfah prevailing over anything. The Arabic word for semen is "manan" not "Nutfah ie trickler[Sperma gamete]

..But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size,...

alaqah does not mean blood, heart, grain etc.

...this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus...

This has no relation at all to Quranic embryology as semen is not even mention in any part dealing with the embryo development in the womb of the mother.

..The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah)...

This sounds like pure rediculous nonsence. mudhghah means chewing that have no association with " kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts"

...You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches....

Incorrect. During the stage of when the embryo looks like it is chewed it does not show " the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. "

...The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed " -- Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10 pp. 92-95, 101

Quran doesnt even mention this or anthing associated with it.

"... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones,

This contradicts Quran. From the Chewing (flesh tissue) the bones are made then the bones are clothes with muscle.

Also his stages are out of ORDER.

Talmud: Samuel ha-Yehudi 2nd century AD:

The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as

1. golem (formless, rolled-up thing);
2. shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac);
3. 'ubbar (something carried); v'alad (child); v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and
4. ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).

What relation does this have to the Quranic Embryology ? Nothing. SO why quote it?

acctually it should be translated in leech only... Dr. Moore who came up with this scientific myth, gave it the 'leech-like structure' translation.

GO get your self a noted Arabic Dictionary to confirm this. The original meaning the word is a clinger or something that clings.

No it has everything to do with it. H20 was capable of translating Alaqah correctly, why can't others. Are all arabs such louzy translators?

Wow where have you been ? 99% of the Translators are not Arabs. They are Pakinstani, and Arabic was their second/third language in which English was their second/third language also. Arab people in general are very uncomfortable with translations of the Quran and can care less about them as they have no bases of authority to the Original.

But it's impossible for me to think that all arab translators are so far off in translating the most holy book in the world without it being perverted into a entire other meaning?

Most of them are not Arabs. Many of them use modern terminologies of the the Arabic words rather than their original meaning.

If there is a reason why you don't accept translations;

What Arab or Arabic speaking muslim in his right mind accepts translations when he can go directly to the source it self ?

then it's because of the chauvinistic nature of islam

No its your backward concept of islam. We do not perceive our holy book the way you perceive yours and its translations.

If it's not possible to have a clear translation of the quran,

It is very possible. The translations that were made were not made for criticism use but to convey a simple message for people seeking for the truth and seeking to understanding islam which does not apply you and anyone of your companions. A translation can indeed be made for critics I am sure this can be done with tafseer.

then the only thing could be is that the quran is very vague in perspection wich opens it to imagination... and not clear at all

Of course, cause your prejudice blinds you from seeing.

so without your interpolations/help, the quran doesn't stand on it's own

Funny. My whole time on this forum I have defended islam with Quran only and its text in which I had no need for anthing in support. The Quran can verily stand by its self and defend it self.

Yes but a biology 101 textbook alltough limited explains every subject in clear scientific detail. while the quran speaks about embryology as if muhammed is making a cake.

Omm, excuse me ?

Book of Job ca. 1000 BC:

"Your hands formed me and made me - will you now absorb me? Remember that you formed me as if with clay - will you return me to dust? You poured me out like milk, and pulled me together like cheese. You clothed me with skin and flesh, and [inside me] did you interweave bones and sinews." -- Job 10:8-11

Maybe you need to pay a little more attention to your own book

Your point is nothing but trying to proof assumptions for basis of manupilation.... you disregard
- that the scientific findings excisted before muhammed

And they have absolutely no relation or link to the Quranic discription.

[webmaster]

My challenge still stands with you, ask any Orthadox Jew who speaks Hebrew if the English translation of the Hebrew is the same ?

That only applies if you don't have people translating the language into another at the same time roughly 2000 years.

Say we had an English word dough-nuts.

Translate it 2000 years from now. You can't without using the translations people used 2000 years ago to explain it.

Ask any modern English translator and he would tell you it meant somebody who is crazy like a nut after money. They would have no ideal as to what it meant unless they had proof as to what it was used for in the past. Not the present but the past.

So modern Hebrew translators are not correct and neither can they be.

The majority of the Greek translations who got it right are the ones in the New Testament. From it we can learn what dough-nuts means thru research and word study.

Now prove the same with the Quran and Arabic!

Show us proof from other older Arabic text as to what the words mean. Not your view but from other sources quoted in complete CONTEXT!

[Loki]

H20, seriously, are you that blind?

of course Aristotles, Hippocrates and Galen were wrong (on parts)... Muhammed is wrong for the same reason because he copied them!

Hippocrates his theory of sperm comming from the kidney's is copied by Muhammed and Galen's theory of stages in the womb is copied by Muhammed as well... i don't know what's his name anymore but Muhammed had a court doctor in his palace that had translated Galen... put two and two together, instead of defending some poetic mumbo jumbo that is seen as 'science'...

How can it be science? if Muhammed never defines what a trickler/drop is, or the three stages of darkness, or 'another creation', why does he leave all this open to the imagination of the reader... 'seek what fits'

How can it be new if the theories of embryolgy where practised, known and studied in full hundreds of year before them?

and Job is making resemblances, and i don't see the bible as a science book... if prophets made accurate observations of their surroundings so be it... but science works on a whole other level then just human observation. anything a human can know without the need of God, isn't proof of divinity either.

you cannot translate from one langauge to another language word for word

yes well here's the quranic dogma, the main thing a translator does, and what counts for a translator is that the meaning stays... but keeping the authencithy of the words used... word for word translations are absurd, and not even a translation... and i don't think the quran translators do that word for word either.

i still think it's absurd to think that only semetic languages as in the Quran cannot be translated in english while books about Ibn Batuta, Al Ghazali, Ibn Farabi and Ibn Rushd are translated by the numbers in clear language.

and yes, sure a scholar who wished to study it would find more interest in original arabic scriptures of them... yet with the quran, you don't have original arabic scriptures, you only have three old ones and they are strangly enough forbidden from public and investigation for some reason... any real scholar who studies scriptures doesn't study mass produced copies of the the original, but only the original... so even your claim that people should read 'the root' is baseless, since you don't have one. with greek and hebrew manuscript the root can be checked for any christian or jew who doubts the authencity of the scriptures.

The use of the word Sperm in Greek strickly meant "semen" or "seed" of a man. The term "Seed" did not describe the gamete, it expressed semen ie the liquid from a man that produces offspring. Also "seed" is an old english term to express semen not gamete. "Seed" would be more accurate to apply to a woman's ovum (singular) but unfortunatley it was not but applied to a mans reproductive sexual discharge as you quoted the bible saying.

Hippocrates in his works, defined seed, where it came from, it's theories of it's use, etc... making the translators possible to know what he reffered it too. Unlike Muhammed you need to take a wild guess... just like muslims do today, they chose the interpretation that is in their best benefit

[23:13] Then We placed him as a nutfah into a thing that rests and implants

Where is this statement found in Greek writings you posted ?

That's not even in the quran, that's a interpretation of an interpretation... and if i had to chose whom to learn embryology from in 600 AD i'd chose Galen, Hippocrates or Aristotles... cause with Muhammed's vagueness you wouldn't be nothing without the other 3 having to explaining it. Proving that scientists need to add unto the quran, and not the quran unto science.

[H2O]

of course Aristotles, Hippocrates and Galen were wrong (on parts)... Muhammed is wrong for the same reason because he copied them!

Muhammad spoke Arabic only, those writtings were in greek. There is No evidence whatsoever that those writings existed in southern Arabia or even in the Hijazi area. This is not even the point though.

Point is this. There is no link between what is in the Quran and those writers. What is in the Quran clearly contradicts what was written by those men.

You have not shown where they mention the gamete, the placement of the gamete into the something that rests and implants, the clinging, nor do they make mention of its chewed like state but you still say he copied from them when their is no comparison bewteen them.

[23:13] Then We placed him as a nutfah into a thing that rests and implants

Where is this statement found in Greek writings you posted ?


That's not even in the quran, that's a interpretation of an interpretation

Your speaking like you know Arabic. Sounds like to me you dont want it to say that in the Quran. Let me produce the proof.

23:13
ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاهُ نُطْفَةً فِي قَرَارٍ مَّكِينٍ

ثُمَّ = thumma (and then)

جَعَلْنَاهُ = ja'al (placed) naa (We) hu (it/him)

نُطْفَةً = nutfatan (a trickler/sperm)

فِي = fee (into)

قَرَارٍ = qaraarin (a rester)

مَّكِينٍ = makeenin (an implanter)

It was not an interpretation, the above is the closest English literal meaning of the Arabic words in that verse.

Being that none of your sources mentions this, show us how this statement is wrong in human human reproduction.

Allah states in that verse that He Places man as a Trickler (sperm) INTO something that rests and implants in verse 13

Tell us how this is false in human reproduction that occures in the womb before man is brought out ?

[H2O]

After you are finished with verse 13 show us how verse 14 is wrong as to how man is made before he is brought out.

[23:14] Then We made the sperm as a thing that clings and then We made the thing that clings as a chewing, and then We made the chewing as bones and then We clothed the bones with muscle then He (Allah) brings it out as another creation; and sublime is Allah the best of makers.

After the Sperm is placed INTO something that rests and implants reference verse 13, THEN it is made as something that clings (True of False)



Then the thing that clings is made as a chewing (True or False)




And then the chewing is made as bones (True or False)




And then the bones are are clothed with mucles (True or False)





Prove what has been posted here as false. If you would like me to give you the Arabic like I did with verse 13 I would be more than happy.

[Loki]

Muhammad spoke Arabic only, those writtings were in greek. There is No evidence whatsoever that those writings existed in southern Arabia or even in the Hijazi area. This is not even the point though.

see what i wrote in the first post.

There are those who claim Muhammad had no contact with Greeks or Romans. Pre-Islamic Arabia definitely had contact with Byzantium, Syria, Egypt, Persia, and Babylon. There were many Jews and Christians living in the area, and they were familiar with Greek or Roman philosophy. The Christians were connected to Rome. The Jews were connected to Babylon and Persia. It is easy to see how such theories regarding embryonic development may have reached Muhammad.

"The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam Jundishapur was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time, combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine. The combining of different schools of medicine foreshadowed the synthesis that was to be achieved in later Islamic medicine" -- H. Bailey (ed) (Cambridge University Press, 1975) Cambridge History of Iran, vol 4, p. 414

"Arab medicine, to deal with only one side of this question, borrowed from many sources. The biggest debt was to the Greeks ... The medicine of Jundi Shapur was also mainly Greek. There must have been Syriac translations in the library of the hospital there long before the Arabs came to Persia ... According to Ibn Abi Usaybi'a the first to translate Greek works into Syriac was Sergius of Ra's-al-`Ayn [sic], who translated both medical and philosophical works. It was probably he who worked for Chosroes the Great and it was his translations in all probability which were used in Jundi Shapur" -- C. Elgood (Camrbidge University Press, 1951) A Medical History of Persia, p. 98

According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia and al-Qifti, the most celebrated early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary of Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." -- M. Z. Siddiqi (Calcutta University, 1959) Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature, p. 6-7

He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes of Persia. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him (M. J. L. Young et al., (Cambridge University Press, 1990) Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: Religion, Learning and Science in the `Abbasid Period, p. 342). He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his "teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [i.e., Muhammed] [A. A. Khairallah, op. cit., p. 22]. "Such medical knowledge as Muhammed possessed, he may well have acquired from Haris bin Kalda [sic], an Arab, who is said to have left the desert for a while and gone to Jundi Shapur to study medicine...On his return Haris settled in Mecca and became the foremost physician of the Arabs of the desert. Whether he ever embraced Islam is uncertain, but this did not prevent the Prophet from sending his sick friends to consult him." [C. Elgood, op. cit., p. 66]

Harith Ibn Kalada was unable to father any children, and it is said that he adopted Harith al-Nasar (Nadr), who was apparently a cousin of Muhammed, and also a doctor by profession [C. Elgood, op. cit., p. 68]. Interestingly Nadr mocked Muhammed, saying that the stories in the Qur'an were far less entertaining and instructive than the old Persian legends he had grown up with. Perhaps he recognised that the Qur'an had human sources for some of its stories? As a result of this Muhammed became his sworn enemy, and the Prophet put him to death following his capture in the Battle of Badr in 624 -- E. G. Browne (Cambridge University Press, 1962) Arabian Medicine, p. 11

"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account ... 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"-- B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54

and this is the point! If muhammed and what he most likely is, a borrower, of old theories... then it's nothing divine whatsoever

Point is this. There is no link between what is in the Quran and those writers. What is in the Quran clearly contradicts what was written by those men.

It doesn't 'contradict' it's just vague, unscientific and open for imagination and interpretation

You have not shown where they mention the gamete, the placement of the gamete into the something that rests and implants, the clinging, nor do they make mention of its chewed like state but you still say he copied from them when their is no comparison bewteen them.

the clinging of 'something' to 'something'... isn't science... imagine Einstein explaining something = something times something too the second power, this is relative... would you call it science? if we need to fill in the blind spots

23:13
ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاهُ نُطْفَةً فِي قَرَارٍ مَّكِينٍ

ثُمَّ = thumma (and then)

جَعَلْنَاهُ = ja'al (placed) naa (We) hu (it/him)

نُطْفَةً = nutfatan (a trickler/sperm)

فِي = fee (into)

قَرَارٍ = qaraarin (a rester)

مَّكِينٍ = makeenin (an implanter)

where does Muhammed define what sperm is? or does the reader need to do that? where does Muhammed define what a rester is? or does the reader need to do that? where does Muhammed define what a implanter is? or does the reader need to do that?

nowhere is this being explained, like it said before, he could might as well giving a recipe on how to bake a cake. it depends on how the reader wants to define what is said.

It was not an interpretation, the above is the closest English literal meaning of the Arabic words in that verse.

Being that none of your sources mentions this, show us how this statement is wrong in human reproduction.

The things you read were only exerpts of whole studies wich men like Aristotles, Hippocrates and especially Galen did... most of what they say is right, scientific and as complete as possible according to the limits of observation of that time... concerning Muhammed most of what he says is incomplete, unscientific and as wrong as the greeks before him. (for example flesh growing around the bones, while flesh is formed first).

Allah states in that verse that He Places man as a Trickler (sperm) INTO something that rests and implants in verse 13

Tell us how this is false in human reproduction that occures in the womb before man is brought out ?

acctually man doesn't excist in sperm, a human being is born with conception... and if i can read it in lay men terms it's "i have placed man as a sperm in a womb", that doesn't sound correct at all. acctually for such vague statements he didn't even need science, just conceive a child, see a woman's belly grow... and make your conclusions

you've have implanted a seed into her belly, and her belly grows and all the sudden a complete child pops up with bones and flesh, so we can assume something, someone or whatever constructed that baby inside the womb.

In order to believe that this is a divine relevation you have to believe that the Arabs were more idiots then the jews, persians, greek, romans and hindus who knew about conception thousands or even two thousands years before muhammed... and you need to believe that alltough christians and jews roamed and infested the arab lands with their religion, that they had no scientists, teachers and doctors schooled in greek, roman and persian sciences you need to believe all this in the face of all historical evidence that disagrees with it.

Then the thing that clings is made as a chewing (True or False)

What is the thing that clings?
umbilical cord?
the embryo?
the uturus?

interpret to your likings...

And then the bones are are clothed with mucles (True or False)

This is an interpretation from FLESH to MUSCLES... the quran cleary says flesh

It's acctually funny how you probably know yourself that you are making perverted quran translations in order to try and proof your right. and then with a sincere face claim that you do not manipulate them.

[H2O]

You still didnt answer the Questions .

*Before man is brought out he is placed as a trickler/Sperm INTO a thing that rests and implants (Trueor False) ?

*After the Sperm is placed INTO something that rests and implants reference verse 13, THEN it is made as something that clings (True of False)

*Then the thing that clings is made as a chewing (True or False)

*And then the chewing is made as bones (True or False)

*And then the bones are clothed with mucles (True or False)

Quote:
And then the bones are are clothed with mucles (True or False)


This is an interpretation from FLESH to MUSCLES... the quran cleary says flesh

Do you know how to read Arabic ? "FLESH to MUSCLES is not stated in that verse.

ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ

فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا

فَخَلَقْنَا = fa (then) khalaq (made) naa (we)

الْمُضْغَةَ = al (the) mudhghata (chewing)

عِظَامًا = 'izhaaman (bones)

فَكَسَوْنَا = fa (then) kasaw (clothed) naa (We)

الْعِظَامَ = al (the) 'izhaama (bones)

لَحْمًا = lahman (muscle/flesh/meat)

The Arabic word "lahm" means flesh/meat/muscle.

Is not muscle meat ?

When you eat the meat of animals are you not eating it muscle also ?

You mean to tell me you are so arrogant that you cant see that muscle is meat which are but synonyms.

[Loki]

*Before man is brought out he is placed as a trickler/Sperm INTO a thing that rests and implants (Trueor False) ?

to vague.... placed in what thing? do we need to explain what thing, or does the quran do that? what you're doing is possitive suggestion.

*After the Sperm is placed INTO something that rests and implants reference verse 13, THEN it is made as something that clings (True of False)

what is that something that clings? will the quran explain this, or will you have need of scientific pictures to try and assume what he's talking about.

Try using only the quran in explaining it... if it is really scientific and complete you would have no need in using other books, would you?

*Then the thing that clings is made as a chewing (True or False)

again, what is thing that clings? did he mean a uturus, a umbrical cord, the embryo, a fish, a refrigerator, a cookiejar.... please give me the quranic scientific definition of 'a thing that clings' without using external sources.

*And then the chewing is made as bones (True or False)

whatever the chewing may be, i don't know what it is... quran doesn't explain it. In fact if i lived in 550 AD, and if we assume that embryology never excisted before... and i heard muhammed uttering this stuff, i wouldn't make sence at all. Neither is it being explained what it is... so because of it's vagueness this quote in the history of science was entirely useless and non existend.

*And then the bones are clothed with mucles (True or False)

Do you know how to read Arabic ? "FLESH to MUSCLES is not stated in that verse.

No, but you should know how to read arabic... and as far as i know your the only one i've ever seen it translating into muscles... unless you give me another reliable source wich shows that the arabic word should be translated into muscles... i will gladly accept it. Yet since you are trying to make a case here then your not objective in your translation.

لَحْمًا = lahman (muscle/flesh/meat)
The Arabic word "lahm" means flesh/meat/muscle.
Is not muscle meat ?
When you eat the meat of animals are you not eating it muscle also ?

You mean to tell me you are so arrogant that you cant see that muscle is meat which are but synonyms.

intestal organs are also flesh, does that mean that organs are muscles?
if arabic language makes synonyms with things that can't be synonyms that's the arabics wrong on communication. as far as i have seen most if not all quran translations use the word Flesh... and if you find one translation that disagress with flesh, then we have another problem, did he create organs (wich is alsof flesh, and meat) around the bones OR muscles? the quran should be a clear book, really, and now we have a dispute...