Christian/Muslim ThreadsQuran (& Hadith) full of scientific errors!!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 It doesn't 'contradict' it's just vague, unscientific and open for imagination and interpretation 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 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. 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). 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. What is the thing that clings? umbilical cord? the embryo? the uturus? interpret to your likings... 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. |
๐Pride๐ goeth before Destruction
When ๐Pride๐ cometh, then cometh Shame