Does the Quran contain statements which agree with Modern Science which would lead to the conlusion that a greater power is the source of the Quran?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312204078/

Altway

unread,

Jan 6, 2003, 2:43:51 PM1/6/03

"Denis Giron" <kaa...@godisdead.com> wrote in message
news:bdfe7cc1.03010...@posting.google.com...

> This is a response to Nadir Ahmed's post which has been archived by
> Google here:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dd10d076.0301032224.7afcfee8%40posting.
google.com

Comment:-
Whereas it was an interesting debate and there were some good points on
either side, I found much of it irrelevant.

The fact is that :-

(a) The Quran is about religion and concerned with values and the process of
living. It is not a book on science or technology. The purpose being
different, its descriptions are different.

(b) It was written in a pre-scientific age and was meant to understood by
the people to whom it came. Why speak about "scientific facts". A fact is a
fact about nature
and the Quran speaks about the objective world not about perceptions,
scientific or otherwise..
When you point to the moon, for instance, it is
not at all necessary that you should have a modern astronomical idea of the
moon - the
moon still exists apart from the changing views over the years. A
scientific description is
not an essential part of the reality of the thing, nor is it the only aspect
of significance.

(c) The verses have several levels of meaning compacted into them - this
requires a different style of writing than is expected by people who look
for single precise meanings..

(d) It was written in a manner meant to have psychological effects, to
convey experiences. This is quite different from being merely descriptive.
Though not poetry, it resembles poertry in this respect, except that
the effects are meant to be spiritual rather than emotional.. It would be
foolish
for a physicist or philosophers to look at a poem and criticise it because
it
did not resemble a scientifc text book or logical argument - and they would
be equally stupid if they denied that poem or a good novel did not convey
some truths.

(e) The Quran, besides giving clear instructions, also gives us allegories,

but it is also giving us many similitudes from which we
are required to learn.
Whereas we are forbidden to argue about these ( because such disputation
leads to division and conflict) they are not in the Quran without purpose.
We are required to meditate on them and extract what nutition we can.

I cannot see any reason whatever why people today should not try to
understand what the Quran is saying in the light of modern knowledge and
language.

--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com

thebit

unread,

Jan 6, 2003, 2:44:08 PM1/6/03

In my experience, those who peddle the scientific hermeneutic, are the
same people who will always promote the old interpretations of
jurisprudence, theology, etc. I have never understood this mentality
fully.

I remember once sitting in a lecture on the Qur'an. After lambasting
what he called "philosophical interpretations", the speaker proceeded
to talk of the scientific miracle of the Qur'an! I mean, he had just
chastised people making "fanciful" allegorical interpretions "because
they were never known by our forebearers". Fine. I am not one
neccessarily to quibble with this statement. But then how he managed
to proceed to discuss Big Bang, evolution, rocket science etc., as all
being written down in the Qur'an, God knows best.

I think it depends ultimately on how the Qur'an is viewed. Some might
take it as the sum of all knowledge. Others might take it as the
admonition of Muhammad to his people, and those after him, avoiding
talk of scientific miracles altogether. (Though it can be said to have
an outlook on life which would include how one views scientific
findings; but this can be done without writing in "scientific
miracles" into the text of the Qur'an.)

David / Amicus

unread,

Jan 6, 2003, 4:03:13 PM1/6/03

We have Christians too who try to prove the Bible is a science book.

In another thread I pointed out that the Qu'ran says Noah lived to be
950 years old. The Bible says the same thing. That doesn't sound very
scientific to me.

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Jan 8, 2003, 8:38:28 AM1/8/03

******** "First of all, why are you using "modern science" as
******** your standard?"

not sure what you mean by using modern science as a
standard, need to be more specific.. please keep in
mind that im a dummy.. I need even the simplest things
explained to me...

******** "Scientific theories come and go. Some of the
******** principles believed to be true a few generations
******** ago are not in doubt because of advances in the
******** scientific method, the precision
******** of measurement and new discoveries."

yes their is that remote possibility that the views of science
may change. So, what is the solution? the answer is easy:

diversify your portfolio

this is the same technique which stock investors use. The way
I use this approach,is not simply show that the Quran agrees
with one scientific discoveries, rather, I bring many scientific
discoveries to the table,the more I bring, the more stable the
arguement becomes of modern science. Therefore, if one of modern
scientific discovery later on shows to be inconclusive or false,
its not a problem,because their are alot more scientific
statements I am using.But soo far that has not happened, and I
dont think it will ever happen because the science which I will
be referring to is well established, and asking this type of
"what if" question, is like asking what if a tree starts growing
out of my nose. Nevertheless, this may or may not create a problem
for the case of the Quran if this scenario were to ever occur.
But if it is really something that bothers you then no problem,
I can add a qaulifier to my debate proposition(in caps):

"Does the Quran contain statements which agree with Modern Science
ACCORDING TO THE DATA WHICH WE HAVE TODAY IN THE YEAR 2003 which

would lead to the conlusion that a greater power is the
source of the Quran? "

But, actually, it does not matter weather the science is
true or false.This is not an excersize to prove that the
Quran is the Word of God.You must get this out of your
mind. I am debating weather a greater power is the source
of the Quran. Even if the science was false, still that data
should not be in the Quran, because that is classifed
information of the 20th century, a person in the 6th century
should not have access to that type of data, this data was
the product of research and study with sofisticated technology
and modern tools which were not available at that time. here
is an example of what I mean: Today, the CIA has files which
contains data which is highly classified top secret information
and is not available for the public. Now, it is possible that
some of this data is not accurate, but believe me,
no matter weather this sensitive data is accurate or inaccurate,
if you were found with this data in your possession you better
believe that you will have some secret service agents at your
door asking some pretty serious questions the next day.. well
actually no, probably the same hour:)

And likewise, I am asking the same questions about the Quran
when I see classified data of the 20th century in this book of
the 6th century.. how do you explain it? thats what the algorythm
will help us with.

******** These are basically the same kinds of claims that some
******** Hindus (on the freaky side) make about the Hindu scriptures.

no problem at all, it is hypothetically possible that there are
statement which argree with science in more than one book,
we would simply have to apply the algorythm to it and see what
we can come up with.

******** since religious scripture by its nature has to use
******** metaphors and parables,

no problem, here the alogrythm has been constructed to handle all
kinds of test case senarios... I believe this onefalls under:

D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just happened to match
up with science)

******** It is quite telling that in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE these
******** scientific theories were read into the Qur'an only AFTER
******** they were proposed in modern times!

hmm.. really? well dont worry, we'll be sure to keep an eye out
for anyone "reading into" or anyone "reading out of" the Quran..
the perpetrator will be dealt with 50 stripes.

******** passage can be called scientific only if it is clearly
******** understood at the very outset to entail certain experiential
******** predictions.

lol. whatever... a passage is called scientific if it agrees
with science. You know, when I was a kid, people tried to
teach me chemistry and went over all kinds of experiential
predictions .... but I had A.D.D. and all I could think
about was my GI Joes and my He-Man action figures...
I understood nothing of the science taught to me, does that
mean that it is not science until I understand it? do we
have different definitions of "scientific"?

******** the utterance of the words "yehi-or," or "let
******** there be light," and maybe this flash of light
******** at the beginning of creation was the "Big Bang".

Great example. Here, I will demonstrate how the alogrythm
is not biased and can work for any test case scenario:

lets see if it passes the "if" clause:

IF Statement = Scientific fact THEN

well, the answer is yes. I believe according to the big bang,
at one time theirwas no light,then their was
light( am i right Denis?).

lets now explore the possibilities:

A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genious

Analysis: it's possible, but doubtful.

B. A very good guess,luck

Analysis: it's possible.

C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great scientist

Analysis: it's possible, but doubtful.

D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just happened to
match up with science)

Analysis: it's possible. We know that OT teaches that
God is the creator of everything, soo, according
to this teaching God created the Sun, stars.. etc..
therefore, one can easily figure out that before
God created the Sun, stars..it was dark...
No sun means no light...

E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)

Analysis: it's possible. the above example demonstrates such.

F. The information already pre-existed in history

Analysis: I dont know.

G. A source greater than man was involved

Analysis: it's possible.

Conclusion: well, it looks like their is a whole host
of possibilities available,the problem we are faced with
is that their just is not enough information given to start
eliminating some of the possibilities.. we simply need more
data to draw any conclusions.

******** writings of the first century Mahayana
******** Buddhist philosopher Ashvaghosha:

******** "When we divide some gross (or composite) matter,
******** we can reduce it to atoms. But as THE ATOM WILL
******** ALSO BE SUBJECT TO FUTHER DIVISION, all
******** forms of material existence, whether gross or fine,
******** are nothing but the shadow of particularisation
******** and we cannot ascribe any degree of (absolute or
******** independent) reality to them."
******** [Ashvaghosha, "The Awakening of Faith," translated
******** by D.T. Suzuki,
******** (Chicagom 1900) p. 104, emphasis mine]
******** Now it seems that this Buddhist philosopher
******** predicted the splitting of
******** the atom way back in the first century of the
******** common era. Of course,

another great example,lets see if it passes the "if" clause:

IF Statement = Scientific fact THEN

The answer is yes. But if you notice, (G) can not be a possibility
considered because Ashvaghosha does not CLAIM to be inspired by God.
Therefore, It can be any of the other possibilities A-F.

******** the reality is that he just made a vague remark...

no, Denis, there are alot more possibilites: A-F.
its a common error, This is why the algorythm is soo
important in our study.

thanks,
Nadir Ahmed

Denis Giron

unread,

Jan 8, 2003, 6:23:13 PM1/8/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.0301...@posting.google.com>...
> ...

Nadir, I am not sure where we are going with this. Your algorith laid
down the possible antecedents for a passage in an ancient text that
seems to agree with the findings of modern science. How one moves from
here to adducing that the seventh antecedent (G), id est: a higher
power, is the most likely one for any given passage of the Qur'an is
beyond me (no offense).

For example, with the quote from the writings of Ashvagosha, we have a
text that seems to clearly agree with the findings of modern science
(you seemed unwilling to accept that this was nothing more than the
miracle of reinterpretation), and you feel that beyond all doubt it is
of a human origin (since Ashvagosha never claimed his writing was
divinely inspired). With that we now have empirical support that
corroborates the claim that a human being in the ancient world could
write a text that agrees with findings of modern science that came
later.

While that has now been observed, we have yet to actually observe a
deity authoring a text, so we can't possibly know what that would be
like. Ergo, your seventh antecedent seems the least justified (and, as
I noted previously, the most ontologically gluttonous), thus Occaam's
razor seems the least in favor of (G). This is why I see no reason to
conclude at this time that the Quran contains statements which agree
with Modern Science which lead to the conlusion that a "greater power"
is the source [as per the title of this thread].

Now, before I close this post, I want to make note of the following:
Behnam Sadeghi correctly noted that a "passage can be called
scientific only if it is clearly understood at the very outset to
entail certain experiential predictions." Your response was simply:

> lol. whatever... a passage is called scientific if it agrees
> with science.

Unfortunately you are wrong. A statement is not scientific just
because it agrees with science. Your definition would no longer allow
us to maintain a line of demarcation between science and
pseudoscience. For example, in the world of Continental Philosophy
there have been many who have written on parallels between Quantum
Mechanics and Heideger, or Relativity and Berkley, as well as other
absurd things. In light of this, Alan D. Sokal and Jean Bricmont wrote
a wonderful book refuting Philosophers not trained in the hard
sciences who might take the conclusions of a Physicist and say "yeah,
that's what I've been saying all along" (like yours truly :D). The
title of the book is "Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals'
Abuse of Science," and I highly recommend it (it even takes a brief
swipe at Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics," which uses the same
approach you are using [scientific hermeneutic], only with Buddhist,
Hindu and Daoist texts rather than the Qur'an). I believe Amazon sells
"Fashionable Nonsense" for $11 now:

-Denis Giron

http://freethoughtmecca.org

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Jan 11, 2003, 12:12:15 PM1/11/03

> I am not sure where we are going
> with this

I wish I had a dime everytime I heard this.
their is no need to fear or feel aprehensive
so long as you stay clean.. and unbiased. This
alogrythm can be your best friend or your worst
enemy. Now, their may be the possibility that
it may contain bugs, in that case, I will put
it back up on the drawing board fix it, then
ship it out as version 2.0

> How one moves from here to adducing that
> the seventh antecedent (G), id est: a higher
> power, is the most likely one for any given
> passage of the Qur'an is beyond me (no offense).

Denis, I will ignore this statement as personal
bias. It was your task to critique, disprove or
break this alogrytm. You could not. The alogrythm
provides a systematic method of analysis,without
personal opinions or bias.

> you seemed unwilling to accept that this was nothing
> more than the miracle of reinterpretation

:-) I did? Can you show me? please read again Denis...
I said the solution set is A-F.

> With that we now have empirical support that corroborates
> the claim that a human being in the ancient world could
> write a text that agrees with findings of modern science
> that came later.

you need to study the alogrythm really well, What do you think
the algorythm has been saying all along?? It states that it is
possible to have humans corroborates with science, then gives
a possible scenarios of how this could have taken place.
Therefore your point is mute.

The Quran and Mountains.

Here is link which shows a particular verse agreeing with
modern science:

http://www.it-is-truth.org/OriginOfEarth.shtml
(Click on "Mountains")

Now we will analize this with the algorythm:

And the mountains as pegs. (Qur'aan 78:7).

IF Statement = Scientific fact THEN

yes.Here we see that pegs is an accurate description of
mountains, because both have roots in the earth.

lets now explore the possibilities:

A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genious

Analysis: it's possible, but doubtful.

B. A very good guess,luck

Analysis: it's possible.

C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great
scientist

Analysis: it's possible, but very doubtful.
because this science was determined using technology

and modern tools which were not available at that
time.

D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just

happened to match up with science)

Analysis: it's possible.

E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)

Analysis: no. this is not common sense.

F. The information already pre-existed in history

Analysis: I dont know.

G. A source greater than man was involved

Analysis: it's possible.

Conclusion: this is a statement which agrees with modern science,
but their could be more than one possibility for this verse.

Denis Giron

unread,

Jan 13, 2003, 1:06:32 AM1/13/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03011...@posting.google.com>...

> Denis, I will ignore this statement as personal
> bias. It was your task to critique, disprove or
> break this alogrytm. You could not.

The problem is that the seventh choice of your algorythm seems the
most difficult to justify. I certainly have biases (we all do), but I
don't think it is biased to note how Occam's razor would slice away
that seventh axiom (G) on the grounds that we have never observed an
example from which is postulate such things (and as I have noted twice
now, it seems ontologically gluttonous). Please justify the seventh
axiom.

> And the mountains as pegs. (Qur'aan 78:7).
>
> IF Statement = Scientific fact
>

> yes.Here we see that pegs is an accurate description of
> mountains, because both have roots in the earth.

This seems strikingly like the previous issue with Ashvagosha saying
that the atom will be subject to division. It is a vague statement
that does not get into any details regarding scientific reality. Yes,
it does say that mountains are like pegs (awtaadan), but that was in
the context of a rather poetic/metaphorical verse about the earth
being a bed.

I saw your analysis, and I must say that your notion of these passages
"agreeing" with modern science is rather open (again I recommend Sokal
and Bricmont's book). Furthermore, now that you have analyzed the
verse, how do we move from here to an affirmative answer to the
question posed in the title of this thread?

-Denis Giron

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Jan 16, 2003, 6:53:54 AM1/16/03

>Please justify the seventh axiom.

sorry for not address it sooner,but I didnt know
what Occam's razor was soo I was just passing over
it... anyways, the last possibility as stated below:

G. A source greater than man was involved

can be configureable.. if you do not accept that their
is possibility of a force greater than man, than you
can substitute the word "phenomenon" def: An unusual,
significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.
The use of our 5 senses can not account for it.

>I certainly have biases (we all do),

this is probably why you are having such a hard time
accepting the truth... which I mean the alogrythm.
This alogrythm gives a systematic, consistent methodology
of analysis....rather than using peoples biases and person
opinions.. but you are tossing and turning instead of
doing the right thing and accepting it.

>This seems strikingly like the previous issue with Ashvagosha
>saying that the atom will be subject to division

Dear God help me.. you dont understand even the simplest thing do
you? This is what happens when a person is soo bigotted in his
own views.. simple truth becomes a mental challenge for him if it
does not agree with his own prejudices....
ok... back to square one. Denis, the example you gave DOES match
up with science... Ashvagosha correctly deduced that the atom
can be split. What dont you understand???
And you have made the correct analysis that likewise the issue of
mountains as pegs is just like Ashvagosha's deduction... they both
match up with science .. but this last part you can not admit!!

>It is a vague statement that does not get into any details
>regarding scientific reality

huh? what? dude, what are you talking about? What do you mean
by "vague" give details... be more specific..

I think.....no... wait... yea... I think you are finally comming
forward and admitting that the verse does agree with science, but
you are saying that you want more details.. why?

>I saw your analysis, and I must say that your notion of
> these passages "agreeing" with modern science is rather open

denis... youre drowning man. you dont have a clue whats going on...
you need some serious help.

ok, I will repeat myself again for you.. the passage does agree with
modern science.. but the question as to how this did this happen
is "rather open": their can be 7 possibilities.. (A-G) which
can explain why this verse agrees with modern science.

this methodology gives a clear and unbiased appraisal of comparing
a text to modern science.. and you hate this... but yet, you can not
refute or disprove it.. you are utterly helpless... anyways.. it does
not matter to me... Im going to move on to the next piece of evidence.

EVIDENCE #2:

The City of Iram

http://www.thetruereligion.org/iram.htm

Their is a city mentioned in the Quran which was unknown to the world
until 1978 from an archaelogical dig.. how do you explain that?

here we can modify the algorythm just a bit:

>IF Statement = "recently discovered historcial fact" THEN

A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genious

Analysis: no, this has nothing to do with genious

B. A very good guess,luck

Analysis: it's possible, but very doubtful

C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great historian

Analysis: its possible, but very doubtfull

D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just
happened to match up with science)

Analysis: it's possible.

E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)

Analysis: no. this is not common sense.

F. The information already pre-existed in history

Analysis: it is possible that it could have exsisted
amoung the arabs, but very doubtful

G. phenomonon

Analysis: it's possible.

conclusion: the only sensible options for this was that it was
either a coincidence or a phenomonon

well denis, I feel stupid for asking this.. but I feel it is my
duty to... did i make any mistakes in my analysis?

Denis Giron

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 10:36:27 PM1/17/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03011...@posting.google.com>...

> if you do not accept that their
> is possibility of a force greater than man, than you
> can substitute the word "phenomenon" def: An unusual,
> significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.
> The use of our 5 senses can not account for it.

I don't see how this makes a great deal of difference. I always
understood a phenomemon to be something we observe (like medical
phenomena, natural phenomena, et cetera), though I do understand that
the definition you gave is perfectly in line with its colloquial
usage. Nonetheless, this does not make your seventh axiom any more
justified. With Ashvagosha we have observed a text that, according to
you, "agrees with science," yet was written by a mere mortal. So we
have observed an instance of this, thus to postulate this possibility
(the text was written by a man) for a text is somewhat justified.
However, if you're going to posit a vague source that you describe
only as an "unusual phenomenon," or " a marvel," it is too vague to
discuss. Why posit a "marvel" as a source in an abduction? Have you
observed a "marvel" doing this sorts of thing in the past?

When using abduction, you should have a reason for postulating a given
antecedent. For example, if I find a box of cereal with a hole in it,
and mouse droppings around the box, I can use abduction to conclude
that a mouse made the hole. My argument is not fool-proof (it is
actually deductively invalid), but nonetheless the conclusion is
reasonable since I have observed mice doing these sorts of things.
Maybe an alien made the hole and planted or left behind what looked
like mouse droppings, but were actually shell casings from an
extraterrestrial fire-arm. Unfortunately I have never observed such an
alien, thus such an antecedent, though possible, is far from
justified.

> this is probably why you are having such a hard time
> accepting the truth... which I mean the alogrythm.
> This alogrythm gives a systematic, consistent methodology
> of analysis....rather than using peoples biases and person
> opinions.. but you are tossing and turning instead of
> doing the right thing and accepting it.

You haven't really gotten to the meat of the discussion yet. I have
not been tossing and turning; rather I have been shrugging my
shoulders and waiting. I have done nothing more than commented on
methodology. When did I say that I do not accept your algorythm? I
actually think it is tautologous, thus I would never say that it is
"false". Consider that in my post from January 5th I expressed your
algorythm as follows:

S --> ((((A v B) v (C v D)) v (E v F)) v G)

Now, what is not immediately clear in the proposition above, but is
clear from the argument, is that some of the disjuncts contradict each
other (that is to say it can be this one, or that one, but it cannot
possibly be all of them at the same time). If you have inconsistent
disjuncts in the consequent of a conditional proposition, you have a
tautology. Ultimately you are telling us that these texts that,
according to you, "agree with science" were either written by a human
or something other-than-human. You could say the same about texts that
don't "agree with science." If I say "if Nadir Ahmed is Muslim, then
he is either in New York or he is not in New York," there is no way I
can be wrong. I never said your algorythm is false; rather I agree it
is always true. I just don't see what the point is. Where do we go
from here?

> Dear God help me.. you dont understand even the simplest thing do
> you? This is what happens when a person is soo bigotted in his
> own views.. simple truth becomes a mental challenge for him if it
> does not agree with his own prejudices....
> ok... back to square one. Denis, the example you gave DOES match
> up with science... Ashvagosha correctly deduced that the atom
> can be split. What dont you understand???

Does it? For example, I'm going to make a statement: "it is possible
to send information at speeds faster than the speed of light, and in
the future people will know how." Let it be noted that I made this
statement... Google will record this moment. Currently, when using the
mathematical formulas Einstein gave us, nothing can travel faster than
the speed of light. However, if fifty years from now some breakthrough
in science actually allows for information to be sent faster than the
speed of light (and there is no dispute about it in the scientific
community at that time), how much praise do I deserve? If by that time
an aging Dr. Muhammad Sayfallaah (currently an SRI contributor) has
been made the head of the Physics department at Cambridge, should he
give me a retroactive honorary PhD in Physics for what I said? Clearly
I was a genius with scientific knowledge beyond any of my
contemporaries, right or wrong? This whole parody is meant to prove a
point, and that being that your concept of "agrees with science" is
rather loose. To say "the atom will be subject to further division" is
to say nothing about the great amount of scientific information that
comes along with the splitting of the atom.

> denis... youre drowning man. you dont have a clue whats going on...
> you need some serious help.

Maybe you're right, though I'd ask that you show me where and how. I
get the impression that you're getting a little too angry in light of
the fact that the discussion is still in the beginning stages. With
regard to your link on mountains, I was actually relatively nice. The
site made the rather bizarre claim that mountains don't shake or
quake. I'm sure that this too can be reinterpreted, but it seems
problematic to me...

> The City of Iram
>
> http://www.thetruereligion.org/iram.htm
>
> Their is a city mentioned in the Quran which was unknown to the world
> until 1978 from an archaelogical dig.. how do you explain that?

How do I explain what? Gary Miller's vague reference to the National
Geographic article leaves out that this simple article also notes that
the texts at Ebla mention Sodom and Gomorrah. Should we ask how the
Jews knew about those two cities? By the way, one Muslim site has been
kind enough to post the entire article (and it does not say much):

http://www.islaminfo.co.uk/af/ebla.htm

Indeed, I know of one critic of the Qur'an (Wellhausen) who stated
that Iram was a fictional place. If this is the same Iram, then
Wellhausen was wrong (just as I was when I though that Sodom and
Gomorrah were fictional), but I don't see how we can postulate that
this knowledge of Iram was from a divine source, "phenomenon," or
"marvel." But, let's take a look at your analysis...

> F. The information already pre-existed in history
> Analysis: it is possible that it could have exsisted
> amoung the arabs, but very doubtful

Why is it very doubtful? I get the feeling that your knowledge of the
mentionings of Iram are confined only to what you have read from the
writings of Gary Miller. The article itself was not very extensive.
However, there have been further studies on these texts, and I recall
Nova did a special on this very subject. While it is not clear that
the Iram of the Qur'an is the same Iram of the Ebla tablets, it is
clear that whatever Iram was being referred to in the Ebla tablets was
a place in Ubar, in Oman. So let me get this straight. Texts in West
Asia mention Iram. Another West Asian text (the Qur'an) also mentions
Iram. You want me to believe this is amazing. Furthermore, you want me
to believe that it is very doubtful that the Arabs knew about it,
though this is apparently a city on the Arabian peninsula. People in
Syria knew of this place on the Arabian peninsula, but it is very
doubtful that people on the Arabian peninsula knew about it? To yet
again make an appeal to Occam's razor, I would argue that in light of
the fact that (A) the Qur'an is written in a human language that stems
from the Arabian peninsula, and (B) Iram existed on the Arabian
peninsula, the Qur'an's information on Iram most likely comes from
other people living on the Arabian peninsula (id est, the Arabs).

So far you have been jumping from example to example. Are you going to
settle on one of these and explain how it helps us answer the question

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Jan 23, 2003, 11:36:29 PM1/23/03

>though I do understand that
>the definition you gave is perfectly in line with its colloquial

>usage.Nonetheless, this does not make your seventh axiom any more
justified.

then you dont understand much as I have complained about before....
You seem to have your own personally crafted definition
of phenomemon which is interferring once again with understanding
how I am using the word

On this point, I dont want to argue over something which
I believe is obvious,and the vast majority of people can
understand. I will move on to the next point.

>When did I say that I do not accept your algorythm? I
>actually think it is tautologous, thus I would never say that it is
>"false".

ok fine, lets move on then.

>Are you going to
>settle on one of these and explain how it helps us answer the
>question posed in the title of this thread?

if you really must know, after bringing together all the verses in the
Quran which match up with science, or archaeology, we will use the
alogrythm to do a final analysis on all the verses.....
hang in their chief... were almost home....

EVIDENCE #3:

Barrier between salt water and fresh water

" He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water,
one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter.
And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding
partition"

science tells us that their is a barrier between salt and
fresh water, for example, if you were on a boat and you were
to put your hand on one side, you will taste fresh water,if
you were to put it on the other side, then you will taste
salt water....

http://www.islamiccenterofpeoria.org/miracles.html#Qur'an%20on%20Seas%20and%20Rivers:

IF Statement = Scientific fact THEN

A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genious

Analysis: it's possible, but doubtful.

B. A very good guess,luck

Analysis: it's possible.

C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great

scientist

Analysis: it's possible, but doubtful.

D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just
happened to match up with science)

Analysis: it's possible.

E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)

Analysis: no. this is not common sense.

G. A source greater than man was involved

Denis Giron

unread,

Jan 29, 2003, 5:11:17 PM1/29/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03012...@posting.google.com>...

> You seem to have your own personally crafted definition
> of phenomemon which is interferring once again with understanding
> how I am using the word

I did not create my own definition of the word "phenomenon." I already
noted that your defintion (or that of dictionary.com?) is perfectly in
line with the colloquial usage. My main objection is one that you have
yet to tackle: that this does not escape the original objection I
raised towards your seventh axiom. When citing a specific verse in the
Qur'an, on what justification do you adduce that a "phenomenon" is
antecent to its writing?

> after bringing together all the verses in the
> Quran which match up with science, or archaeology, we will use the
> alogrythm to do a final analysis on all the verses.....

How can that possibly be different from looking at each individual
verse? I mean, if every passage of the Qur'an you cite is unconvincing
in terms of being proof in of itself of being from a divine origin,
then looking at the collection as a whole will not tell us anything
about the Qur'an.

Regardless, let's look at your latest example... First it must be
noted that in light of the fact that your own conclusion conceded that
a natural explanation is plausible, there is no real reason to
continue with this example. If there is a natural explanation for a
passage in the Qur'an, there is no reason to adduce a supernatural
explanation.

Nonetheless, I want to make a few comments. It is striking, I must
say, that you wrote that "if you were on a boat and you were to put
your hand on one side, you will taste fresh water, if you were to put
it on the other side, then you will taste salt water." If this is
true, then this is an easily observable phenomenon, and thus there is
no need to even consider a supernatural explanation.

However, I must ask if this is what your source was making reference
to? I'm not going to say no, but there seemed to be a mildly different
explanation going on there, and thus I'd like to comment on the source
you cited:

http://www.islamiccenterofpeoria.org/miracles.html

There are two images cited in the section on oceans, and I'd like the
comment on the second one first. Allegedly this comes from Harold V.
Thurman's "Introductory Oceanography," but no year or edition is
cited. I have access to the 2nd and 8th editions, and neither is
discussing the pycnocline on the relevant pages (300-302; the 2nd
edition is discussing salinity in the Arabian sea, while the 8th
edition makes reference to emerging and submerging shorelines).

Regardless, the second image (figure 14) fresh water coming into
contact with salt water, but it does not demonstrate a barrier, rather
it demonstrates some mixing. The salt water in the image is 3.3% salt
(or 33 parts per thousand). Where the fresh water collides, it moves
from 1%, to 2%, to 3%, and finally 3.3%. Are you sure this is what
Soorat al-Furqaan 25:53 is referring to?

That is not exactly a forbidding, inviolable barrier (barzakhan
wahijran mahjooran); rather that is mixing - the precise sort of
mixing that one can expect, as a pycnocline is a change in density due
precisely to changes in salinity (or temperature). Of course, you may
wonder why it stays that way (id est, why the fresh water is 0%, the
collision/mixing zone 1-3%, and the salty zone 3.3%). The answer is
that it does not stay that way...

For example, you ever take a bath, and the water went cold, and you
added more hot water? At first, the hot water is hot, the cold water
is cold, and the proverbial wall between them is warm. Of course, in a
closed environment the water moves towards a uniform temperature (you
know, second rule of thermodynamics). However, in the case of fresh
water entering a salty body of water, this is not really closed in
that sense; rather fresh water is constantly coming in and being taken
away.

To understand why this is, note the first image (figure 13) in your
source. Waters of a certain salinity (3.6%) rise above those of waters
of a greater salinity. This has to do with density. Now fresh water is
constantly coming in, but where does it go? Well, that of a lower
salinity (particularly fresh water, which is often at 0% salinity)
rises to the surface, and is the first to evaporate. Now, if this
phenomenon is what the Qur'an (as per Soorat al-Furqaan) is referring
to, let it be stated that it is not the first text to make reference
to it; on the contrary, Aristotle has the Qur'an beat by nearly 1,000
years.

I would advise you to consider Aristotle's second book on Meteorology.
However, I will cite precise passages that are relevant to this
discussion:

"[W]e find it maintained that rivers not only flow into the sea but
originate from it, the salt water becoming sweet by filtration. But
this view involves another difficulty. If this body is the source of
all water, why is it salt and not sweet? [...] Now the sun, moving as
it does, sets up processes of change and becoming and decay, and by
its agency the finest and sweetest water is every day carried up and
is dissolved into vapour and rises to the upper region, where it is
condensed again by the cold and so returns to the earth."
[Aristotle, Meteorology, Book 2, 354b15-30, as per Jonathan Barnes
(ed.), "The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol 1, (Princeton, 1985), p.
577]

"The drinkable, sweet water, then, is light and all of it drawn up:
the salt water is heavy and remains behind, but not in its proper
place. [...] The place which we see the sea filling is not its place
but that of water. It seems to belong to the sea because the weight of
the salt water makes it remain there, while the sweet, drinkable water
which is light is carried up."
[Aristotle, Meteorology, Book 2, 355a30-355b1, as per Barnes, opere
citato, p. 578]

If Soorat al-Furqaan really is referring to the picnocline (separation
of waters of different salnities, and thus densities), it seems
Aristotle was a great deal more specific in his wording. Now, with
this in mind, it has to be noted that your algorythm seems to neglect
the possibility that certain phenomenon are observable by man, as well
as the possibility that others knew about this phenomenon before the
text was written. Finally, you have yet to justify your seventh axiom,
and even if you had, it would be totally unnecessary in light of the
objections I have raised here.

-Denis Giron

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Feb 2, 2003, 10:03:32 PM2/2/03

First it must be noted that in light of the fact that your
own conclusion conceded that a natural explanation is plausible,

well, I've been looking around, and Im not sure of weather if
that is true the way I stated it.. therefore, Im going
to retract the statement about being on the boat
But even if this was accurate, that does not change anything,
because finding that dividing line would be like trying to
find a needle in a haystack.

>there is no real reason to continue with this example.

>and thus there is no
>need to even consider a supernatural explanation.

actually that is not true, if you look at the alogrthm,
it states in the beginning :

(it can be one or more of the following possibilities)

>but it does not demonstrate a barrier, rather
>it demonstrates some mixing.

their are many kinds of barriers,there are Multilayered
barriers, radiating barriers...

There are many different types of barriers...
basically a barrier impedes movement of an object or
something that blocks the passage of certain substances.
Different types of barriers perform their function
in different ways, some barrier function as a "iron
curtain" which completely blocks off 2 different
substances, while some barriers do the same task
of blocking 2 substances in a more sublte fashion,
by slowly bring them to a halt.. etc..

anyways, it is clear that their is a barrier which separates
the salt water and fresh water, but the question which you are
asking is what TYPE of barrier.. the Quran does not say anything
on the type of barrier used to separate the salt and fresh water..

>Aristotle has the Qur'an beat by nearly 1,000
>years.

Aristotle says nothing about a barrier between salt and fresh water..

>it has to be noted that your algorythm seems to neglect
>the possibility that certain phenomenon are observable by man,

sure it does:

E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)

you see, this is what I mean when I say that you have no
idea what you are talking about.. the problem is that you
are so biased that it is blinding you to see simple truth

>as well as the possibility that others knew about this phenomenon
>before the text was written

the alogrythm also takes this into account:

F. The information already pre-existed in history

Here is a quick review of the evidences which I have demonstrated:

1. The Quran successfully agrees with geology on
the shape of mountains
2. The Quran successfully agrees with archaeology
on the city of Iram
3. The Quran successfully agrees oceanography on
the separate of salt and fresh water by a barrier.

Of course , we also pointed out the several
different possibilities of why the Quran would
agree with science and archaeology

======================================================================

EVIDENCE #4:

The Quran agrees with the Big Bang Theory of how the universe
was created.

Science states:

The big bang theory is the theory that
the universe started from a single point,
and has been expanding ever since.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html

According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime

between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic
explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

The Quran states:

21:30. Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens
and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then
We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing.
Will they not then believe?

51:47. With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are
able to extend the vastness of space thereof

Quran Science
United piece = Single point

then We parted = the their was a cosmic
them explosion, a big bang

We are able to = today has been expanding
To expand the ever since
vastness of space

As we can see here, the Quran agrees with science on how the
universe was created.

IF Statement = Scientific fact THEN

lets now explore the possibilities:

A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genious

Analysis: it's possible, but doubtful.

B. A very good guess,luck

Analysis: it's possible, but very doubtfull

C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great
scientist

Analysis: it's possible, but very doubtful.

because this science was determined using technology
and modern tools which were not available at that
time.

D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just

happened to match up with science)

Analysis: it's possible, but very doubtful

E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)

Analysis: no. this is not common sense.

F. The information already pre-existed in history

Analysis: no, not to this level of detail

G. A source greater than man was involved or Phenomenon

Analysis: it's possible.

Conclusion: this is a statement which agrees with modern science,

but their could be more than one possibility for this verse, yet
the only one which makes any sense is G.

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 6, 2003, 12:05:15 AM2/6/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03020...@posting.google.com>...
> ...

In my last post to this thread, I commented on Nadir's analysis of the
verse in the Qur'an about the barrier between salt water and fresh
water and noted that his "own conclusion conceded that a natural
explanation is plausible." To this Nadir responded:

> well, I've been looking around, and Im not sure of weather if
> that is true the way I stated it.. therefore, Im going
> to retract the statement about being on the boat

It wasn't the statement about the boat that made me state that (though
it the boat comment was used in the same fashion). The statement that
I was making reference to was "the[re] could be more than one
possibility for this verse," which appeared at the end of Nadir's post
from January 23rd. As I've noted previously, his analysis is
essentially that the source of any given passage in the Qur'an could
be human or non-human, natural or supernatural. So, to say that
"the[re] could be more than one possibility" is to basically imply
that both natural and supernatural explanations are possible. With
that, we should have stopped there, as we have no reason to postulate
a supernatural explanation if a natural one is possible.

Now regarding the "boat" comment:

> But even if this was accurate, that does not change anything,
> because finding that dividing line would be like trying to
> find a needle in a haystack.

This doesn't change a thing, as even finding a needle in a haystack
can have a natural explanation (we don't have to assume a supernatural
force helped the person find the needle). So, it is not clear if the
barrier between salty and fresh water mentioned in the Qur'an is as
Nadir noted, where a man can be on a boat, dip his hand on one side
and find saly water, and dip his hand on the other and find fresh
water. However, if that is what the relevant passage in the Qur'an is
making reference to, even if such a spot is difficult to find, it is
still an observable phenomenon.

> There are many different types of barriers [...]

> the Quran does not say anything
> on the type of barrier used to separate the salt
> and fresh water..

Oh? I recall the verse stating that between them is a "barzakhan
wahijran mahjooran," roughly a forbidding, inviolable barrier. Barzakh
is barrier, and the other two words are from the haa-jiim-raa root
(HJR/XJR), which is for a denial of access, a blocking of admission,
and ironically, is also the root letters for stone, rock,
petrification, et cetera, but in this case has to do with something
unpassable, inviolable. So it would seem it is pretty clear what this
is referring to - a solid barrier, not a leaky barrier such as the
picnocline, which allows mixing. But I suppose that is all a matter of
interpretation...

> Aristotle says nothing about a barrier between
> salt and fresh water..

Your source claimed the Qur'an (in Soorat al-Furqaan 25:53) was making
reference to the picnocline. I demonstrated that Aristotle was a great
deal more specific with regard to explaining the phenomenon of the
picnocline (a separation of waters of different salinities due to
density, and other factors). Aristotle even explained how fresh water
can constantly flow into a salty sea, yet the salty sea remains salty,
which was also explained in the diagrams of your source, as well as
the references cited on your source. I recommend you read Aristotle's
section on Oceanography (in his second book on Meteorology) in its
entirety, and see if it is more in tune with the phenomenon discussed
by your source than is the Qur'an.

> Here is a quick review of the evidences which I have demonstrated:
>
> 1. The Quran successfully agrees with geology on
> the shape of mountains

I'm a little surprised that you still consider this evidence. I'd like
to comment that the Qur'an refers to mountains as "pegs" within the
same context as the earth being laid out, and elsewhere (and on your
own source) the Qur'an states that mountains keep the earth from
shaking. I think it is just as reasonable to interpret this as being a
scientific error, understanding "pegs" to be something that keeps the
structure from shaking, when in reality we know that earthquakes are
common in mountainous areas.

Of course, I realize that you're not going to accept such an
interpretation, and prefer that we cite this as statement with amazing
scientific accuracy. In that case, I would like to do a quick
comparison of the Qur'an and the Babylonian Talmud with regard to
mountains. Unfortunately I can't post the relevant Arabic and Hebrew
over usenet, so I have posted it on another forum, here:

http://www.f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/28857.htm

In this post I will instead employ transliterations in the Latin
script, and you can check the URL above for the actual Hebrew. First,
in tractate Rosh HaShana 24b, there is a commentary on Exodus 20:4
with regard to what is included among "things in the air," "things in
the sea," "that which is in the earth," and things that are "beneath".
At one point, the passage states "d'tanya 'asher ba'arets' l'rabot
harim," or "it was taught that 'in the earth' includes mountains." It
seems to me like the Talmud is very clearly stating that a mountain is
among the things that are IN the earth (and "asher b'arets" literally
means "that which is *IN* the earth").

Of course, maybe that is just a coincidence, so I'd like to now offer
what it says in Sanhedrin 24a: "haro'eh et Reish Laqish B'beit
ha-Midrash K'eelu 'oqer harim v'tochanan zeh bazeh," which translates
to "when one saw Reish Laqish in the Beit Midrash (a sort of study
hall, literally the 'house of exegesis'), it was as if we was
uprooting mountains and grinding them one against another." Now this
is a great deal more clear, since it employs the word "'oqer" which is
from the verb "la'aqor." This verb literally means "uproot," or "pull
out of the ground," or "dig up something that is buried," or "pull up
something that has been planted in the earth," et cetera. An example
of this verb being used in the Bible would be Ecclesiastes 3:2, where
it makes reference to "et la'aqor natua," or "a time to uproot that
which has been planted." So this passage from the Talmud depicts
mountains as something literally in the ground, something with roots.
Gosh(!), how did the ancient Talmudic sages know that mountains had
roots? If you're going to cite the passage in the Qur'an in Soorat
an-Nabaa as a scientific miracle, I think you should do the same for
these passages from the Talmud.

> 2. The Quran successfully agrees with archaeology
> on the city of Iram

This can't really be cited as any sort of evidence. A text from the
Arabian peninsula mentions a place in the Arabian peninsula. That is
something miraculous? If you're going to continue to celebrate the
mentioning of Iram in the Ebla tablets, why not also celebrate the
mentioning of Soddom and Gammora in those same tablets, and give the
book of Genesis the same praise you are giving to Soorat al-Fajr? It
seems the Islamic corpora and the Jewish copora are tied with two each
(mountains have roots, awareness of ancient semitic cities).

> 3. The Quran successfully agrees oceanography on
> the separate of salt and fresh water by a barrier.

And of course this has also been discussed above, and in previous
posts. The three evidences you offered all have perfectly natural
explanations, thus there is no reason to invoke a supernatural
explanation, particularly one that is wholly unjustified (don't forget
that you have yet to justify your seventh antecedent).

Oh well, let's look at your fourth piece of evidence...

> 21:30. Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens
> and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then
> We parted them?

Now, you cite this as scientific fact, yet others could easily
interpret this as a scientific error. The earth came into existence
literally billions of years after the big bang. That is to say, the
above implies the earth and the heavens existed at the same time
before the splitting. Of course, I'm sure you won't accept such an
interpretation, nor will you accept a literal interpretation of
"thumma istawaa ilaa as-Samaa'i" as per Soorat al-Fusilat. That in
itself would be evidence that when a verse from the Bible or Qur'an
agrees with science, really the reader is only saying "my
interpretation of the verse agrees with my understanding of science,"
and when there is a scientific "error," the reader is only saying "my
interpretation of the verse contradicts my understanding of science."
I hope to demonstrate this below...

> 51:47. With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are
> able to extend the vastness of space thereof

Soorat al-Zaariyaat 51:47 is being discussed by me in another thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=bdfe7cc1.0301081219.5061873b%40posting.google.com

What can be drawn from the discussion is the following:

(1) Moosi'oon is essentially a nown in the plural, like Mushrikoon, or
Muslimoon, or Mulhidoon.

(2) This word appears in the singular in Soorat al-Baqarah 2:236,
where it means rich, affluent.

Based on these two points (and the same participle structure in the
next ayat of Soorat al-Zaariyaat), it seems reasonable to argue that
this is in fact the miracle of reinterpretation. The waw-seen-ayin
root certainly does mean expand, but it is also for one who is
affluent, rich, to enrich, et cetera. Further, to think it is stating
that the expanding is happening right now is a bit strained, and would
have to be applied to the earth being spread out right now as well in
light of the ayat that follows.

Of course, again, I already know you're not going to accept such an
interpretation, so I will again call upon the Jewish corpora for a
comparison with the Islamic corpora. I'd like to invoke Isaiah 42:5,
which is strikingly similar to Soorat al-Zaariyaat 51:47-48.
Particularly of interest is the part that makes reference to "YHWH
bore hashamayim v'notihem," or "YHWH, who created the heavens and
expanded them." Now, if you'd like, it can be noted that in light of
the conjugation of the nun-tet-heh root, another possible and
reasonable translation is "YHWH, the one who created the heavens and
is expanding them" (i.e. present tense). 'Noteihem' literally means to
expand, but also it can mean to stretch, which would imply having a
set substance/amount/point, and stretching that one thing to new
volumes or whatever...

If you'd like, I could go in to a great deal more detail on how the
Bible (especially the first chapter of Genesis) can be seen as being
in perfect harmony with the theory of the Big Bang. Relevant works on
this subject would be "Genesis and the Big Bang" (Bantam, 1990), by
Gerald Schroeder, and "In the Beginning... Biblical Creation and
Science" (KTAV, 1990) by Nathan Aviezer, a professor of Physics of
Bar-Ilan University in Israel. This would be, in a nutshell, why I am
not at all impressed with attempts, via the scientific hermeneutic
approach, to make the Qur'an fit with the Big Bang theory.

> Conclusion: this is a statement which agrees with modern science,
> but their could be more than one possibility for this verse, yet
> the only one which makes any sense is G.

Again, if there is more than one possibility, there is no reason to
accept a supernatural explanation. And I must again note that you have
yet to justify your seventh antecedent (G). You have not explained
what you mean by "phenomenon" or "marvel," nor have you given us any
reason to even consider this a possibile antecedent to a statement in
the Qur'an. On what grounds would one ever cite choice (G)?

-Denis Giron

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 10, 2003, 5:18:20 PM2/10/03

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

I do not like in get into this debate of science in the Qur'an, but
a few thing caught my attention.

> > 1. The Quran successfully agrees with geology on
> > the shape of mountains
>
> I'm a little surprised that you still consider this evidence. I'd like
> to comment that the Qur'an refers to mountains as "pegs" within the
> same context as the earth being laid out, and elsewhere (and on your
> own source) the Qur'an states that mountains keep the earth from
> shaking. I think it is just as reasonable to interpret this as being a
> scientific error, understanding "pegs" to be something that keeps the
> structure from shaking, when in reality we know that earthquakes are
> common in mountainous areas.

"And the mountains as pegs?" [Qur'an 78:7]

Yes, the Qur'an refers to mountain as "pegs" and it is for a very good
reason. If one looks at a peg of a tent, for example, most of it lies
under the ground. How about a mountain then?

A large amount of evidence has been accumulated in the 19th and 20th
century that substantiates the fact that the earth's surface is in
isostatic equilibrium. This essentially means that a disturbance of this
equilibrium would lead to isostatic readjustment until the equilibrium is
restored.

Indeed seismic evidence has indicated that the earth's lithosphere is
floating on a more dense and viscous substratum and that the earth's
surface is in isostatic balance. In other words, the surface features of
earth's crust are balanced by internal inequalities of density. This
explains why high mountains are underlain by deep roots (or "pegs" if we
may call!) of low density and why rocks under the ocean basins are more
dense than continental ones. This also explains why mountains roots are
usually several times their elevation of the mountains above the sea
level.

To verify what I am saying please look at the book by Andre Cailleux,
"Anatomy of the Earth", 1968, World University Library: London, pp.
220-221. The figure on these pages gives the cross-section across the
continents and gives the profiles of earth's crust and mantle at various
parts of the world. The caption reads ".. Under every high area or
mountain range the larger crust projects downwards into the heavier
mantle, thus preserving isostatic equilibrium". As expected under every
mountain range there is a "peg" or "root" projecting downwards into the
mantle. See for example, the Rockies, the Andes, the Alps, the Caucasus,
the Pamirs, etc. These mountain ranges show a projection of tens of
kilometers underneath them like what we expect of a peg! Cailleux says:

"... it is difficult to realize that corresponding to each of these
mighty ranges there is a root which penetrates more than fifty or sixty
kilometres into the earth's interior. The higher the mountains stand above
the plains, the deeper the roots which project underneath the crust. In
projecting downwards, the comparatively light root surrounded by denser
mantle material supports in some way the excess weight of the mountain
chain elevated into the atmosphere. There is an equilibrium, an isostasy."
[p. 222]

So, the Qur'an is right in this matter and Dajjal is wrong!

Now armed with this basic knowledge of geology, let us move further into
the issue of the mountains preventing the earth from shaking.

"And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should
shake with you..." [Qur'an 16:15]

As one can see the presence of these deep roots or pegs of the mountains
acts to stabilize the earth by bringing about the isostatic equilibrium.
This can further be justified by the fact that the motions of the plates
in the earth's lithosphere comes to halt when one plate collides with
another, thus producing a collisional type mountain. As one can see,
without the mountains, the movement of tectonic plates would be much
faster and their collision more drastic. Had there been no mountains (and
hence the roots!), we would be swinging along with the plates crashing
into each other. So, the mountains, in fact stop us (as well as tectonic
plates) from shaking and swinging.

One also should keep in mind that although the mountains act as retarders
of plate tectonics, they themselves are not an independent force. The
mountains themselves are the products of plate tectonics.

Finally Dajjal says: "when in reality we know that earthquakes are common
in mountainous areas". Firstly, the verse 16:15 in Arabic nowhere uses
the word zalzalah, the word for earthquake. Secondly, the earthquakes in
the mountainous areas is not because of the mountains. This is because of
the plate tectonics. Basic geology, Mr. Dajjal. The earth quakes are
common in the Himalayan region because the Australian-Indian plate is
moving into the Eurasian plate. I am sure you can figure out why Mexico
and Turkey gets battered frequently by earth quakes.

> > 2. The Quran successfully agrees with archaeology
> > on the city of Iram
>
> This can't really be cited as any sort of evidence. A text from the
> Arabian peninsula mentions a place in the Arabian peninsula. That is
> something miraculous? If you're going to continue to celebrate the
> mentioning of Iram in the Ebla tablets, why not also celebrate the
> mentioning of Soddom and Gammora in those same tablets, and give the
> book of Genesis the same praise you are giving to Soorat al-Fajr? It
> seems the Islamic corpora and the Jewish copora are tied with two each
> (mountains have roots, awareness of ancient semitic cities).

Dajjal's methodlogy here is that attack is the best form of defence. He
understands that Iram is no longer a mythical place. It, in fact, existed
and is mentioned in the Qur'an. Why not accept it? But no. He has to make
noise to make himself heard. The noise comes in the form of red-herrings
of introducing the Jewish material into the issue. But that is not going
to do him any good.

Hopefully he has heard of Wellhausen. May be he did not hear that he
dismissed Iram as being mythical. Berman and Weitzman in their book "Ebla:
An Archaeological Enigma" say:

"Pettinato has also found at Ebla the names of three cities - Shamutu, Ad
and Iram - which he identifies with three names in the 89th Sura of the
Koran.... Of these Thamud is generally believed to be the name of a tribe
first mentioned by Sargon II in the eighth century BC; Iram has been
debated, some considering tribe (cf. Aram) and others a place; and Ad
thought to be a tribal name, was dismissed as mythical by ubiquitous
kill-joy Wellhausen. The reported occurences of such names at Ebla is
certainly interesting...." [C. Berman & M. Weitzman, "Ebla: An
Archaeological Enigma" 1979, Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London, pp.
191-192.]

So, if one looks everything in context, the issue of Iram certainly is
interesting.

This post has also given me the impetus to deal with other matters raised
by him and they need to be dealt with systematically with evidence. This
is because if Dajjal can take people for a ride here, one really wonders
what he is doing on various other internet discussion groups.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/28857.htm

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 11, 2003, 1:31:48 PM2/11/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03020...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
>...

"[T]he ingenious Arabic Philosopher Ibn Rushd [...] held that
intelligence falls from God onto mankind in a sequence of downwardly
trending spheres, so that a theologian can interpret Scripture as
allegory, while at the same time presenting it as literal truth to the
ordinary untutored person. Critics of [Ibn Rushd] accused him of
instituting a doctrine of dualism, by which one could simultaneously
judge as true a discovery in natural philosophy and also its direct
converse in theology. This smacked of the program of the Sophists, who
had pronounced contradiction to be impossible."
[Jeremy Campbell, The Liar's Tale: A History of Falsehood, (Norton,
2001), p. 81]

I must say that I am pleased, and sincerely honored to have Dr.
Saifullaah take part in this debate. Though, I believe there is not
much that can be said to escape my assumption that when a sacred text
(be it the Bible, the Qur'an, or something else) is presented as
agreeing with or contradicting science, what is really happening is
that the presenter of that text is saying "my interpretation of this
passage agrees/disagrees with my understanding of science." The
citation of passages in a text that allegedly contradict science or
agree with science tell us more about the person citing them than the
text itself.

> I do not like in get into this debate of science in the Qur'an

That's interesting, since you seem to me to be such a strong proponent
of the scientific-hermeneutic approach (I infer this from your site,
as well as your attempt to defend this approach in past SRI threads).

> "And the mountains as pegs?" [Qur'an 78:7]

Dr. Saifullaah wrote quite a bit on this matter, and it is amazing how
much he anchored to the word "peg". That is fine. As I noted in the
very post he was responding to, similar interpretations can be read
into the Talmud, which also implies Mountains have "roots". For more,
see here:

> Finally Dajjal says: "when in reality we know that earthquakes are common
> in mountainous areas". Firstly, the verse 16:15 in Arabic nowhere uses
> the word zalzalah, the word for earthquake. Secondly, the earthquakes in
> the mountainous areas is not because of the mountains. This is because of
> the plate tectonics. Basic geology, Mr. Dajjal.

Yes, believe it or not, I actually knew that. The point of bringing up
earth quakes around mountains is the fact that when an earthquake
happens in a mountainous area, the mountains happen to... well, they
happen to SHAKE, and that seems to fly into the face of the statement
that a mountain was created by Allaah, "lest it should shake with you"
as it states in Soorat an-Nahl. Now, I don't expect Dr. Saifullaah to
take an interpretation that has this cited verse being an error.
However, this does support my point that all of this comes down to
interpretation, and not much else.

> Dajjal's methodlogy here is that attack is the best form of defence. He
> understands that Iram is no longer a mythical place.

Agreed! I was not arguing otherwise. I was simply stating that there
is nothing miraculous about a place on the Arabian peninsula being
mentioned by a text (the Qur'an) that originated in the Arabian
peninsula. Dr. Saifullaah tried to introduce me to Wellhausen, but
that simply proves that he has not been carefully following my point
of argument which he seeks to refute. Maybe Dr. Saifullaah should
consider what I wrote, in this very thread, back on January 17th:

"I know of one critic of the Qur'an (Wellhausen) who stated that Iram
was a fictional place. If this is the same Iram, then Wellhausen was
wrong (just as I was when I though that Sodom and Gomorrah were
fictional), but I don't see how we can postulate that this knowledge

of Iram was from a divine source[.]"
[ http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bdfe7cc1.0301161436.adda843%40posting.google.com
]

Dr. Saifullaah stated that my reference to the Jewish material was a
red-herring. Not at all. The point is that many texts make allusions
to many places. Now if some skeptic is proven wrong when he claims
these said places don't exist, this does not mean the texts that
mention them are divine. It simply means the skeptic who disputed
their existence was wrong. That was my only point.

> So, if one looks everything in context, the issue of Iram certainly is
> interesting.

I wont dispute that. I think it is very interesting, as one can use
this to possibly move further towards understanding a particular
passage in Soorat al-Fajr. My only point was to dispute Nadir's claim
that the mentioning of Iram was evidence that the Qur'an is from a
divine source.

> This post has also given me the impetus to deal with other matters raised
> by him and they need to be dealt with systematically with evidence. This
> is because if Dajjal can take people for a ride here, one really wonders
> what he is doing on various other internet discussion groups.

Huh? I have to admit that I have found this very humorous. Have you
heard rumors that after getting trounced by yourself, Ghali and Imran
Aijaz, I put my tail between my legs and slinked off to other parts of
the net to wage battle against less well educated Muslims? Or maybe
you heard that I have returned to SRI, not to face the Sword of God,
but rather only Nadir Ahmed? The above really brought a smile to my
face, but in all seriousness, people (myself included) can only
benefit from thorough refutations of my claims, so if you have
something to bring to the table, please do so.

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 12, 2003, 9:44:16 AM2/12/03

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> agreeing with or contradicting science, what is really happening is
> that the presenter of that text is saying "my interpretation of this
> passage agrees/disagrees with my understanding of science." The
> citation of passages in a text that allegedly contradict science or
> agree with science tell us more about the person citing them than the
> text itself.

The understanding of science is similar in all the people who studied it.
The case that we are dealing with right now is the issue of some
geological statement mentioned in the Qur'an and whether they fit the
facts of geology as we know.

"And the mountains as pegs?" [Qur'an 78:7]

> Dr. Saifullaah wrote quite a bit on this matter, and it is amazing how
> much he anchored to the word "peg". That is fine. As I noted in the
> very post he was responding to, similar interpretations can be read
> into the Talmud, which also implies Mountains have "roots". For more,
> see here:

We are not concerned about Talmud. We are concerned about the Qur'an here.
Dajjal evades the actual issue of whether the Qur'anic statements of
mountains as "pegs" agree with the modern understanding of the mountains
with roots. He moves over to a red-herring call Talmud. We are least
concerned about it in our discussion. Whatever has been said about
mountains been "uprooted" or graven images made "in the earth" is
different from what the Qur'an says about the mountains being like "pegs".

> > Finally Dajjal says: "when in reality we know that earthquakes are common
> > in mountainous areas". Firstly, the verse 16:15 in Arabic nowhere uses
> > the word zalzalah, the word for earthquake. Secondly, the earthquakes in
> > the mountainous areas is not because of the mountains. This is because of
> > the plate tectonics. Basic geology, Mr. Dajjal.
>
> Yes, believe it or not, I actually knew that. The point of bringing up
> earth quakes around mountains is the fact that when an earthquake
> happens in a mountainous area, the mountains happen to... well, they
> happen to SHAKE, and that seems to fly into the face of the statement
> that a mountain was created by Allaah, "lest it should shake with you"
> as it states in Soorat an-Nahl. Now, I don't expect Dr. Saifullaah to
> take an interpretation that has this cited verse being an error.
> However, this does support my point that all of this comes down to
> interpretation, and not much else.

So, already clutching the straws! Now the argument comes to "my
interpretation versus your interpretation". We know what the experiments
done from the time of Airy onwards on the issue of mountains possessing
deeper roots to the modern siesmological studies say about the structure
of the mountains. We do not have to have an interpretation over it. The
picture is clear. As for the Qur'an, it says the mountains are like
"pegs". For a peg we know most of it stays underground and only a part of
it stays over the ground above the mean sea level. It is true for the
mountain too that has it extension down into the earth's lithosphere for
distances much larger than its height above the mean sea level. So, the
Qur'anic description of the mountain with "pegs" is correct in the
geological sense.

As for the issue of mountains were created "lest it should shake with
you", what is Dajjal's interpretation? Earthquakes happen near the
mountains and hence it can't be true. Earthquakes happen in those mountain
areas where the mountain building has not been completed yet especially
the younger mountains like the Himalayas, the Andes or the Alps and hence
they have to release a lot of stress in the forms of an earthquake to
regain their isostatic re-adjustment.

Now Dajjal has a problem with the issue that mountains can't be created by
Allah because they are created by plate tectonics. Obviously, our position
is that nothing happens except what Allah has willed. He is the Creator
and Sustainer of this universe.

> > So, if one looks everything in context, the issue of Iram certainly is
> > interesting.
>
> I wont dispute that. I think it is very interesting, as one can use
> this to possibly move further towards understanding a particular
> passage in Soorat al-Fajr. My only point was to dispute Nadir's claim
> that the mentioning of Iram was evidence that the Qur'an is from a
> divine source.

If you dispute about Iram not being from a divine source then what is your
evidence to prove your point? Please do not give us your "may be",
"perhaps" etc. They constitute conjecture not proof.

> but rather only Nadir Ahmed? The above really brought a smile to my
> face, but in all seriousness, people (myself included) can only
> benefit from thorough refutations of my claims, so if you have
> something to bring to the table, please do so.

There is a lot, insha'allah but I work according to my priorities.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.beconvinced.com/science/QURANIRON.htm

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Feb 13, 2003, 9:42:18 AM2/13/03

Thank you Saifullah for participating, I believe he as answered
most of the objections, so I will only respond to select comments.

> it is still an observable phenomenon.

if it was such an observable phenomenon, then why didnt aristotle or
any one else in the millions of years of history ever mention it?
Rather it was scientists with their use of modern technique which
discovered it, this is important to note that this is not something
that an average person sailing out in the ocean can notice as Denis
is trying to imply. As I mentioned before, hypthetically it is possible
that a person can find this physical barrier, but it is like a 1 out of
a million chances.. that it why we can not dismiss this.

> I demonstrated that Aristotle was a great
>deal more specific with regard to explaining the
>phenomenon of the picnocline

you demonstrated nothing, Aristotle nor any one
else in history has ever mentioned a physical barrier
between salt and fresh water. Aristotle only goes to
show how man on his own would not be able to discover
this which out modern techniques, therefore this strenghens
my case. thank you.

>In this post I will instead employ transliterations in the Latin
>script, and you can check the URL above for the actual Hebrew. First,
>in tractate Rosh HaShana 24b, there is a commentary on Exodus 20:4
>with regard to what is included among "things in the air," "things in
>the sea," "that which is in the earth," and things that are "beneath".
>At one point, the passage states "d'tanya 'asher ba'arets' l'rabot
>harim," or "it was taught that 'in the earth' includes mountains." It
>seems to me like the Talmud is very clearly stating that a mountain is
>among the things that are IN the earth (and "asher b'arets" literally
>means "that which is *IN* the earth").

pure sillyness. If I were to say that my new Dell computer
is in the box, does that mean that my Dell computer is embedded
in the cardboard of the box??? Likewise, when a person says "which is
in the earth" he is simply stating that it is within the earth. I
believe that just about everyone in the world uses the same phrase
to describe this..

Again, look at the context:

"things in the air," "things in
the sea," "that which is in the earth

here we see that it is talking about things which are contained in each of
the 3 containers: air, sea, earth.

Therefore, if you are going to make the case that they are talking about things
being embedded in the earth like pegs, then you definitely have to be more
specific. What you have given us tells us nothing.

>it was as if we was
>uprooting mountains and grinding them one against another.

We see the same problem here as above, this really does not tell us anything,
I looked op this word on crosswalk.com and it has the following meanings:

1. to pluck up, root up
(Qal) to pluck up, root up
(Niphal) to be plucked up

2. to cut, hamstring
(Piel) to cut, hamstring

the word is used for BOTH uprooting and simply cutting out,
For example, Jos 11:6 ,11:9, 1 Ch 18:4 talk about cutting horses,
Zep 2:4 talks about a society of people being killed off?

their could also be many different ways something can be uprooted, for
example, a scab on the skin is rooted in the skin, and everyone knows that
mountains are attached to the earth, and needs to be uprooted to separate it
Therefore, my point is that we dont know what context the author was
referring to. Now, if someone were to claim that it is rooted like a plant,
then this is scientfically incorrect, mountains do not have
roots(like plants), and if the quran stated that mountains have roots, then
believe Denis would be all over me like fly on !@#$! pointing out a
scientific error. But, what we see in the Quran is that is does not claim
that moutains have roots, rather it clearly says pegs which is the clear,
accurate and unmistakeable.

> That is to say, the above implies the earth and the heavens
> existed at the same time before the splitting. Of course,
> I'm sure you won't accept such an interpretation

well, I dont play the interpretation game, the Quran says what it says.
On this topic, we have moved away from proven facts to theories. yet, these
theories are based on solid evidence. The Quran claims that the heavens and
earth were together before the splitting. But according to the theory,
the earth came after the splitting, and the raw materials to build the earth
were created from this big bang( right Denis?).
Therefore, the quran disagrees with some aspects of the theory of the creation
of the universe. What I understand is that the creation of the earth was a special
act, which was not the product of nature, rather it was an act of God (41:9-12), or
better known as a miracle. Science has not been able to prove or disprove this.

def of miracle:

An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held
to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: “Miracles are spontaneous,
they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves” (Katherine Anne Porter).

> Isaiah 42:5

yes,I do believe this does match up with science. This really does
not have any bearing on my case, we as muslims believe that God's
word is also located in the bible, but mans words are there too.

> You have not explained
>what you mean by "phenomenon" or "marvel," nor have you given us any
>reason to even consider this a possibile antecedent to a statement in
>the Qur'an.

well Denis, I believe I have, but weather you understand it is another thing.
A phenomenon could be something like the pyrimids, their is no good explanation
as to how they were created, because man did not have the knowledge of science nor
the technology back then to construct them.

ok, well were almost home, I have 2 more pieces of evidence,
and then I will show you how G is the only possibility!

------------------------------------------------------------

EVIDENCE #5:

The Quran on Iron:

Analysis:

IF Statement = Scientific fact THEN

well, the answer is yes. Science tells us that
the earth could not have produced Iron, the Quran
does not state that Iron was produced from the earth,
rather it states that it was sent down.

lets now explore the possibilities:

A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genious

Analysis: it's possible, but doubtful.

B. A very good guess,luck

Analysis: it's possible.

C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great scientist

Analysis: it's possible, but doubtful.

D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just happened to
match up with science)

Analysis: it's possible.

E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)

Analysis: no

F. The information already pre-existed in history

Analysis: no

G. A source greater than man was involved

Analysis: it's possible.

Conclusion: This verse agrees with modern science.

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 13, 2003, 9:04:17 PM2/13/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03021...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> We are not concerned about Talmud. We are concerned about the Qur'an here.
> Dajjal evades the actual issue of whether the Qur'anic statements of
> mountains as "pegs" agree with the modern understanding of the mountains
> with roots. He moves over to a red-herring call Talmud.

Dr. Saifullaah missed the point of my analogy. Let it be stated that I
have not ONCE set out in this thread to prove that the Qur'an (or the
Bible, or any other religious scripture) is *NOT* the word of God. My
role here is to simply show that certain attempts at proving the
Qur'an *IS* the word of God are problematic. This is why the Talmud is
sometimes relevent. While I am not sure that Dr. Saifullaah is arguing
that the description of mountains as "pegs" is 100% proof that Qur'an
is from God (thus I will not accuse him of arguing such), certain
proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach put forth an
argument that roughly goes as follows:

(1) The Qur'an makes a statement that implies mountains have roots.
(2) Scientists agree that mountains have roots, which was confirmed by
experiments done from the time of Airy onwards.
(3) The Qur'an is the word of God.

All I have done is demonstrate how certain passages of the Babylonian
Talmud seem to imply mountains have roots, and then apply the same
argument:

(1) The Babylonian Talmud makes a statement that implies mountains
have roots.
(2) Scientists agree that mountains have roots, which was confirmed by
experiments done from the time of Airy onwards.
(3) The Babylonian Talmud is the word of God.

So you see, bringing in the Talmud is quite useful, particularly when
it helps us see what is going on.

> Now Dajjal has a problem with the issue that mountains can't be created by
> Allah because they are created by plate tectonics.

Not once did I say such a thing in this thread. It seems Dr.
Saifullaah is not reading my posts very carefully. My only point was
that mountains do tend to "shake," thus if we wanted to get into this
whole "my interpretation vs your interpretation," I could argue to
have found an "error" in the Qur'an. This was meant to lend weight to
my point about how "errors" and "scientific miracles" in religious
scripture ultimately come down to interpretation.

> If you dispute about Iram not being from a divine source then what is your
> evidence to prove your point?

It seems again that Dr. Saifullaah has missed the scope of this
discussion. I did not say that knowledge of Iram was not from a divine
source. On the contrary, what I said was that the mention of Iram in
the Qur'an is not evidence that the Qur'an is from a divine source. To
again set an analogy, consider that Genesis mentions Sodom and
Gamorrah. Now, I have not proven (nor do I desire to attempt to do so)
that the author of Genesis did not get his knowledge of Sodom and
Gamorrah from a divine source. I would merely argue that the
mentioning of these two cities is not evidence that the book of
Genesis is from a divine source. The point of this analogy is to
explain my criticizing of appeal to Iram in the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an.

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 14, 2003, 10:42:24 AM2/14/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03021...@posting.google.com>...

> if it was such an observable phenomenon, then why didnt aristotle or
> any one else in the millions of years of history ever mention it?

Careful. You're toeing the line of becoming the positive claimant. I
might be tempted to argue the way Dr. Saifullaah does, and ask for
evidence that no one has mentioned it for millions of years. But of
course that is an unfair way to debate. I do not claim that some
person documented being on a boat and experienced this; rather I was
only remarking that *IF* this phenomenon is as you claim, then it
would have been observable. It would allow for a natural explanation -
that is all.

> Aristotle nor any one
> else in history has ever mentioned a physical barrier
> between salt and fresh water.

I think you've missed the point. Whatever the Qur'an is making
reference to, you claimed that it was a reference to the picnocline.
Now, that is what you presented. The picnocline is a phenomenon that
takes place when waters of different salinities come into contact -
the two are separated, as the water with the greater salinity sinks,
and the water with the lesser salinity rises to the top and
evaporates. Aristotle described exactly that. Thr Qur'an only makes
mention of a "barzakhan wahijran mahjooran," which as I noted
previously is roughly a forbidding, inviolable barrier. The picnocline
is not inviolable, rather it is leaky - that is to say, it allows
mixing. So, *IF* the Qur'an is in fact making reference to the
picnocline, it seems Aristotle described that phenomenon in greater
detail, while the Qur'an leaves open an interpretation that would
imply an "error."

Now with the Talmudic quote about mountains being literally IN the
earth, you have begun to come around to my position, which is to argue
that maybe another interpretation is possible. I won't disagree.
Nonetheless, if we read the Hebrew in its most literal sense, it means
IN the earth. Are other interpretations possible? Of course! My whole
argument has been that multiple interpretations are always possible,
especially with texts written in "Semitic" languages!

> their could also be many different ways something can be uprooted,

Agreed! So maybe multiple interpretations are possible!

> But, what we see in the Quran is that is does not claim
> that moutains have roots, rather it clearly says pegs which is the clear,
> accurate and unmistakeable.

Oh? But the proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach
(including Dr. Saifullaah) argue that the term "peg" is a reference to
the fact that mountains have roots. So too, the Talmud speaks of
"uprooting" mountains, and uses a Hebrew word that literally means to
pull out of the ground (not that it has roots precisely like a plant,
but rather that under this conjugation of the root, the object being
uprooted is literally IN the ground).

> well, I dont play the interpretation game, the Quran says what it says.

What? There is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact. Every time you
read a text you are performing exegesis. You interpret a statement in
the Qur'an about the earth and the heavens being together to NOT mean
that the earth was in existence and connected to the heavenly bodies,
but rather that it is ultimately made from the same substance, like
everything else in our universe. That's fine, but it is part of the
interpretation game, which is why this is called the
scientific-HERMENEUTIC approach.

Now, regarding Isaiah 42:5 you wrote:

> yes,I do believe this does match up with science. This really does
> not have any bearing on my case, we as muslims believe that God's
> word is also located in the bible, but mans words are there too.

That's great! But you see, we then have a very natural explanation for
how a seventh century Arab would utter something akin to Soorat
al-Zaariyaat 51:47-48. Considering the fact that a very close
statement had existed among the Jews and Christians for centuries by
the time the Qur'an was written, it is no miracle that the statement
appears in the Qur'an. This does not mean the Qur'an is NOT of a
divine origin, but it does allow us to have a natural explanation for
these verses.

> A phenomenon could be something like the pyrimids, their is no good
> explanation as to how they were created,

Ummm, I don't agree, but okay. So phenomenon is, as you said
previously, something of a marvel. Here's the problem that I was
trying to express previously: when I asked you to explain phenomenon,
I didn't mean explain your definition, rather I meant explain what it
is that you're making reference to. For example, previously I noted
that it is a bit problematic to cite a deity as the antecedent to a
verse in the Qur'an, since this is a wholly unjustified logical
abduction in light of the fact that we have never observed a deity
revealing a scripture. If you make it the ever-vague "phenomenon,"
this does not escape the problem, as now we don't even know what we're
talking about, thus surely we can't be justified in citing it as a
possible antecedent! If you want to use "phenomenon" in the sense of
"I dunno," I'm all for it. There are alot of things that happen that
we have no explanation for; but of course that does not support a
supernatural explanation.

> The Quran on Iron:
>
> http://www.beconvinced.com/science/QURANIRON.htm

Once again, you conceded that a natural explanation is possible, and
if that is the case, then there is no need to cite a supernatural
explanation (especially one that is unjustified). Nonetheless, I would
further object that I require more than just vague citations of some
guy named Professor Armstrong. Maybe you could cite a book that
describes the phenomena mentioned in the site above in more detail?
You know, a little corroboration.

But let me take this back into the realm of mutliple hermeneutic
possibilities (which I believe is the case with any religious
scripture). Yes, the Qur'an does say in Soorat al-Hadeed 57:25
"anzalna al-hadeeda," or we sent down the iron, but the verb anzala
seems to always be a reference to sending something down to earth,
like manna and quail, books, rain, even articles of clothing. The
implication is that the earth (as well as the people these things are
being sent to) is/are already in existence! Now, the reality is that
iron was in the core of the earth long before there were any people to
send anything to, thus it is possible to interpret this verse as an
error if we accept it as literally sending down iron the way messages,
food and clothes have been sent down by Allaah. But of course, that's
all this is about - interpretation.

-Denis Giron

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 14, 2003, 11:44:07 AM2/14/03

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> sometimes relevent. While I am not sure that Dr. Saifullaah is arguing
> that the description of mountains as "pegs" is 100% proof that Qur'an
> is from God (thus I will not accuse him of arguing such), certain
> proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach put forth an
> argument that roughly goes as follows:
>
> (1) The Qur'an makes a statement that implies mountains have roots.
> (2) Scientists agree that mountains have roots, which was confirmed by
> experiments done from the time of Airy onwards.
> (3) The Qur'an is the word of God.

We are leaving the issue of the Qur'an being the word of God aside. What
we are dealing with is whether the Qur'an is correct or incorrect on the
issue of describing themountains as "pegs" and whether description
confirms the modern day understanding of mountains. The crucial word here
is "peg".

We know that most of the peg lies below the ground and only a small part
of it shows over the ground. The structure of the mountain has been
discovered by the seismic studies and it has been shown that the
structure which is inside the lithosphere is deeper than what is visible
above the mean sea level. Just like the peg.

""... it is difficult to realize that corresponding to each of these
mighty ranges there is a root which penetrates more than fifty or sixty

kilometres into the earth's interior." [Andre Cailleux, "Anatomy of the
Earth", 1968, World University Library: London, pp. 222]

In other words, the height of the mountain that we see above the mean sea
level is less than what is inside the lithosphere. It is usually more than
5 times the height of the mountain above the sea level. The "root" of the
mountain here comes with a qualified statement saying what exactly it is
and what is it length.

> All I have done is demonstrate how certain passages of the Babylonian
> Talmud seem to imply mountains have roots, and then apply the same
> argument:
>
> (1) The Babylonian Talmud makes a statement that implies mountains
> have roots.
> (2) Scientists agree that mountains have roots, which was confirmed by
> experiments done from the time of Airy onwards.
> (3) The Babylonian Talmud is the word of God.

Some Rabbi in Babylonian Talmud "uprooted" the mountain. The Jews in
Israel "uproot" the houses of Palestinians and "uproot" the olive trees
belonging to the Palestinians. They have "uproot" the Palestianians from
their own land and turned them in refugees. How about that? So, how deep
are the roots of the individual "uprooted" entities including the
mountains? Will Dajjal kindly clarify instead of again clutching the
straws of "my interpretation versus your interpretation.".

> So you see, bringing in the Talmud is quite useful, particularly when
> it helps us see what is going on.

How does it help to show that the mountains indeed have roots that are
larger than their own height that is visible above the mean sea level?
Just like the pegs.

> whole "my interpretation vs your interpretation," I could argue to
> have found an "error" in the Qur'an. This was meant to lend weight to
> my point about how "errors" and "scientific miracles" in religious
> scripture ultimately come down to interpretation.

We have heard of this talk for a long time. Instead of beating around the
bush please come back to the point and discuss the issues.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nr/cs152/homework/peg-side.jpg
http://www.clevelandclinic.org/florida/research/health/images/peg.gif
http://www.specialkidsresource.com/sitemedia/Assets/Product/ThumbNails/LR2444%20peg%20boy%20SILO.jpg
http://www.newtonmore.com/ardnacoille/peg.jpg

asimm...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 14, 2003, 11:44:31 AM2/14/03

My only point was
> that mountains do tend to "shake," thus if we wanted to get into this
> whole "my interpretation vs your interpretation," I could argue to
> have found an "error" in the Qur'an.

Actually, from my understanding, the Quran says that the mountains
prevent the earth from losing its stability. Also, as a side note,
the Quran is not drawing attention to scientific detail but is
alluding to the Almighty's power and his providence. The earth has
been created suitable for all living creatures, especially man, and it
is only obvious that with such a powerful and manifest blessing that
extends into the heavens, man should not fail to be grateful and take
heed that He has not been placed without purpose.

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 17, 2003, 9:32:17 AM2/17/03

asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<92717884.03021...@posting.google.com>...

> Actually, from my understanding, the Quran says that the mountains
> prevent the earth from losing its stability.

I see in Soorat an-Nahl 16:15 "an tameeda bikum," and the mim-yaa-dal
root is for shake (even quake), thus the literal interpretation would
be "lest it shakes/quakes with you." I even found in an Arabic
dictionary maydaan (mayadaan?) for "quake"...

> Also, as a side note,
> the Quran is not drawing attention to scientific detail but is
> alluding to the Almighty's power and his providence.

And this I will not argue with. My only argument is that it is not as
obvious as some would like us to believe that the Qur'an's statements
on mountains are in such perfect harmony with science that one has no
choice to conclude that they are from a divine source. I have
attempted to show that an interpretation that implies an "error" is
also possible. This does not mean that I have (A) demonstrated beyond
all doubt that there is an error, or (B) that I believe this is an
absolute irreconcilable error, or (C) proven that the Qur'an is not
from a divine source. It only means that this is a matter of
interpretation. When the Muslims claim the Qur'an agrees with science
they are really saying "my interpretation of the Qur'an agrees with
science," and so too when the kuffaar claim to have found a scientific
error in the Qur'an, they are really saying "my interpretation of the
Qur'an contradicts science."

All we have is interpretation; as Jeremiah McAuliffe once said in this
very newsgroup, man should be called homo-hermeneuticus, since he is
the creature that interprets.

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 17, 2003, 9:32:15 AM2/17/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03021...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> We are leaving the issue of the Qur'an being the word of God aside. What
> we are dealing with is whether the Qur'an is correct or incorrect on the
> issue of describing themountains as "pegs" and whether description
> confirms the modern day understanding of mountains.

But then this is a completely different discussion in my opinion. I am
simply criticizing certain aspects of the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to proving the Qur'an is absolutely the word of God. If Dr.
Saifullaah wants to say that the Qur'an can be seen as being in
perfect harmony with science, he will not get any disagreement from
me. I have said for quite some time now (more than a year at least)
that I am wholly incapable of demonstrating an absolute error (be it
scientific or otherwise) in the Qur'an (or any other religious
scripture). But alas, we're still here, so for the sake of fun
discussion, I'll drop my two cents.

> We know that most of the peg lies below the ground and only a small part
> of it shows over the ground.

Yes, many tent pegs are like that. However, it would be wrong to argue
that this is synonymous with the definition of peg. A peg does not
necessarily have to be an object that has the majority of itself
underground. I have myself gone camping and put down tent-pegs where
the majority of the stake is above ground. A peg is only something
that plugs a whole (often somewhat cyllindrical). Consider some images
of pegs that have the majority of their volume above the hole they are
entering:

So Dr. Saifullaah is adding to the meaning of peg, he is anchoring his
own interpretation to a single word. There's nothing wrong with that,
nor does it make his interpretation incorrect. However, it is
important to note that this is his interpretation, not something that
is part of the necessary meaning of peg.

> Some Rabbi in Babylonian Talmud "uprooted" the mountain. The Jews in
> Israel "uproot" the houses of Palestinians and "uproot" the olive trees
> belonging to the Palestinians. They have "uproot" the Palestianians from
> their own land and turned them in refugees. How about that? So, how deep
> are the roots of the individual "uprooted" entities including the
> mountains?

How deep are the pegs mentioned in Soorat an-Naba' 78:7? Neither the
Qur'an nor the Talmud give us a precise amount (i.e. a ratio of how
much is below ground or above ground, or how long the root/peg is, or
how far down it travels). Yes, in English "uproot" has many meanings.
So too with peg. Also, in Hebrew there was a saying "la'aqor et haKol"
(to uproot them all) that was applied to ripping out all the trees in
a forest, and then it was adopted colloquially by exterminators in
reference to what they might do to the insects in a home, and finally
it has been adopted by fascist ultra-right-wing Israelis to describe
their intentions towards Palestinians. Regardless, the amount of
cruelty that exterminators inflict on insects or Israel subjects the
Palestinian people to is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion. The
very word for "root" is iqaraa, and the word being used in the passage
from the Talmud literally means to rip the mountain out of the
ground... thus the implication of the literal interpretation is that
mountains have roots, that they are firmly in the ground. So it seems
that is roughly similar to calling them "pegs," as per Soorat an-Naba'
in the Qur'an.

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 17, 2003, 12:51:00 PM2/17/03

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> > The Quran on Iron:
> >
> > http://www.beconvinced.com/science/QURANIRON.htm
>
> Once again, you conceded that a natural explanation is possible, and
> if that is the case, then there is no need to cite a supernatural
> explanation (especially one that is unjustified). Nonetheless, I would
> further object that I require more than just vague citations of some
> guy named Professor Armstrong. Maybe you could cite a book that
> describes the phenomena mentioned in the site above in more detail?
> You know, a little corroboration.

"And we sent down Iron, in which is great might, as well as many benefits
for mankind" (Qur'an 57:25)

Sure. We will provide you a corroboration more than what you have asked
for. But let us first look at the verse. The verse says that iron was sent
down (anzalna al-hadeed) and that they are many benefits of it for
mankind.

The question now arises: Of all the elements why mention iron? Why not
gold or silver? Iron has some important properties and characteristics
that makes it stand apart from other elements:

1. Iron has the highest nuclear binding energy and most stable of all
elements.

2. Iron is relatively prominent among the heavier elements in the
universe as proven by X-ray spectral lines.

3. Iron is the final product of nucleosynthesis in the core of massive
stars and it is the origin of iron in the galaxies.

4. Iron is an important constituent in plant and animals on the earth.
Many of the life forms on earth can't survive without iron.

The next issue is whether iron has been sent down or whether it always
existed on earth. We have already mentioned that iron has the highest
binding energy of all the elements. This would mean that the energy
required to form an iron atom is enormous and this is about 8.8 MeV per
nuclear particle. This kind of energy is not available in our sun and
planets in our solar system combined. So, the implication is that iron
could not have formed on the earth and neither in our solar system. Rather
it should have come from an external source.

This external source being massive stars collapsing to give rise to
supernova explosions. Inside these stars, hydrogen nuclei fuse to form
helium. This nuclear reaction releases energy because the helium nucleus
weighs slightly less than four protons that fuse to produce it. This mass
deficit is released in the form of intense gamma radiation and neutrinos.
This energy remains trapped in the centre of the star that is hot,
creating enormous pressure gradient, between the hot interior and the cool
outer layers of the star. The pressure exerts an outward force that
withstands the gravity of the star, as long as there is sufficient
hydrogen present in the star's core to produce helium. Once the hydrogen
supply begins to exhaust the core of the star becomes mostly helium, the
nuclear reaction that fuse hydrogen into helium becomes less frequent.
Consequently, less energy and heat is produced resulting the drop of
central pressure. This breaks the equilibrium between the inside pressure
and gravitational force. Gravity becomes dominant and star becomes to
collapse. This collapse result in heating of the central core. This makes
the core of the star hotter again and starts the helium burning process.
Helium burning requires higher temperature than hydrogen burning to form
heavier elements because helium has a greater nuclear charge and hence
greater electrostatic repulsion between two helium nuclei. Fusion of
helium nuclei gives rise to carbon atoms. When the carbon core is
exhausted, burning of heavier elements occurs until the stellar core
consists largely of iron. Iron is the mostly tightly bound of all nucleus
and hence has highest binding energy. Energy is released when iron atom is
produced. However, this is *no longer true* for nuclei heavier than iron.
No further energy can be extracted by burning iron. Fusion yields energy
for elements heavier than iron, but only nuclear fission of elements
heavier than iron can yield energy. For most elements heavier than iron to
form generally requires a much more violent energy source than is
available in the gradually evolving stellar core. Once the star
develops an iron core, its fate becomes inevitable. The gravitational
collapse must ensue and that finally results in the supernova. Supernova
produces elements higher than iron. Supernovae occurred more frequently
in the early galaxy than the present times.

The enormous explosion of supernovae throw various elements into the space
which then travel and land on various other stars and planets including
our earth. Hence the iron that we have on the earth has its origins
outside of the earth. As for the references, there are plenty of them
available. But it is better to turn to internet for the benefit of
everybody.

A good and concise lecture about the Big Bang and nucleosynthesis is at
University of California, Santa Cruz.

http://ic.ucsc.edu/~tlay/eart80a/Lectures/lecture3.html

A detailed description of nucleosynthesis in massive stars and explanation
of various terms used in astronomy is at:

http://www.maa.mhn.de/Scholar/Starlife/evolutnb.html

The should rest the case of the iron being sent down on the earth. The
Qur'an is correct here.

> But let me take this back into the realm of mutliple hermeneutic
> possibilities (which I believe is the case with any religious
> scripture). Yes, the Qur'an does say in Soorat al-Hadeed 57:25
> "anzalna al-hadeeda," or we sent down the iron, but the verb anzala
> seems to always be a reference to sending something down to earth,
> like manna and quail, books, rain, even articles of clothing. The
> implication is that the earth (as well as the people these things are
> being sent to) is/are already in existence! Now, the reality is that
> iron was in the core of the earth long before there were any people to
> send anything to, thus it is possible to interpret this verse as an
> error if we accept it as literally sending down iron the way messages,
> food and clothes have been sent down by Allaah. But of course, that's
> all this is about - interpretation.

Let us now deal with the arguments of Dajjal concerning this issue. Dajjal
says that the verb anzala appears to be associated with sending something
down to the earth with an implication that the earth as well as people are
already in existence. Not surprisingly, the references are absent but he
still wants to "interpret" it in the absence of any evidence. Even if we
consider the current case of iron being sent down to earth, it is true
even today. This is because earth is hit by meteorites various sizes and
composition. Some of them are rich in iron. These meteorites sometimes
survive the temperatures during the entry into the earth's atmosphere and
come to the earth intact. Most of the times, the meteorites turn into dust
during the entry into the earth's atmosphere. This phenomenon has been
happening for millions on years on this earth. So, the iron has been sent
down even today. One has to appreciate the fact that the green vegetation
is present almost everywhere on the earth. And this green vegetation
contains chlorophyll which contains iron!

Iron core of the earth. Do I smell a ridiculous argument lifted out of
the Christian missionary literature? The origin of *all* iron on the earth
is from the collapse of massive stars. There are various theories of how
everything happened and it is beyond the scope of current argument. Even
our nearest natural satellite moon has an iron core albeit smaller than
that of the earth!

To conclude, the Qur'an is correct when it says that iron has been sent
down.

Wassalam
Saifullah

> http://www.clevelandclinic.org/florida/research/health/images/peg.gif

1MAN4ALL

unread,

Feb 17, 2003, 4:11:45 PM2/17/03

kaa...@godisdead.com (Denis Giron) wrote in message

Making a brief stop at SRI...

> very word for "root" is iqaraa, and the word being used in the passage
> from the Talmud literally means to rip the mountain out of the
> ground... thus the implication of the literal interpretation is that
> mountains have roots, that they are firmly in the ground.

I think the difference is that in the Talmudic term, using a literal
interpretation, a reasonable person would consider that to mean
removing a mountain from the "ground," as you suggest. In the case of
the Quran, God calls the mountains 'as' pegs (Qur'an 78:7). Combine
that with verses 79:32 and 16:15, and the picture (or the concept)
that emerges is vastly different than what Talmudic term suggests.
Furthermore, Quran is not mentioning these in the passing; it is
pointing to one of the wonders of God's creation_ something very
special, which should convince people that there is a God. So, these
verses have to be treated very differently than comparing them with
the Talmudic term "oker horim" (one who uproots mountains), which is
used mostly for students who have mastered variant readings, and has
nothing to do with mountains.

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 17, 2003, 5:04:35 PM2/17/03

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> me. I have said for quite some time now (more than a year at least)
> that I am wholly incapable of demonstrating an absolute error (be it
> scientific or otherwise) in the Qur'an (or any other religious
> scripture). But alas, we're still here, so for the sake of fun
> discussion, I'll drop my two cents.

If you are "wholly incapable" of demonstrating an "absolute" error (one
wonders what that really means!) then why bother getting into the
discussion at the first place? Don't you think it is nothing more than a
waste of everybody's time?

> > We know that most of the peg lies below the ground and only a small part
> > of it shows over the ground.
>
> Yes, many tent pegs are like that. However, it would be wrong to argue
> that this is synonymous with the definition of peg. A peg does not
> necessarily have to be an object that has the majority of itself
> underground. I have myself gone camping and put down tent-pegs where
> the majority of the stake is above ground. A peg is only something

For the stability of a tent from winds majority of the peg has to be
buried in the ground for it to offer maximum resistance to the forces from
all sides. I went on a Himalayan trek in 1993 and one of the first
thing that we were told by the guys at Himalayan Mountaineering Institute
at Manali, India, was to put the pegs deep into the ground to avoid the
tent being blown away by the strong winds as well as rain. The only thing
that showed up was the hook on the top of the peg where the cord from the
tent was tied. So, it is not about your interpretation versus my
interpretation. It is about what people have agreed on how a peg is used.

To remind you gently, we are dealing with a word in Arabic called watad
(awtaad pl.). The Hans-Wehr dictionary defines watad as to drive or ram in
firmly (a peg or a stake); to fix, fasten, secure; peg, pin; tent pin,
tent peg; stake, pole [p. 1046]. Instead of giving what a "peg" means in
English why not tell us what the Arabic word used in the Qur'an actually
means. Why obfuscation? Why not be straightforward in dealing with an
issue?

This is not a peg, it is an instrument called Percutaneous Endoscopic
Gastronomy (PEG). At least check your material before you put it up as an
"evidence".

> So Dr. Saifullaah is adding to the meaning of peg, he is anchoring his
> own interpretation to a single word. There's nothing wrong with that,
> nor does it make his interpretation incorrect. However, it is
> important to note that this is his interpretation, not something that
> is part of the necessary meaning of peg.

I have not added any new "meaning" to peg. In fact, I have supported my
statement with an evidence from the Arabic dictionary and from the book of
geology. And what about you? Still clutching the straws of "my
interpretation versus your interpretation"?

> How deep are the pegs mentioned in Soorat an-Naba' 78:7? Neither the
> Qur'an nor the Talmud give us a precise amount (i.e. a ratio of how
> much is below ground or above ground, or how long the root/peg is, or
> how far down it travels). Yes, in English "uproot" has many meanings.

We know that a peg has to have a large amount of it to be inside the earth
for making the structure stable. What is your problem with it? The Talmud
does not say a mountain is like a peg and nor does the Qur'an say that a
mountain has a root. The difference between the two texts is clear if you
would bother to read things a little bit more closely. The word peg is
comprehensive in the sense that it tells you what a mountain actually
would look like if it can be dug out completely. A root does not say
anything about the structure of a mountain because a root can be deep or
shallow.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.it-is-truth.org/CreationOfMan.shtml
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

asimm...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 17, 2003, 6:55:16 PM2/17/03

>
> I see in Soorat an-Nahl 16:15 "an tameeda bikum," and the mim-yaa-dal
> root is for shake (even quake), thus the literal interpretation would
> be "lest it shakes/quakes with you." I even found in an Arabic
> dictionary maydaan (mayadaan?) for "quake"...

> \

The point I was making is that the Quran is not DENYING that
earthquakes happen. Your argument was that earthquakes happen around
mountainous regions, thus the verse is false. The subject of the
sentence is the word EARTH, thus the Quran says the purpose of the
mountains is to provide the earth with stability. Nowhere is the
argument that the mountains prevent earthquakes from happening.

Further, as I stated before, the verse is drawing attention to God
Almighty's providence. He has taken all measures to ensure that the
earth is asuitable place for man to live.

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Feb 18, 2003, 1:57:05 PM2/18/03

the point which I am making is that simply saying uprooted,
can have many different applications, for example, are they
meaning cutting out like the horse example I gave or mountains
having roots? Now, yes, it is possible that the author of the
Bible may have been referring to mountains having roots, which
would be scientifically correct, but the authors didnt make
it clear. Nevertheless, the Quran goes one step further and
uses a word which is more accurate than roots: pegs. Pegs is
unmistakable and very clear, unlike uprooting. That is why it is
still a valid evidence which support the case of the Quran,therefore
should be mentioned.

But as for the talmud saying in the earth, then this can not be considered
because the phrase in the earth is used to describe a variety of things
between the sky and the ground, like humans , animals places things, also
giving the context, then it is clear that they are not referring to things
imbedded in the earth, nevertheless, we must still say that it is a remote
possibility that they could have been referring to imbedded things, we can
not ruled it out 100%.

One of the greatest misconceptions amoung atheists is that just because
something has been mentioned in books before hand, this automatically
dismisses the case for the Quran. This is wrong logic because it does
not matter weather if the thing was mentioned before hand, for example,
expansions of the universe or roots was mentioned in the OT, But the
question here is how did the author of the Quran know to select this
explanation versus the several wrong ideas of how the Universe was
created which exsisted at that time? How was he able to detect the
truth in an ocean of falsehood?? how did he know this was the right one?

Therefore, these statements do count as evidence! Its just that these
statements are not as weighty on the scales as the statements which do
not precede in history like the barrier in the seas or the rest of the
stuff im going to bring forth.

Now here is da bomb.. we have seen many statements in the Quran uptill now
which agree with modern science.. if these were all just a copy job from
previous books, then logic dictates to us that we better find about 5 times
as many clear scientific errors, right? Take this for example, when I was
in college and high school I never studied.. I'd appear on test day and
not know a thing. But during the test I would copy from my neighbor!
and you know what happened? I still fluncked! because my neighbor didnt
study either... therefore what happened was that yes, I didnt copy some
answers correctly.. but I also copied the wrong answers from my neighbor!

likewise, doing a copy job in the year 600 AD is an even more dangereous job..
its literally a recipe for disaster.. because the books available to the
author of the Quran are filled with myths and legends and filled with scientific
errors and blunders.. infact, there are more scientific errors than scientifically
correct statements by at least a thousands times!
Infact, Denis will verify that for you, ask denis how many scientifically incorrect
statements versus scientifically true statements are present in the work he has
been presenting to us like aristotle, OT, and Ashvagosha. Yet the Quran contains
no clear scientific errors at all! This alone is proof enough for the Quran.

that is why when we see a scientifically correct statement in the Quran, weather
if it was already mentioned in other books does not really matter, rather, what
matters, is how did the author of the Quran know this was the correct answer in
an ocean of falsehood and myths!

>Once again, you conceded that a natural explanation is possible

I did? please explain? It is clear that the verse referring to Iron is yet
another verse which completely agrees with science

Here is a recap of the verses which agree with science or archaeology:

1. Mountains as pegs (78:8)
2. The lost city of Iram (89:7)
3. Barrier between the seas (55:19)
4. Big Bang Theory (21:30) and (51:47)
5. Iron sent down (57:25)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVIDENCE #6:

The Quran on embryology.

so, basically, the quran gave stages for the embryo, namely alaqah(leech like,
blot clot, suspending thing) and mudgah (chewed like substance)
and when you look at the developing embryo, its a direct match.

IF Statement = Scientific fact THEN

well, the answer is yes. lets now explore the possibilities:

A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genious

Analysis: no, the use of modern tools are needed to see
the different stages.

B. A very good guess,luck

Analysis: no, to much detail is given

C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great scientist

Analysis: no, the use of modern tools are needed to see
the different stages.

D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just happened to
match up with science)

Analysis: no, too much detail

E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)

Analysis: no

F. The information already pre-existed in history

Analysis: no.

G. A source greater than man was involved

Analysis: it's possible.

conclusion: for this piece of evidence, on G can be the possible
solution.

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 19, 2003, 3:47:21 PM2/19/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03021...@posting.google.com>...

> One of the greatest misconceptions amoung atheists is that just because
> something has been mentioned in books before hand, this automatically
> dismisses the case for the Quran.

I did not bring in any accusations of copying or plagiarism. I think
you missed the point. Is something similar was said prior to the
statement in the Qur'an, it lends more weight to a natural
explanation, thus there is no need to accept a supernatural
explanation. For example, in Soorat al-Zaariyaat we have passage about
expanding the heavens and stretching out the earth, and a similar
passage written a thousand years ealier in Isaiah. It has never been
demonstrated that Isaiah is from a divine source, and it would not be
unreasonable to treat it as a text from a wholly human origin. If this
is the case, we have observed natural proceses producing such a
statement, thus such an antecedent is justified. Furthermore,
regardless of the origin of Isaiah, we now know that such a statement
existed among mankind, thus for a person to write such a statement
(whether it be in the Qur'an or elsewhere) after Isaiah is not
miraclous.

Now you went on to ask how the Qur'an managed to pick "accurate"
statements without picking inaccurate statements. The problem is that
the Qur'an is a religious text, and it is impossible to provide a
believer in a religious text with an error. It may seem to one party
that the Qur'an absorbed the more shaky mythology of other cultures (a
sun that moves across the sky, seven heavens, stars being placed in
the sky after the earth was finished, a universe created in six days,
et cetera) but of course these things can be interpreted as meaning
something different, thus we have no real rules by which to really
point to an error. So whether or not the Qur'an separated out the
falsehood and myths, that too is a matter of interpretation.

> > Once again, you conceded that a natural explanation is possible
>
> I did? please explain?

Okay, with regard to your second antecedent (B), that it was a very
good guess or maybe luck, you wrote "it's possible," and for your
fourth antecedent (D), that it was a "coincidence" or a poetic
statement which just happened to match up, you again wrote "it's
possible." So there you have it. We have a natural explanation, thus
there is no need to lean towards unjustified supernatural hypotheses.

> http://www.it-is-truth.org/CreationOfMan.shtml
> http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm
>
> so, basically, the quran gave stages for the embryo, namely alaqah(leech like,
> blot clot, suspending thing) and mudgah (chewed like substance)
> and when you look at the developing embryo, its a direct match.

Okay. First with regard to the alaqah stage, in Moore's own article "A
Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an,"
he states that this stage happens after roughly 23-24 days. At this
point (feel free to check Moore's textbooks that don't have
az-Zindaanee's "Islamic Additions") the embryo is roughly 2
milimeters, and thus VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE. So even if we were to
accept that the Qur'an, in the vague reference to "alaqah," is
describing a 24 day old fetus, such a description would be of a
perfectly observable phenomenon. The mudghah stage, according to Dr.
Moore, is about a week after that, thus also visible.

Now, I would ask that we consider another version of the textbook by
Keith Moore (id est, not the version az-Zindaanee helped him with).
See The Developing Human, 6th edition, (WB Saunders, 1998), p. 9. It
is there that Dr. Moore is discussing ancient texts that discuss
embryology and he groups the Islamic account together with this Hindu
version in almost the same breath. The Hindu version is quite
interesting; indeed a little pious hermeneutics could be employed to
make it fit with modern embryology. Regardless, Dr. Moore writes:

A brief Sanskrit treatise on ancient Indian embryology
is thought to have been written in 1416 B.C. This
scripture of the Hindus, called Garbha Upanishad,
describes ancient ideas concerning the embryo. It states:

From the conjugation of blood an 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.

This actually matched up with some of the images of the embryo found
in the sixth edition of Dr. Moore's textbook. Regardless, we realize
that more than two thousand years before the Qur'an was describing the
embyro, Hindus were observing the embryo at a week old. Thus it is not
amazing that the Qur'an is describing three and four week old embryos,
which are visible to the eye. There is also a great amount of debate
about what can be gleaned from observing aborted fetuses in the Talmud
(and a discussion about experiments done in Egypt where pregnant women
at different stages were cut open); interestingly, in tractate Niddah
one Rabbi argues that the female contribution is not the whole emision
"but only the purest part," but I suppose I've moved well beyond what
is relevant.

> conclusion: for this piece of evidence, on G can be the possible
> solution.

Uh, actually, no. If a text describes an observable phenomenon, there
is no reason to assume that the text got its description from a divine
source (or the ever vague "source greater than man"). Now, this does
not mean that the Qur'an is NOT from a divine source, but I think it
is fair to say that you have yet to demonstrate in your various pieces
of evidence that one should absolutely believe that it is.

-Denis Giron

http://ic.ucsc.edu/~tlay/eart80a/Lectures/lecture3.html

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 19, 2003, 3:48:02 PM2/19/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03021...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
> ...

This coversation has gotten quite technical, but I'll see if I can
keep up. First, a comment needs to be made about anchoring a great
deal to an otherwise vague statement. As I noted, and Dr. Saifullaah
noted, the Qur'an in Soorat al-Hadeed 57:25 simply says "anzalna
al-hadeeda". I would have taken this to be a poetic reference to man
being given iron for war, as he is given everything else for a reason,
not a discussion on the forging of stars, et cetera. One must be
careful how much is attached to this phrase. Dr. Sayfullaah notes that
iron has the highest nuclear binding energy and most stable of all
elements, but of course the Qur'an does not state this, or anything
close. Nor does the verse in Soorat al-Hadeed say anything about
iron's prominence among heavier elements. There is nothing about
nucleosynthesis, nor anything about this element existing in plants
and animals. Now I'm sure Dr. Saifullaah will say that he never
claimed the Qur'an made such statements, and I am not accusing him of
such. However, we must be careful taking note of how much we are
importing to make sense of a rather vague statement.

Now Dr. Saifullaah went into a long discussion about elements being
formed in stars, and then those elements being dispersed, some of
which landing here on earth. For more, he calls to witness the
following site:

Now, elsewhere in the post, Dr. Saifullaah asked "why iron?"
Interestingly, at the above site there is a quote from Thorne Lay that
reads: "Every atom in each of our bodies was once inside a star. The
iron in your blood came from the central regions of stars more massive
that our Sun. Who can contemplate this notion and not feel at one with
the Universe." So yes, iron is one element, but apparently this is the
case of every atom in our body (and everywhere else). So it would seem
what has been said of iron is also true for helium, carbon, oxygen,
neon, magnesium, silicon, sulfur, argon, calcium, titanium, chromium,
et cetera. If this is true, this takes us back to a point where I
still don't see how we can answer "why iron?"

But of course, much of this is far beyond my expertise, so I am glad
to now get to the easier part of the discussion:

> Dajjal says that the verb anzala appears to be associated with
> sending something down to the earth with an implication that
> the earth as well as people are already in existence. Not

> surprisingly, the references are absent[.]

Well, this I found rather shocking. I thought this would have been
common sense (i.e. the usage of this verb in the Qur'an), but I guess
I have to cite some examples. Okay, well in the VERY SAME VERSE
(Soorat al-Hadeed 57:25), just as it says "anzalna al-hadeeda," it
also says just prior "anzalna ma'ahumu 'l-kitaaba," or "we sent down
with them the book." In Soorat an-Nahl 16:65 it states that "Allaahu
anzala mina as-Samaa'i ma(an)," or God sends down water from the
heaven. In Soorat al-A'raf the verb is used for sending down clothing
to the children of Adam. In the opening few verses of Soorat
aale-Imraan there is mention of God sending down the furqaan (maybe
the same furqaan Jacob was waiting for in Targum Unqelos' version of
B'reshit 49:18). In Soorat al-Baqarah 2:99 there is mention of sending
signs, and in the same chapter (in verse 57) it states "anzalna
alaykumu al-Manna wa as-Salwaa," or we sent down the manna and the
quails. I'm sure if I tried hard enough, I could find a few more
examples of the use of the verb anzala in the Qur'an.

Now Dr. Saifullaah then later on conceded that maybe it could also be
a reference to meteorites containing iron that come crashing down to
earth. Fine, then we also have another way of interpreting the part
about water being sent down, as some of them contain ice (i.e. frozen
water). Not only that, but every atom in your clothing, in your manna,
and in your dinner quail also may have come down in one of these ways
(on the back of a comet, or from an exploding star), so I suppose it
keeps getting better. But alas, we see that this is just an amount of
interpretation anchored to these verses...

> To conclude, the Qur'an is correct when it says that iron has been sent
> down.

Well, again, I was never arguing against this. My whole point was
simply to argue angainst the claim that this verse in the Qur'an
leaves us no option but to conclude that the text is divine.

-Denis Giron

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 19, 2003, 3:48:04 PM2/19/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03021...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> If you are "wholly incapable" of demonstrating an "absolute" error (one
> wonders what that really means!) then why bother getting into the
> discussion at the first place?

Well, let me give an example. I am wholly incapable of proving there
is life on Mars, but that does not mean I should not take part in a
discussion that has nothing to do with the subject of life on Mars.
That may seem like a strange analogy, but so too, just because I am
(at least in my own mind) incapable of showing an error in the Qur'an
(or Bible), this does not mean I should not take part in a discussion
that has nothing to do with me being required to show errors in the
Qur'an! In short, my goal was never to demonstrate an error in the
Qur'an, or prove the Qur'an is not from God. On the contrary, my only
goal was to discuss the question (posed by Nadir) on whether or not
the Quran contains statements which agree with Modern Science which
would lead to the conlusion that a greater power is the source of the
Quran (as per the title of the thread); that's all. Thus far, I have
not seen sufficient reason to believe that we are left with no choice
but to conclude that the verse was from God.

> To remind you gently, we are dealing with a word in Arabic called watad
> (awtaad pl.). The Hans-Wehr dictionary defines watad as to drive or ram in
> firmly (a peg or a stake); to fix, fasten, secure; peg, pin; tent pin,
> tent peg; stake, pole [p. 1046].

Yes, I know. The closest corresponding Hebrew word is spelled almost
exactly the same (yated, with a yod (Y) instead of a vav/waw (W)).
Now, my only argument was that it is not incumbent in the meaning to
have more underground than above ground. That was an assumption you
were importing. Note that a pole can have its majority above ground,
irrespective of the hooks used by the good Doctor during his trip to
Manali.

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 20, 2003, 4:47:02 PM2/20/03

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

Let us come to the point....

> Qur'an! In short, my goal was never to demonstrate an error in the
> Qur'an, or prove the Qur'an is not from God. On the contrary, my only
> goal was to discuss the question (posed by Nadir) on whether or not
> the Quran contains statements which agree with Modern Science which
> would lead to the conlusion that a greater power is the source of the
> Quran (as per the title of the thread); that's all. Thus far, I have
> not seen sufficient reason to believe that we are left with no choice
> but to conclude that the verse was from God.

But you have not provided sufficient reason and evidence to back up your
claim. How about that? In other words, you can't even believe your own
self. And you are trying to convince us with your arguments?

It has been shown to you that the mountains are indeed like pegs and that
iron has come to this earth from outside the earth and that Iram is no
mythical place as it was claimed by Wellhausen. The probability of three
of them being correct is 1 in 8 chances. All these three are known to us
from 20th century onwards. So, you tell us how did this knowledge was
known to Muhammad, SAW, in Arabia.

> > To remind you gently, we are dealing with a word in Arabic called watad
> > (awtaad pl.). The Hans-Wehr dictionary defines watad as to drive or ram in
> > firmly (a peg or a stake); to fix, fasten, secure; peg, pin; tent pin,
> > tent peg; stake, pole [p. 1046].
>
> Yes, I know. The closest corresponding Hebrew word is spelled almost
> exactly the same (yated, with a yod (Y) instead of a vav/waw (W)).
> Now, my only argument was that it is not incumbent in the meaning to
> have more underground than above ground. That was an assumption you
> were importing. Note that a pole can have its majority above ground,
> irrespective of the hooks used by the good Doctor during his trip to
> Manali.

Who cares about Hebrew here. The Jews learnt the art of Hebrew grammar
from Arabs.

As for watad being stake or pole they are the secondary meanings not
primary. So, we will stick to the primary meaning. A pole can have
most of it in the ground too depending upon where it is used, for
examples for earthing purposes.

Wassalam
Saifullah

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 21, 2003, 9:06:50 AM2/21/03

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> deal to an otherwise vague statement. As I noted, and Dr. Saifullaah
> noted, the Qur'an in Soorat al-Hadeed 57:25 simply says "anzalna
> al-hadeeda". I would have taken this to be a poetic reference to man
> being given iron for war, as he is given everything else for a reason,
> not a discussion on the forging of stars, et cetera. One must be
> careful how much is attached to this phrase. Dr. Sayfullaah notes that
> iron has the highest nuclear binding energy and most stable of all
> elements, but of course the Qur'an does not state this, or anything
> close. Nor does the verse in Soorat al-Hadeed say anything about
> iron's prominence among heavier elements. There is nothing about
> nucleosynthesis, nor anything about this element existing in plants
> and animals. Now I'm sure Dr. Saifullaah will say that he never
> claimed the Qur'an made such statements, and I am not accusing him of
> such. However, we must be careful taking note of how much we are
> importing to make sense of a rather vague statement.

Please read once again my earlier post. I have divided the post broadly
into two issues. One being the possible reason of why iron is mentioned as
being brought down to the earth and why not others such as gold or silver.
The reasons given were the highest binding energy of iron among the
elements and hence it being the stablest, its abundunce is cosmos and it
being the final element to appear in the nucleosynthesis in massive stars.
Obviously, I know too that these things do not occur in the Qur'an.

The next issue was the nucleosynthesis of iron itself and it was shown
that it can only form inside the massive stars and hence could not have
been produced on the earth. It is well known among the people who
studied a bit of astronomy that the iron that we have on earth is from
outside the earth.

And now you come up and say that we are making too much out of "a
rather vague statement" in the Qur'an. The Qur'anic statement is clear. It
says:

"And we sent down Iron, in which is great might, as well as many benefits

for mankind." [57:25]

The Qur'an says that:

1. the iron has been sent down.
2. it has great strength.
3. benefits for the mankind.

Does anybody see any "vagueness" in it? All the above three statements are
true and in particular the first one the knowledge of which we have from
20th century by the researches of Fred Hoyle and others on nucleosynthesis
in stars.

> et cetera. If this is true, this takes us back to a point where I
> still don't see how we can answer "why iron?"

We have already provided you the possible reasons for mentioning iron in
the Qur'an. For your benefit let me repeat it once again. Iron has some

important properties and characteristics that makes it stand apart from
other elements:

1. Iron has the highest nuclear binding energy and most stable of all
elements.

2. Iron is relatively prominent among the heavier elements in the
universe as proven by X-ray spectral lines.

3. Iron is the final product of nucleosynthesis in the core of massive
stars and it is the origin of iron in the galaxies.

4. Iron is an important constituent in plant and animals on the earth.
Many of the life forms on earth can't survive without iron.

> > Dajjal says that the verb anzala appears to be associated with

> > sending something down to the earth with an implication that
> > the earth as well as people are already in existence. Not
> > surprisingly, the references are absent[.]
>
> Well, this I found rather shocking. I thought this would have been
> common sense (i.e. the usage of this verb in the Qur'an), but I guess
> I have to cite some examples. Okay, well in the VERY SAME VERSE
> (Soorat al-Hadeed 57:25), just as it says "anzalna al-hadeeda," it
> also says just prior "anzalna ma'ahumu 'l-kitaaba," or "we sent down
> with them the book." In Soorat an-Nahl 16:65 it states that "Allaahu
> anzala mina as-Samaa'i ma(an)," or God sends down water from the
> heaven. In Soorat al-A'raf the verb is used for sending down clothing

All of the sudden the rules of the games have change. A positive claim has
to be supported by "commonsense". No reference is required. Interesting!
This "commonsense" also tells us that any claim concerning the word
"nazala" being referring to the presence of earthly mortals should also be
backed up by evidence from a dictionary. I managed to check Hans-Wehr
dictionary in the morning and there is nothing to support your claim. I
will be sending a word to Mohammad Ghoniem to check Lisan al-Arab
to see what it says. It will be clear if we are dealing with commonsense
or nonsense here.

> Now Dr. Saifullaah then later on conceded that maybe it could also be
> a reference to meteorites containing iron that come crashing down to
> earth. Fine, then we also have another way of interpreting the part

I did not "concede" anything. I only pointed out that it is true even

today as it was true in the past. My earlier post said:

"Even if we consider the current case of iron being sent down to earth, it
is true even today."

So, it is not an added interpretation but a well known fact.

> > To conclude, the Qur'an is correct when it says that iron has been
sent
> > down.
>
> Well, again, I was never arguing against this. My whole point was
> simply to argue angainst the claim that this verse in the Qur'an
> leaves us no option but to conclude that the text is divine.

So, you agree with the Qur'anic verse being correct on the issue of
iron. Good! Now you tell us how did Muhammad, SAW, knew that iron came
from outside of the earth?

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~honors/nucbind.html

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 21, 2003, 10:33:54 PM2/21/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03022...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> But you have not provided sufficient reason and evidence to back up your
> claim.

Huh? I don't understand. I have not provided sufficient reason and
evidence to back up which claim? What I stated was that I have not

seen sufficient reason to believe that we are left with no choice but

to conclude that the verse was from God. Are you saying that I have
not provided sufficient reason and evidence to back up my claim that I

have not seen sufficient reason to believe that we are left with no

choice but to conclude that the Qur'an was from God? I'm confused.
Please clarify what you are making reference to.

> In other words, you can't even believe your own
> self. And you are trying to convince us with your
> arguments?

{Big Grin} I think you've read a bit too much into my statements. When
I say I cannot demonstrate an absolute error in the Qur'an (or
Bible!), I mean in terms of presenting one that a believer will
accept. I have certainly convinced myself that there are "errors" in
the Qur'an (and Bible!) - when I look at these texts I see many
errors. Of course, I've spent years debating these issues with Jews,
Christians, and Muslims, and surprise(!) I haven't convinced a single
one, thus I am convinced that I am wholly incapable of presenting an
error in a religious text (to a believer). I've come to the conclusion
that this is because a text is only alive with the reader, and is
otherwise just a bunch of meaningless symbol-strings. Furthermore,
religious texts, like the Qur'an, can potentially be metaphorical,
leaving room for interpretations contrary to the ones I offer that
present the text as being in error.

> It has been shown to you that the mountains are indeed like pegs

What happened was you anchored an interpretation to the meaning of
awtad. You claimed these "pegs" have to have more underground than
above ground, when this is not inherent in the meaning. Your own
source failed to state that the primary meaning of the word required
that the majority had to be underground, yet it did happen to make
note of the word pole. On this you complained that it is a later
addition, and further that "a pole can have most of it in the ground".
That's fine, but a pole can also be mostly above ground, and still be
a watad - we just gotta ram it in the ground good :). The point was
with regard to what you were anchoring to a vague passage.

But of course you'll never accept that, so we'll play the game of
miracle of reinterpretation some more. Now you said that you yourself
had been to the Himalayas. Well, that is one thing you have in common
with the Buddha. Did you know that the Buddha refered to Mount Kailas
(which is North-West of Nepal on the Tibetan plateau) as "the navel of
the earth"? Two sources for this quote would be Adrian Cooper, "Sacred
Mountains: Ancient Wisdom and Modern Meanings" (Floris, 1997), p. 129,
*AND* Garma C.C. Chang (translator), "The Hundred Thousand Songs of
Milarepa," (Shambhala, 1977), vol. 1, p. 262. Both sources have the
following:

"The prophecy of the Buddha says most truly that this snow mountain is
the navel of the world"

Now first, what is so "true" about calling a mountain the navel of the
world? Well, we must note that what the Buddha meant may be a
mystery... he was unlike any other man, truly enlightened, et cetera.
Well, just as Dr. Saifullaah, when reading Soorat an-Naba' 78:7,
offered some in depth exegesis on the word "peg," I would like to
offer some in depth exegesis on the word "navel."

Well, looking at a body, the navel is just a little lump, or at least
seems that way. However, if you go beneath the surface, the navel has
a deep "root" that goes far below the surface of one's tummy, and this
"root" is far larger than the lump (navel) itself. Well, apparently,
as per recent information, this is true of mountains as well. If you
looked at Mount Kailas within the scope of the world, it would just be
a little lump relative to the overall surface (i.e. the entire earth),
when in reality below the surface that this lump (mountain) seems to
rest on, there is a deep root penetrating inward that is larger than
the lump (mountain)! So the Buddha was right when he said a mountain
is like a navel. Gosh, how could the Buddha have known this?!?

At the outset of this discussion on the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an, I made note of the wonderful point by Behnam
Sadeghi with regard to the fact that if people only realized that
these passages were stating what they now claim they are more than a
thousand years after they were uttered, it follows that these passages
were so vague that no person could understand their "true meaning" for
that period of time. If that is the case, the statement is not clear
and distinct, and I'm sure Dr. Saifullaah knows that a truly
scientific statement should be clear and distinct, not vague. As
Behnam put it, "a passage can be called scientific only if it is
clearly understood at the very outset to entail certain experiential
predictions."

I think Imran Aijaz also hit the nail on the head back in January of
2001 when he wrote the following:

"What's so amazing about interpreting the Qur'an scientifically and
then just standing back stunned at the apparently miraculous
reconciliation of science and the Qur'an? It reminds me of a 'Mr.
Bean' episode where he writes Christmas cards out to himself, walks
out of his apartment door, posts them through his own apartment door
via the mail-slot and walks in a few seconds later. And to his
wonderful surprise as interpreted by his mentality, he's received
Christmas cards! Amazing! The whole enterprise does have a hidden
circularity embedded into it."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0res6%24sok%241%40samba.rahul.net

But let's move on. Dr. Saifullaah continued...

> that iron has come to this earth from outside the earth

Like every other atom in our body, right? That again sounds like the
miracle of reinterpretation, for similar reasons to those cited above
(but I will touch on iron in a response to a different post from Dr.
Saifullaah, elsewhere in this thread).

> that Iram is no mythical place as it was claimed by
> Wellhausen.

May I ask why you are still impressed with Iram and Wellhausen? As I
showed you, before you took part in this thread, I had already noted
that Wellhausen made this claim. If Wellhausen was wrong, so what?
This does not prove that the Qur'an is from a divine source, which is
the issue at hand.

> The probability of three of them being correct
> is 1 in 8 chances.

Judging by the lay-probability you are employing, wouldn't this be
true of any three statements being correct?

> So, you tell us how did this knowledge was
> known to Muhammad, SAW, in Arabia.

This is an appeal to person incredulity, like asking how the author of
Genesis knew about Sodom and Gamorrah, how Ashvagosha knew the atom
would be split, how the Buddha knew that a mountain on earth resembled
a belly-button on a person. I have no idea what Muhammad knew, and how
he came to attain this knowledge. I don't know anything about
Muhammad, so I'm going to just plead agnosticism on the issue. I'm
sure many people and many texts can put forth statements that I find
amazing or hard to explain - that does not mean the statement
originated with a divine source. What *THIS* discussion is about,
however, is whether or not the Qur'an contains statements that leave
us no choice to but to conclude that it is from a divine source. Thus
far, I am unconvinced.

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 21, 2003, 10:33:59 PM2/21/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03022...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> The Qur'an says that:
> 1. the iron has been sent down.
> 2. it has great strength.
> 3. benefits for the mankind.
> Does anybody see any "vagueness" in it?

Vague in the sense that multiple interpretations are possible. As you
yourself noted, the Qur'an does not say anything about iron's binding
energy (by the way, I'm curious, could you cite a source on the
binding energy of the elements - I'm not doubting your claim that iron
has the highest binding energy, but I would like to see a source to
get a better grip on the discussion at hand). I'd like to give the
example that Imran Aijaz gave back in December of 2001:

[------ BEGIN EXAMPLE ------]
"Do they not see the birds above them, spreading out their wings and
folding them in? None upholds them except the Most Gracious." (Q.
67:19)

Now consider the following two exegeses:

SIMPLER READING: This verse is talking about the majestic nature of
God's creation, and God's power in every subtle aspect of nature, etc,
etc.

SCIENTIFIC READING: This verse is REALLY talking about the
aerodynamics of bird flight. It really wants to tell the reader about
the two main sources of drag on flying birds: (a) profile drag - air
dragged along by moving body - increases with speed and (b) induced
drag - resistance to laminar flow around wing - decreases with
increased speed. Obviously the Prophet Muhammad could not have known
such scientific knowledge at his time, therefore, this verse is
undeniable scientific proof that the Qur'an is a miracle.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0res6%24sok%241%40samba.rahul.net
[------ END EXAMPLE ------]

So too with Dr. Saifullaah's example of iron as per its being
mentioned in the Qur'an. There is a simple reading, and a rather
complex reading. The complex reading, that is serves as the provider
of premises for this argument from the scientific-hermeneutic approach
to the Qur'an, employs the mentiong of exploding stars,
nucleosynthesis, binding energy, and the elements prominence among
heavier elements.

But what about a simple reading? Well, let's see:
(1) Iron has been sent down - as I have noted, in light of the way the
verb anzala is used in the Qur'an, it is quite sensible to see this as
being given to man. I have no problem with a religious man believing
that iron, like rain and everything else in our world, is a gift from
God provided we use it properly.
(2) Iron has great strength - I doubt anyone would doubt this. Surely
people in the ancient world knew the strength of iron, since it was
used to build tools, weapons, armor, et cetera.
(3) Iron has benefits for the mankind - such as tools, and other
things noted in the previous two points.

So, in short, there is a natural explanation for this verse.

> All of the sudden the rules of the games have change. A positive claim has
> to be supported by "commonsense". No reference is required. Interesting!

Uh, actually I was referring to the way the verb was used in the
Qur'an. I thought that would be common sense to anyone who would care
to read the relevant verses that employ the verb anzala. You
apparently needed more, so I cited some examples.

> This "commonsense" also tells us that any claim concerning the word
> "nazala" being referring to the presence of earthly mortals should also be
> backed up by evidence from a dictionary. I managed to check Hans-Wehr
> dictionary in the morning and there is nothing to support your claim.

Okay, hold on one second. I want to clarify this for a moment. I'm not
referring to nazala (i.e. anything from the nun-zaa-lam root), but
rather a specific verb form of that root. Dr. Saifullaah knows Arabic,
and I am just learning the language, but I do know Hebrew, and between
us two gentlemen with knowledge of Semitic languages, I'm sure we can
agree that rather stark differences can be found among words that stem
from a given root. In Wehr's dictionary, the information on the N-Z-L
root spans three pages. I would ask that Dr. Saifullaah focus
specifically on the verb anzala, which starts at the very bottom of
the second collumn of p. 956 (you'll see the Roman numeral four [IV]
representing the fourth verb form), and ends about half-way through
the first collumn of p. 957. That's the only portion that is relevant
to this discussion. I just wanted to make sure that's clear before we
go on. Regardless, as I noted, every instance I have seen of the verb
anzala being used in the Qur'an employs it in a sense of giving
something to man - it does not have anything to do with originating in
exploding stars, or whatever.

> I did not "concede" anything. I only pointed out that it is true even
> today as it was true in the past. My earlier post said:
>
> "Even if we consider the current case of iron being sent down to earth, it
> is true even today."
>
> So, it is not an added interpretation but a well known fact.

You demonstrated you ability to find yet more meanings, which proves
my point about this being the miracle of reinterpretation. You claimed
that "sending down iron" has something to do with bits of iron coming
off exploding stars and landing on a still-molten-and-yet-to-cool
earth. If that is true, it would mean it was sent down before man.
However, I pointed out that the verb (in my limited understanding)
seems to imply giving things to man. While you don't agree with the
interpretation, you then stated that even if this were the case, you
could find ANOTHER interpretation, where iron is sent down on the
backs of meteorites. So we see that the verse in the Qur'an does not
clear state any of this, rather you're finding facts about iron that
you think you can make fit the Qur'an.

> So, you agree with the Qur'anic verse being correct on the issue of
> iron.

Uhhh, not in the sense you're thinking of. I will refrain from calling
it an error, and if you want to interpret it a certain way and call it
amazing, that is fine with me. My only point was that it does not
prove the text is divine.

> Good! Now you tell us how did Muhammad, SAW, knew that iron came
> from outside of the earth?

I have no idea. I don't know if he knew this or not. I know nothing
about Muhammad. I have no idea what he knew about iron. That issue
does not concern me. As the titile of the thread notes, this
discussion is on whether or not the Qur'an contains statements that
would force us to conclude it is from a divine source. An attempt to
invoke an amount of incredulity on my part in light of my ignorance of
what Muhammad knew would not serve as a proof that the Qur'an is
divine. Keep that in mind.

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 22, 2003, 3:02:27 PM2/22/03

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> Vague in the sense that multiple interpretations are possible. As you
> yourself noted, the Qur'an does not say anything about iron's binding
> energy (by the way, I'm curious, could you cite a source on the
> binding energy of the elements - I'm not doubting your claim that iron
> has the highest binding energy, but I would like to see a source to
> get a better grip on the discussion at hand). I'd like to give the
> example that Imran Aijaz gave back in December of 2001:

We brought in the binding energy of iron just to cite the possibility of
why iron is mentioned in the Qur'an. We did not that the binding energy
of iron is mentioned in the Qur'an.

The highest binding energy of iron is a characteristic which no other
element shares. In the scientific literature the peak between the
binding energy per nucleon versus atomic mass shows a peak at iron. It is
referred to as "iron peak" and there are numerous internet websites that
mention this. A good and easy one to understand is at:

> So too with Dr. Saifullaah's example of iron as per its being
> mentioned in the Qur'an. There is a simple reading, and a rather
> complex reading. The complex reading, that is serves as the provider
> of premises for this argument from the scientific-hermeneutic approach
> to the Qur'an, employs the mentiong of exploding stars,
> nucleosynthesis, binding energy, and the elements prominence among
> heavier elements.

To make it simpler for you, we have alredy stated the verse in the Qur'an
and said that it mentions:

1. Iron came from outside of the earth.
2. It has great strength.
3. It has many uses for mankind.

We are discussing only the first issue of the origin of iron on earth. We
have provided to you an evidence that the iron on the earth has its
origins from massive stars and that it is impossible for iron to form in
our solar system. To clarify we gave you a tour to educate yourself about
nucleosynthesis in massive stars and supernova explosions resulting once
when iron appears in the core of these stars. To be frank, you have not
disputed against any of these. But your clutching of the straws come from
various angles one of them being that the verse is "vague".

> (1) Iron has been sent down - as I have noted, in light of the way the
> verb anzala is used in the Qur'an, it is quite sensible to see this as
> being given to man. I have no problem with a religious man believing
> that iron, like rain and everything else in our world, is a gift from
> God provided we use it properly.

Given to man from where? Rain was sent down and so does iron. All of
sudden the use of anzala has sudden disappeared and the issue now turns to
God's "gift". An interesting obfuscation but Mr. Freethought your spin
here is of no use. Try it in some other newgsroup or discussion websites.

> root spans three pages. I would ask that Dr. Saifullaah focus
> specifically on the verb anzala, which starts at the very bottom of
> the second collumn of p. 956 (you'll see the Roman numeral four [IV]
> representing the fourth verb form), and ends about half-way through
> the first collumn of p. 957. That's the only portion that is relevant
> to this discussion. I just wanted to make sure that's clear before we
> go on. Regardless, as I noted, every instance I have seen of the verb
> anzala being used in the Qur'an employs it in a sense of giving
> something to man - it does not have anything to do with originating in
> exploding stars, or whatever.

As for anzala on page 956-957, it says

"IV to bring down, take down; to cause to descend, dismount, or step down;
to send down, reveal; to bestow, grant, give,; to make alight, stop, halt,
camp, put up, take up..."

Now after this Mr. Freethought says "every instance I have seen of the

verb anzala being used in the Qur'an employs it in a sense of giving
something to man - it does not have anything to do with originating in

exploding stars, or whatever." Will Mr. Freethought show any instance
where we said that anzala is ever related to explosion of stars or
whatever? No, we did not. Rather what we have said is about the origin of
iron on the earth and that it was brought down (anzala) from outside of
the earth. We also discussed why it is so. Clearly another case of
obfuscation of the issues by Mr. Freethought by saying that we meant such
and such when we did not. To the contrary we gave clear reasons as to why
iron is brought down to th earth from outside.

Wassalam
Saifullah

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 22, 2003, 3:02:30 PM2/22/03

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> > It has been shown to you that the mountains are indeed like pegs
>
> What happened was you anchored an interpretation to the meaning of
> awtad. You claimed these "pegs" have to have more underground than
> above ground, when this is not inherent in the meaning. Your own
> source failed to state that the primary meaning of the word required
> that the majority had to be underground, yet it did happen to make
> note of the word pole. On this you complained that it is a later
> addition, and further that "a pole can have most of it in the ground".

So, here comes the time wasting tactics. "your source failed to state that

the primary meaning of the word required that the majority had to be

underground" or the verse sounds "vague" .Let us come back to the issue of
"watad", it basically means to drive or ram in firmly; to fix, fasten,
secure. It is also a peg, pin, tent pin, tent peg; stake, pole. Now Mr.
Freethought's contention is that the source does not say that the primary
meaning of the word required that the majority had to be underground. If
something has to be secured and fastened firmly, it has to be driven or
rammed into firmly inside the ground. A tent peg or a pole with this
characteristics have to have a good part of it inside the ground. How else
it will be fastened securely?

> That's fine, but a pole can also be mostly above ground, and still be
> a watad - we just gotta ram it in the ground good :). The point was
> with regard to what you were anchoring to a vague passage.

What are you anchoring your interpretation on? Mere excuses. In no time
the verse can be deemed as "vague" or "sources" not "saying" what you
meant. Of course, there are no references cited to prop up the original
point of yours. The argument is always making twist and turns to wriggle
out of an evidence and come up with yet another excuse. For this kind of
attitude, we have no argument to make.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Feb 24, 2003, 12:48:20 AM2/24/03

> and thus VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE

no, even at this side, you will need
to have a the embryo magnified to see
the, alagah stage as mentioned in the
Quran, thus, NO, describing the leech
like structure, blood clot, clinging,
chewed flesh is not visible to the
naked eye.

if you dont mind, I would like to throw
in 2 more piece of evidence, then I will
demonstrate clearly the debate proposition:

"Does the Quran contain statements which agree

with Modern Science which would lead to the conlusion

that a greater power is the source of the Quran? "

----------------------------------------------------------

EVIDENCE #7:

The Quran on clouds:

24:43 matches up perfect with science

IF Statement = Scientific fact THEN

well, the answer is yes. lets now explore the possibilities:

A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genious

Analysis: possible,but doubtful

B. A very good guess,luck

Analysis: possible,but doubtful

C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great scientist

Analysis: possible,but doubtful

D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just happened to
match up with science)

Analysis: possible,but doubtful

E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)

Analysis: no, the stage of Stacking can not be observed.

F. The information already pre-existed in history

Analysis: no.

G. A source greater than man was involved

Analysis: it's possible.

----------------------------------------------------------

EVIDENCE #8:

http://www.themodernreligion.com/science/zamzam.html

The phenomenon of zam zam water

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 24, 2003, 9:29:03 AM2/24/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03022...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> ...

I take it from your short response that this is winding down, so I'll
make this brief as well, and look forward to the next topic in this
discussion on the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an.

> If something has to be secured and fastened firmly, it has to be driven or
> rammed into firmly inside the ground.

Agreed. A sizeable enough portion (depending on the pole/peg/steak)
has to be in for stability. My only objection was to you anchoring the
interpretation that the majority had to be underground. I noted that
this was not inherent in the meaning, and I think that is a fair
objection.

> What are you anchoring your interpretation on?

Which interpretation are you making reference to? I think we should
note again that from the outset I am not trying to establish my
non-believing hermeneutics as being superior to your own with regard
to the Qur'an. You can see the Qur'an however you want. My point was
to criticize an argument that postulates that the reader has no choice
but to concede that the text is from a divine source based on these
verses (and I notice that even you have been careful not to affirm
such an argument).

> <red herrings deleted>

How convenient. No credit to Sidhartha Gautama I guess.

-Denis Giron

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 24, 2003, 9:29:04 AM2/24/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03022...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
>

> <snip of irrelevent material>

Great.

> To make it simpler for you, we have alredy stated the verse in the Qur'an
> and said that it mentions:
>
> 1. Iron came from outside of the earth.

Now you yourself complained (or, actually, implied) that I was
building a strawman by objecting that the Qur'anic verse says nothing
about exploding stars (or nucleosynthesis, et cetera). It was relevant
because you went on at length about the origin of iron, but of course
the Qur'an only states that it was "sent down," and it is perfectly
plausible that this could be in reference to a gift from God (by the
way, in light of your ridiculing of this, while I don't have Wehr in
front of me, doesn't the top of page 957 allude to a gift from God?).
I don't think this is amazing in light of the fact that it is
perfectly reasonable for a deeply religious men (regardless of what he
knows of the cosmos) to believe that God gave us iron. You want to
harp on about iron coming from outside the earth, but it should be
noted that this is also true for almost every other element, including
I believe helium, carbon, oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon, sulfur,
argon, calcium, titanium, chromium, et cetera. I don't think we are
forced to conclude that the author of Soorat al-Hadeed 57:25 knew
about the formation of iron in stars, or anything like that,
especially since he failed to mention all the details behind this.

> 2. It has great strength.

This is something any man would know. If I cite Buddhist or Jewish
texts praising the strength of iron, can we conclude that they might
have been making a reference to the binding energy of the element
rather than say the strength of physical iron objects?

> 3. It has many uses for mankind.

This is certainly true, and I think anyone who used iron tools,
weapons, armor, would have known this.

-Denis

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 24, 2003, 1:46:21 PM2/24/03

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> to the Qur'an. You can see the Qur'an however you want. My point was
> to criticize an argument that postulates that the reader has no choice
> but to concede that the text is from a divine source based on these
> verses (and I notice that even you have been careful not to affirm
> such an argument).

But the point is also that we know of the mountains and their internal
structure only from 19th century onwards. This knowledge was absent 1200
years ago. Yes, my point was not to prove anything using the divine
argument. My point was to point out that if things are consistently
correct then we have to look at some other explanation altogether.

> > <red herrings deleted>
>
> How convenient. No credit to Sidhartha Gautama I guess.

Obviously Siddartha Gautam Buddha deserves the credit if he has a point to
make. I do not see any and hence not a matter as well as marriage of
convenience.

Wassalam
Saifullah

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 24, 2003, 1:46:22 PM2/24/03

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> > 1. Iron came from outside of the earth.
>
> Now you yourself complained (or, actually, implied) that I was
> building a strawman by objecting that the Qur'anic verse says nothing
> about exploding stars (or nucleosynthesis, et cetera). It was relevant
> because you went on at length about the origin of iron, but of course
> the Qur'an only states that it was "sent down," and it is perfectly
> plausible that this could be in reference to a gift from God (by the
> way, in light of your ridiculing of this, while I don't have Wehr in
> front of me, doesn't the top of page 957 allude to a gift from God?).

Let me take a little more trouble in repeating myself once again. The
argument of nucleosynthesis was to show how difficult is to form iron in
our solar system. Our nearest star Mr. Sun is too small to do it and we
require some 5 times the solar mass of our sun to achieve nucleosynthesis
of iron. This has to be shown in order to prove that the iron has its
origin not from our solar system.

Even if we were to concede the meaning of anzala being "gift from God" (I
do not have Hans Wehr dictionary with me either as right now I am mailing
from California), it is still correct. Do we not see that much of living
matter including humans could not have lived without iron? And we have
already shown that the common meaning of anzala being bringing something
down is also correct.

> knows of the cosmos) to believe that God gave us iron. You want to
> harp on about iron coming from outside the earth, but it should be
> noted that this is also true for almost every other element, including
> I believe helium, carbon, oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon, sulfur,
> argon, calcium, titanium, chromium, et cetera. I don't think we are
> forced to conclude that the author of Soorat al-Hadeed 57:25 knew
> about the formation of iron in stars, or anything like that,
> especially since he failed to mention all the details behind this.

We have already provided good enough reasons to show that why iron has
been mentioned. This is because it has some unique properties which no
other elements share certainly not helium, carbon, oxygen, neon,
magnesium, silicon, sulfur, argon, calcium, titanium, chromium, etc. The
fact that iron is mentioned in the Qur'an as being brought down itself is
intersting and worth reflecting upon. Why should the author of Qur'an
mention the complete cycle of nucleosynthesis in the Qur'an when the
Qur'an is not a book of science? The Qur'an says that it is book of
guidance.

Wassalam
Saifulah

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?p=4340&highlight=#4340

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 25, 2003, 9:59:32 AM2/25/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.0302...@posting.google.com>...

> no, even at this side, you will need
> to have a the embryo magnified to see
> the, alagah stage as mentioned in the
> Quran, thus, NO, describing the leech
> like structure, blood clot, clinging,
> chewed flesh is not visible to the
> naked eye.

Huh? I'm curious how you came to such a conclusion. Let me try and
explain this in more detail...

First, there is no good reason given by Moore as to why we should
assume the vague reference to "alaqa" is in fact a reference to an
embryo in the fourth week. In fact, a number of ahaadeeth (exempli
gratia: Bukhaaree's Saheeh, Book 54 - #430, Book 55 - #549, Book 77 -
#593, Book 93 - #546, et cetera) actually seem to contradict this
view. Unfortunately we can't post Arabic over usenet, so I will
transliterate, but I have posted the Arabic of Book 54 #430 in a post
on MENJ's forum (set your browser to unicode to see the Arabic):

My rough transliteration and translation is:

Inna ahada kum yuhma'u khalquhu fee batni ummahi arba'eena yawman,
THUMMA yakoonu 'alaqatan mithla dhalika, THUMMA yakoonu mudhghatan
mithla dhalika[.]

A human being is created in the womb of his mother for forty days,
THEN he becomes a clot for an equivalent period [of time], THEN he
becomes a chewed lump for an equivalent period [of time][.]

Now, I believe it was Mahdi (I'm working purely from memory, so I
apologize if I'm mistaken) who pointed out on this newsgroup a while
back that Shaykh al-Zindaanee argued somewhat along the lines of
possibly interpreting "thumma" in the atemporal sense of "moreover",
and further that maybe we could understand all of this as taking place
within a single period forty days (not three stages of forty days). I
however, think it is clear that these are three separate forty day
periods. Thumma yakoonu, "then he became..." is later followed by
mithla dhalika, which would literally translate to something like
"analogous/equivalent is this." So I think it is more clear to
understand this as happening in three equal periods of time, and thus
I would feel it is significant to note that the ahaadeeth (on a number
of occasions) have the alaqat stage happening after forty days (not
23) and the mudhghat stage happening after 80 days (not 28).

I'd be curious what speakers of Arabic have to say on this issue, as
with the above I would wonder why suddenly these ahaadeeh would fall
behind while the "true" way to interpret the Qur'an is given to us
from a non-Arabic speaking non-Muslim. I believe this is what Imran
Aijaz was speaking of when he made reference to "the arbitrary
enforcement of the scientific hermeneutical method." As Behnam
Sadeghiu also alluded to, how can we assume it is clear this is what
the Qur'an is making reference to if for 1400 years no person knew
that this is what it was making reference to?

Okay, now however, I would like to work from the point I started from
in my brief objection in my previous post. Let us suppose, after all,
that we decide Keith Moore knows the true interpretation. Now Nadir,
in a private email exchange you noted that you boxed a little in your
youth. As you know, so did I (though I wasn't very good, which is why
I don't anymore). This is relevant as I'm going to use an analogy from
my own personal experience (like your own fond memories of cheating on
a test in school =D).

When I was young I used to collect clay in a marsh in New Jersey. We
had to swim through swampy waters and pull the crude clay from the
muddy bottom. There were leeches in that water, and I can tell you not
all leaches look the same. Some I have seen on television are quite
large and black, like those things in that movie "Night of the
Creeps". As for the various leeches I saw at this swamp in Jersey,
some looked like worms, brown, with a sort of armor. Others were
little red globules, like little bags of blood with a mouth. After
coming out of the water we would salt them off our legs. Anyway, when
I boxed amateur, there were times when I would, after a match or
sparring session, walk to the gym bathroom to rinse out a bloody nose.
When I would put a knuckle to one nostril and blow out the other
(pardon the vulgar nature of this trip down memory lane), sometimes I
would see in the sink little globules that looked very much like those
leeches from Jersey years before. Now, note that alaqa also means
"blood clot" or even congealed blood, as well as leech (and the two
can look the same, I can asure you from personal experience). So to
refer to an embryo at an early stage of development as a "leech" or
"blood clot" is not very specific. Further, to refer to a future stage
as a "chewed lump" is not very specific either. I would imagine that
this is precisely what early embryos and fetuses might look like to an
observer.

Okay now, with this longwinded rant by me above, I still don't see why
I can't fall back on my original objection that if the alaqa is
visible to the human eye, it is a perfectly observable phenomenon. If
the embryo is two millimeters, it is visible to the human eye. Also, I
should note that Moore's concession of the embryo being two
millimeters is conservative. T.W. Sadler, in "Langman's Medical
Embryology, (Williams & Wilkins, 1995) p. 220, puts the embryo at
about 4-5 millimerers around this time, and this is consistent with
most other sources I have checked. So again, even if we concede that
alaqa is a reference to the embryo in the fourth week of development,
it is at least 2 millimeters and may be as large as 5 millimeters. The
mudhgha stage is even larger than that, thus all of this is visible to
the human eye. Now the question is, for what reasons should I believe
that a observable phenomenon is, as you seemed to imply above, not
really observable after all?

> EVIDENCE #7:
>
> The Quran on clouds:
>
> http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm
>
> 24:43 matches up perfect with science

Um, I don't see what you're making reference to. Soorat an-Noor 24:43
seems to itself concede that this is an observable phenomenon. It asks
rather clearly, do you see/realize how God does such and such to the
clouds? Have you Nadir, not seen how clouds move around, come
together, pile up, and then it rains? I certainly have seen that, and
I imagine any person looking at the sky during the formation of a
storm has seen that as well. Maybe you can explain what it is that I'm
missing?

> E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)
>
> Analysis: no, the stage of Stacking can not be observed.

What is meant by stacking? Are you sure it is not observable? You mean
you haven't seen a small cloud collide with a nother small cloud to
form a much larger cloud, and more and more clouds coming together and
combining and piling up one upon the other? You've never observed
that? I have...

> EVIDENCE #8:
>
> http://www.themodernreligion.com/science/zamzam.html
>
> The phenomenon of zam zam water

First of all, I think you should be a little more wary of a site that
does not cite any examples. With all due respect, I think your
research needs to include sources other than what you find on the net.
There are many sites on the net that talk about the healing powers of
holy waters (whether it be holy water from a church, or some magical
healing potion that consists of water taken from some Tibetan spring
that Buddhist avatars blessed, et cetera), not to mention other
religious objects or places (like the blood of a crying statue, et
cetera). I am very skeptical since there are no references given with
regard to studies, et cetera. Secondly, is Zam-Zam even mentioned in
the Qur'an? If it is not, how would this even be relevant to a
discussion on the Qur'an? Even if this is a magical well, if we were
living in Makkah in 570 C.E., would you have accepted its magical
powers as proof of the truth of the religions practiced by the
Jahiliyya Mushrikeen and whatever traditions/stories they adhered to
or believed in? Please explain how this eighth piece of evidence is
relevant to the discussion.

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 25, 2003, 9:59:35 AM2/25/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03022...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> But the point is also that we know of the mountains and their internal
> structure only from 19th century onwards. This knowledge was absent 1200
> years ago.

Again, while it is clear that geologists did not know about the roots
of mountain ranges before Airy's hypothesis in the 19th century, I
don't think it is perftecly clear that the Qur'an is making reference
to this. I still think that if the Qur'an calling mountains "awtad" is
a reference to the root of a mountain range, then it is still
worthwhile considering (yes, again) the Talmud and the statement of
the Buddha.

> Yes, my point was not to prove anything using the divine
> argument. My point was to point out that if things are consistently
> correct then we have to look at some other explanation altogether.

Then, as I have said previously, we have nothing to argue about here.
I'm not trying to be deliberately hostile towards the way you
interpret the Qur'an. However, it comes off that way because I am
trying to explain why it is not necessarily the case that the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to these passages in the Qur'an would
force an objective reader to concluding that the Qur'an is from a
divine source.

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 25, 2003, 9:59:33 AM2/25/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03022...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> Our nearest star Mr. Sun is too small to do it and we
> require some 5 times the solar mass of our sun to achieve nucleosynthesis
> of iron.

Yes, again, this is understood. Now, later in your post you said that
iron "has some unique properties which no other elements share

certainly not helium, carbon, oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon,

sulfur, argon, calcium, titanium, chromium, etc." Well I imagine every
element has a property or two that it does not share with any other.
With iron it is, for example, its binding energy. However, with regard
to the above, "Mr. Sun" (which only seems to be capable of creating
helium, carbon and oxygen) is also incapable of creating neon,
magnesium, silicon, sulfur, argon, calcium, titanium, chromium, and
others. Since it takes a massive star to make these elements (and
iron), these elements also come from outside our solar system.

> Even if we were to concede the meaning of anzala being "gift from God" (I
> do not have Hans Wehr dictionary with me either as right now I am mailing
> from California), it is still correct. Do we not see that much of living
> matter including humans could not have lived without iron?

Right, understood. And even if this wasn't the case, it can still be
seen as a gift in light of all its benefits, like for tool-making,
weapon-making, the building of structures and armor, et cetera. This
was my original point when I said that it is perfectly plausible to
understand the passage in Soorat al-Hadeed as being something a very
pious person would write or say: that iron too is given of God, it is
very strong, and has many benefits for mankind...

> The fact that iron is mentioned in the Qur'an as being brought down itself is
> intersting and worth reflecting upon.

With respect to this you will get no argument from me here. I imagine
that every nook and cranny of the Qur'an can continuously churn out
more and more wisdom and guidance for the believer upon further
reflection. This is one of the more beautiful things about faith.

> Why should the author of Qur'an
> mention the complete cycle of nucleosynthesis in the Qur'an when the
> Qur'an is not a book of science?

Well, as a book of guidance it is not necessary. However, in an
argument that attempts to present the Qur'an as making scientific
statements that force an objective reader to conclude the Qur'an is
from a divine source, a lack of clear and distinct references is
problematic. I know you have not specifically pushed this argument,
but it is the argument at the center of this thread, and it is the
argument I am discussing when I write about these subjects in this
thread.

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 25, 2003, 5:06:05 PM2/25/03

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> Yes, again, this is understood. Now, later in your post you said that
> iron "has some unique properties which no other elements share
> certainly not helium, carbon, oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon,
> sulfur, argon, calcium, titanium, chromium, etc." Well I imagine every
> element has a property or two that it does not share with any other.

The property of iron is not just confined to its highest binding energy
among the elements. Iron is also the most promiment heavy element to
appear in the cosmic x-ray spectrum. None of the above mentioned heavy
elements show this characteristic. No plant or animal forms that have
chlorophyll and hameoglobin can exist without iron. Of course, other
elements are unique in their own way but looking at a broader picture
nothing beats iron.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://admin.vmi.edu/ir/dev/week3.htm
http://admin.vmi.edu/ir/dev/week4.htm

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Feb 27, 2003, 3:23:13 PM2/27/03

sorry for being so vague in my last message, let me be more
specific:

>if the alaqa is
>visible to the human eye

the alaqah and mudgah stage is NOT visible to the human eye,
because even though the embryo is 1 to 2 mm, it is encapsulated
in a amniotic sac and chorionic sac which must first be removed,
which would take special utensils not available at that time, anyhow
a person during that time would not be able to delicatly perform
this operation. The fetus is actually much smaller than a 1 or 2 mm:

I have talked to Dr.Keith Moore, and he mentioned that at this stage
the embryo is about the size of a grain, not 4-5 mm. Therefore,
the alaqah and mudgah stage are NOT visible to the human eye.

as for the hadeeth, it can host more than one interpretation,
therefore rendering to be inconclusive as it is a matter of
interpretation.

anyhow, this is discussion on the Quran, not hadeeth, I make
the distinction because it is hypothetically possible that
the author of the Quran wants us to use the Quran,the book of Allah,
solely for the purpose of proofs and evidences dealing with science.

>Are you sure it is not observable

yes

the point of the well of zam zam is that this is a well, which has been
providing water to millions of people without drying out as most wells do
after a few years or so. this is a phenomenon in itself, and lends more
credibility to the G axiom.

Ill send the conclusion with will prove G later, after were done with
this topic..

Denis Giron

unread,

Mar 3, 2003, 1:28:12 PM3/3/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.0302...@posting.google.com>...

>...

It is important, before I begin, to recap. We are discussing
scientific-hermeneutic approach to proving the Qur'an is from a divine
source, particularly the area that pertains to embryology. The Qur'an
makes vague references to "alaqa" (blood clot) and "mudhgha" (chewed
lump). The embryologist Keith Moore argued that the alaqa stage takes
place around the 24th day, and the mudhgha stage around the 28th day.
I noted that in Keith Moore's more serious textbooks/writings (exempli
gratia: the 6th edition of "The Developing Human"), Moore himself
places the size of the embryo around this time to be between 2mm and
4mm (while other sources raise the numbers). Now we can pick up where
Nadir left off...

> the alaqah and mudgah stage is NOT visible to the human eye,
> because even though the embryo is 1 to 2 mm, it is encapsulated
> in a amniotic sac and chorionic sac which must first be removed,

First of all, it is not clear what could be done by ancient man and
what could not, especially not from your post. The Talmud makes
reference to Egyptians who cut open preagnant slaves at different
stages and observed the embryos inside, and further people could have
been observing aborted foetuses. I will show here, however, that long
before the Qur'an was written/uttered people were in fact observing
the developing embryo during the rough time periods that Moore gave as
the alaqa and mudhgha stages.

First, with regard to the embryo developing inside the chorionic
cavity, Aristotle was aware of this (he referred to the chorion as the
"choria"). Consider the following:

"When the material secreted by the female in the uterus has been fixed
by the semen on 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, Generatione Animalium, Book II, 739b20-739b30, as per
Jonathan Barnes (ed.), "The Complete Works of Aristotle," Vol 1,
(Princeton, 1985), p. ll48]

Of course this may be a bit too vague, so I'm going to add more to
demonstrate just how observable all of this is...

> The fetus is actually much smaller than a 1 or 2 mm:
>
> http://admin.vmi.edu/ir/dev/week3.htm
> http://admin.vmi.edu/ir/dev/week4.htm

Neither of these sites seem to make mention of any sizes or
measurements.

> I have talked to Dr.Keith Moore, and he mentioned that at this stage
> the embryo is about the size of a grain, not 4-5 mm. Therefore,
> the alaqah and mudgah stage are NOT visible to the human eye.

Okay, I think we need to be very clear and specific here. When I
stated that the embryo might be 4-5 millimeters in the fourth week
(the alaqa stage), I noted that Moore's numbers were conservative
compared to T.W. Sadler, "Langman's Medical Embryology, (Williams &
Wilkins, 1995) p. 220. It is from this latter source that I got the
larger measurement.

Regardless, so you talked to Moore? Well, maybe I was lying when I
said that Moore put the alaqa stage at about 2 millimeters. It would
be best, then, if I cite a source. Before I do, however, keep in mind
that a grain of rice is about 1 millimeter. Anyway, see Keith L. Moore
& TVN Persaud, "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology,"
6th Edition, (W.B. Saunders, 1998), pp. 5 & 545. It is on both of
those pages that Moore himself states that the embryo is already 1.5
millimeters by the 18th day (almost a week before the alaqa stage
allegedly begins), and is 4 millimeters by the 28th day (around the
time of the mudgha stage). So I know for a fact that Moore established
these numbers, and you can check them for yourself.

And something that is 2mm (and especially if it is 4mm) is visible to
the human eye. Now, rather than us arguing back and forth "no it is
not - yes it is," I'm going to demonstrate this by showing what
Aristotle knew. Note that according to Moore, the heart develops
before the lungs. The heart begins to develop in the third week
(Moore, opere citato, p. 350), while the lungs don't begin to develop
until the fourth week (Moore, opere citato, p. 262, and see the
developing of the bronchial buds around the 28th day in fig 11-7 of p.
263). So the development of the heart, and then lungs, happens roughly
around the same time as the alaqa and mudhgha stages (in fact the
heart starts developing slightly before the alaqa stage), and all of
this is taking place within our little 2-4mm proto-person. Let's see
what Aristotle wrote:

"Either all the parts, as heart, lung, liver, eye, and all the rest,
come into being together or in succession, as is said in the verse
ascribed to Orpheus, for there he says that an animal comes into being
in the same way as the knitting of a net. That the former is not the
fact IS PLAIN EVEN TO THE SENSES, for some of the parts are clearly
visible as already existing in the embryo while others are not; that
it is not because of their being too small that they are not visible
is clear, for the lung is of greater size than the heart, and yet
appears later than the heart in the original development."
[Aristotle, Generatione Animalium, Book II, 734b17-734b25, as per
Barnes, opere citato, p. 1139, emphasis added.]

This proves what should have already been common sense: if an embryo
is between two and four millimeters, it is observable, and though you
may have to look real close, you can see a great amount of detail. To
drive this point home a little further, note that around this time the
liver also develops (again, after the development of the heart). The
liver begins to develop in the fourth week, and as Moore puts it:

"The hepatic diverticulum (liver bud) extends into the septum
transversum, a mass of splanchnic mesoderm between the developing
heart and the midgut."
[Moore, opere citato, p. 279]

Well surprise(!), even though this was taking place at a very early
stage, Aristotle also knew that the liver formed after the heart, as
he wrote:

"[I]t is not the fact that the heart, having come into being first,
then makes the liver, and the liver again another organ, but that the
liver only comes into being /after/ the heart, and not by the agency
of the heart"
[Aristotle, Generatione Animalium, Book II, 734a27-734a29, as per
Barnes, opere citato, p. 1139, emphasis in original text.]

I think we should see just how intricate the details can be when drawn
from observation, so I'm going to give one more example. Note that
Moore shows that around this time inside the umbilical cord are blood
vessels that bring oxygen-rich blood directly to the embryo's heart
(see Moore, opere citato, p. 351, fig. 14-2, which shows this
connection already being complete at 26 days, and on the same page it
mentions that the blood vessels will later lose connection with the
heart). Aristotle wrote the following:

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

Again, compare this with the image on p. 351 of the 6th edition of
Moore's textbook, which demonstrates that by the 26th day the
umbilical cord is already a tube of skin wrapped around blood-vessels
going to the heart, that bring the embryo nourishment, and there are
indeed two different vessels that themselves branch off. This is an
incredible observation, and everything Aristotle knew he attributed to
direct observation as well as vague reference to certain anatomical
drawings. Regardless, while it should have been obvious that the
embryo is observable around this period, the above proves that a
thousand years before the Qur'an was written or uttered people were
observing such. Thus in the end we have proof rather than conjecture.

Now, I think it would be obvious to anyone who does not have a deep
emotional investment in the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the
Qur'an, that Aristotle was far more descriptive of the third, fourth
and fifth weeks of an embryo's development. The Qur'an, on the other
hand, only says "blodd clot" (or leech) and "chewed lump" which is
woefully vague compared to the above. So, in conclusion, even if we
were to side with Moore's unjustified exegesis that puts these two
vague periods in the fourth and fifth weeks of development, we see
that there is nothing spectacular about such descriptions in light of
what others had written more than a thousand years prior.

Moving on, we get to the well of Zam-Zam in Makkah...

> the point of the well of zam zam is that this is a well, which has been
> providing water to millions of people without drying out as most wells do
> after a few years or so. this is a phenomenon in itself, and lends more
> credibility to the G axiom.

As I recall, your seventh axiom (G) was that a given passage in the
Qur'an is from "a source greater than man" (with implications of this
source being divine). While I may be wrong, I don't recall Zam-Zam
being mentioned in the Qur'an. Note that your source never gave us any
way of checking its claims, so I am reasonably skeptical. However,
even if we are to believe that Zam-Zam is a well that has yet to run
dry, supplies millions, and has germicidal qualities, I don't see how
this would prove the traditions held by the people in control of the
well are from "a source greater than man." On such logic you would
have to assume also that in 570, when Zam-Zam was under the control of
idolatrous polytheists, it proved their traditions were true (if we
were having this conversation then). So explain what this has to do
with the Qur'an.

Regardless, I look forward to your final analysis.

-Denis Giron

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Mar 5, 2003, 11:34:47 AM3/5/03

>First of all, it is not clear what could be done by ancient man and
>what could not, especially not from your post.

sure it is, why dont you find out what it takes to remove the
amnion and the chorion layers of the embryo ?

>Neither of these sites seem to make mention of any sizes or
>measurements.

oh, ok, here are some measurements:

therefore, the actual fetus,once the protective layers have been
surgically removed and the hazy fluids have been drained, the fetus
is .6 mm

I have read through what you have written about Aristotle's works
and I have found it very interesting, but absolutely useless for
our discussion, it never ceases to amaze me at what lengths you
would go, to be quite honest with you, I think you are the one
here with the deep emotional investment, which is blinding your
vision, as I stated earlier. Now where is it mentioned that
the information on embryology from aristotle is based on his
observation of the embryo at the 3rd of 4th week. This is your
own wild speculation, I guess you call that speculation-hermanutics.
The information which was written by
Aristotle can be derived 101 different ways.... for example, it
is common sense that the heart would be created before the lung or
liver,
because the heart pumps the blood to all parts of the body, you
dont need to look at a embryo at the 3rd or 4th week to figure
that out. This also goes to show that your own common sense seems
to fail you in your seal to disqualify this evidence for the Quran,
do you have any idea how small a fetus's heart is at the 3rd of 4th
week even if the entire embryo is 4mm?? it would be rediculous to
assume
that the naked eye can see these tiny organs

>This proves what should have already been common sense: if an embryo
>is between two and four millimeters

sure, but how big is the fetus in the embryo? about .6mm according
to this slide:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

anyways,Im through messing around with you, Im not going to entertain
your conjectures anymore, rather, the proper way to do this is to have
the QUALIFIED professionals make the call, not you, especially
considering
that you have never seen a human embryo at these stages...therfore,
you're talking out of your a#$.

Here are the professional references and their verdicts:

Dr. Keith L. Moore:

"the descriptions in the Qur'an cannot be based on scientific
knowledge in the seventh century..."

Dr. E. Marshall Johnson:

As a scientist, I can only deal with things which I can SPECIFICALLY
SEE.
I can understand embryology and developmental biology. I can
understand the
words that are translated to me from the Qur'an. As I gave the example
before,
if I were to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I do today
and describing
things, I could NOT describe the things that were described...

Dr. T.V.N. Persaud:

"I personally can't see how this could be mere chance, there are too
many accuracies "

Dr. Gerald C. Goeringer:

"No such distinct and complete record of human development
such as classification, terminology, and description
existed previously"

Someone needs to tell Denis that :)

Dr. Maurice Bucaille:

"...our knowledge of these disciplines is such, that it is impossible
to
explain how a text produced at the time of the Qur'an could have
contained
ideas that have only been discovered in modern times."

now Denis, if your claim is true, and all these scientists are wrong,
then what you will
need to do is provide a professional reference from a licenced
practitioner of
Medicine certifying that your claim is true.

You can also look at Dr William Campbells refutation of Embryology,
and I believe that
even he is not making the claims you are.

www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/

Denis Giron

unread,

Mar 6, 2003, 10:48:11 AM3/6/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03030...@posting.google.com>...
>...

Greetings Nadir. Now, in this discussion on embryology and the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an, I have implied that you
have an emotional investment in this approach, and you have responded
that I am the one with the emotional investment. Now, you may very
well be correct, so here I'm going to take another look at what the
Qur'an says regarding the embryo, and compare it with Aristotle's
writings in light of your post.

> oh, ok, here are some measurements:
>
> http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm
>
> therefore, the actual fetus,once the protective layers have been
> surgically removed and the hazy fluids have been drained, the fetus
> is .6 mm

Well, thank you very much for this link. First, however, I want to
note that this is loosely based on the writings of Keith Moore, but is
NOT by Keith Moore himself, and I'll explain why this is significant.
Yes, the above site does put the embryo at .6 millimeters, and yes
Moore confirms this. There's a catch however, according to the site
(and Moore!) the embryo is .6 mm when it is 15 days old! This is fine,
and indeed Moore states such, and he also states that it is 1.5 mm at
18 days, et cetera. The site actually confirms, rather than disputes,
that Moore puts the embryo at 4 mm by the 26-28 day range.

So this does not contradict what I have said, it has only gone
backwards to an earlier date. Moore however, contrary to the link
above, does NOT put the alaqa stage in the 15th day; rather he puts it
in the 23rd-24th day, and it is at this time that the embryo is 2mm!
Think about this, the Qur'an simply says "alaqa" and because this can
be translated as 'leech,' it is associated with the 24th day. If you
check Moore's text-book, the embryo at 15 days is simply a little
spherical mass (exactly the way the Garbha Upanishad describes it!),
and does not look at all like the way it looks by the 24th day; these
are two different periods.

Go back to your own link above, and see figure one, where the embryo
is compared to a leech. That image of the embryo is not a 15 day old
embryo, rather it is of the embryo at 24 days (see Keith L. Moore &

TVN Persaud, "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology,"

6th Edition, (W.B. Saunders, 1998), p. 86, Fig. 5-3). So which is it?
Is the alaqa stage at 15 days, or at 24 days? Are we arbitrarily
picking days, or is there a sound way of determining which day? To
remind you, by the way, an embryo at 24 days is 2mm.

> Now where is it mentioned that
> the information on embryology from aristotle is based on his
> observation of the embryo at the 3rd of 4th week. This is your
> own wild speculation

I will concede that Aristotle did not say specifically three or four
weeks (he never gave dates). However, neither does the Qur'an! We are
comparing the Qur'an to Aristotle here, and now we are going to see
who is speculating. Consider that the Qur'an simply says "alaqa" and
Moore states that this is a reference to the embryo at 24 days. How
does he know this? The Qur'an never gives us the date of 24 days! It
is determined based on the rough time that something like that
happens, correct?

So, if we are to believe that the Qur'an stating the vague word
"alaqa" (blood clot or leech) is a reference to the embryo at 24 days
becuase the embryo at that period looks like a leech, then it would be
duplicitous to try and stop me from concluding that when Aristotle
talks about the development of the heart before the lungs, he is
referring to the third and fourth weeks since the heart and lungs
develop during that time. Am I suddenly not allowed to use the same
methodology?

> Aristotle can be derived 101 different ways.... for example, it
> is common sense that the heart would be created before the lung or
> liver, because the heart pumps the blood to all parts of the body,

Okay, so let me get this straight. Saying that the heart develops
before the liver and the lungs is common sense, but the Qur'an saying
"alaqa" (blood clot) and "mudhgha" is not common sense? This seems a
bit duplicitous to me. Regardless, while Aristotle conceded that this
seems logical, he backed it up by noting that he has observed this
with his own eyes. Do I need to give the quote again?

> This also goes to show that your own common sense seems
> to fail you in your seal to disqualify this evidence for the Quran,
> do you have any idea how small a fetus's heart is at the 3rd of 4th
> week even if the entire embryo is 4mm?? it would be rediculous to
> assume that the naked eye can see these tiny organs

But Aristotle stated that he observed the heart form before the lungs,
thus your attempt to make an appeal to our own personal incredulity
simply wont do. I remember in biology class at the undergraduate level
dissecting various tiny organisms, like a little worm that was about
quarter-inch, and seeing their organs. We were encouraged to look at
it under a magnifying device (no, not a microscope), but even with out
we could see little dots and specks that served as organs. Why should
I believe you when Aristotle himself claimed to observe something
directly, and then correctly explained what it was that he claimed to
have observed?

> sure, but how big is the fetus in the embryo? about .6mm according
> to this slide:
>
> http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm

And again, as was touched on before, that is earlier in the
development. At that point the embryo does not look like a leech, but
rather a spherical mass (but hey, even the Upanishads got that right,
and they even gave the correct date!).

> you have never seen a human embryo at these stages...therfore,
> you're talking out of your a#$.

Well, it seems you're getting a bit angry here (by the way, I'm a
little surprised the above slipped past the moderators, not that I
mind though). I never claimed that I observed an embryo directly.
However, Aristotle claimed to have done so, and he made some
descriptions that were far more intricate than simply saying "blood
clot" or "chewed lump". The issue here is what was known prior to the
time the Qur'an was written, and how does the Qur'an's references to
the embryo compare to the descriptions of others.

> Here are the professional references and their verdicts:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

> [...]

> now Denis, if your claim is true, and all these scientists are wrong,
> then what you will need to do is provide a professional reference
> from a licenced practitioner of Medicine certifying that your claim
> is true.

I think Imran Aijaz supplied us with a very reasonable response in a
discussion on Qur'anic embryology back in December of 2001. He wrote:

[------ BEGIN QUOTE ------]
I would like to point out that it is simply a *fallacy* to claim that
an argument has weight simply because so-and-so said such-and-such
about the miraculousness of the Qur'an. Sure, Keith Moore et al, may
think that what the Qur'an has to say about embryology is testimony to
its divine origin but so what? (And BTW, has Moore become a Muslim,
just out of interest? I would like to know if anybody has the answer
to this. If not, I find it remarkable that a man would provide proof
for the veracity of a religion to which he does not convert to
himself!) Please see the following link for more details:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

How many scientists apart from Moore agree with him? What do you think
would happen if you walked into a university with your Qur'an,
straight into the biology department, opened it up to the relevant
pages, asking the professor there: "Do these passages speak of
embryology?" I don't think you would get the kind of romanticized
response dreamt of by apologists.

>From Imran Aijaz, "Embryology In The Qur'an? A General Response," SRI
post, 12-25-2001, http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0bkok%24nfl%241%40samba.rahul.net
[------ END QUOTE ------]

I think Imran put it rather well, but I'll elucidate a bit (and work
in reverse). First, it is striking that there is no evidence that
these men have converted... is Keith Moore a Muslim? On the front page
of the Wednesday, January 23rd, 2002 issue of the Wall Street Journal
there was an article by Daniel Golden titled "Western Scientists
Bribed, Duped into Endorsing 'Quranic' Science". In that article Moore
stated that "it's been 10 or 11 years since I was involved in the
Quran." It is strange that a Muslim would not be involved with his
holy writ for over a decade!

As for Professor Gerald Goeringer, the same article has him stating
that he stop attending such conferences when his request for
independent verification was denied. He's not a Muslim either. He may
have been misquoted, as such things have happened: note that the link
you cited offers quotes from Joe Leigh Simpson which Simpson himself
said were misquotes. The reality is these men received money and
first-class airline tickets. They didn't really believe the things
they were saying, in fact Professor Goeringer was quoted as saying
that "it was mutual manipulation, [...] we got to go places we
wouldn't otherwise go to. They wanted to add some respectability to
what they were publishing."

However, as Imran rightly pointed out, even if these men were sincere
(and maybe some of them sincerely did embrace Islam, though surely
Moore, Simpson and Groeinger are not among them), it is a fallacy to
make an appeal to such an illicit authority. These men are not experts
on history, or the Qur'an, or Arabic. It is not necessarily the case
that a scientists can't be duped (the famous scientists from Stanford
University who were tricked into thinking Uri Geller had divine powers
come to mind).

> You can also look at Dr William Campbells refutation of Embryology,
> and I believe that
> even he is not making the claims you are.
>
> www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/

I don't get it. Are you disappointed with me because my approach is
different from that of William Cambell's? Until now I had never
considered Cambell's approach, and after reading it I feel more
comfortable with my own. Now, I know that you're not going to be
convinced, and it does not help for us to go back and forth and accuse
one another of having an emotional investment. So I have a solution.
You explain to me which passages of the Qur'an are clearly making a
scientifically accurate statement, and why, and I'll see if I can use
THE SAME METHODOLOGY to find similarly accurate statements in an
earlier text (like the Garbha Upanishad or Aristotle). So either we
can start the embryology discussion over from the beginning, or you
can just comment on the above, or both.

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Mar 7, 2003, 11:25:56 PM3/7/03

I have asked you for a professional reference in the
field of Embyology to substantiate what you are saying
about the embryo, I am not concerned with your interpretations
of aristotles works or what you think. As of now,
you have not provided single reference. Therefore, I will give
you one last chance to do so, if you fail, then your objections
will be overruled and ignored.

I will not respond to anything else you write until this challenge
is met.

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 8, 2003, 2:23:44 PM3/8/03

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Nadir Ahmed wrote:

> I will not respond to anything else you write until this challenge
> is met.

I have read the works of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen. There is really
nothing that is similar to what is there in the Qur'an. Professor T V N
Persaud, who was also in the committee of interpretation of the statements
on embryology in the Qur'an, is a well-known authority in the history of
embryology. If he had found any similarities between the Qur'an and the
ancient works, he should have pointed it out immediately. Rather he shows
surprise at the statements in the Qur'an in one of his books (I do not
have the reference handy and would be provided on request at a later day).

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bdfe7cc1.0302281425.7985f2d8%40posting.google.com

Denis Giron

unread,

Mar 8, 2003, 2:55:21 PM3/8/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03030...@posting.google.com>...

> I have asked you for a professional reference in the
> field of Embyology to substantiate what you are saying
> about the embryo, I am not concerned with your interpretations
> of aristotles works or what you think. As of now,
> you have not provided single reference.

Well, this response was short and sweet. However, I would object that
such an angry response ignores much of what I wrote, so I feel we
should recap on this discussion regarding the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an on embryology. Before we begin I should note
that all my citations from Moore and Aristotle appear in my posts from
March 3rd and March 6th:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bdfe7cc1.0303051453.5bfeee56%40posting.google.com

To begin, the Qur'an simply says "alaqa" (blood clot, or leech) and
then "mudhgha" (chewed lump). No indication is given with regard to
what period of time this is taking place. To understand how Moore
interpreted these words we need to turn to his article "A Scientist's
Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an." Now, this
allegedly appears in The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association,
Vol.18, Jan-June 1986, pp.15-16, but if you simply run the title
through a search engine you'll find the full text on over 100
different websites, exempli gratia:

http://www.ummah.org.uk/science/moore.htm
http://islamicity.com/Science/Moore/
et cetera...

Now it is Moore who notes that the "alaqa" looks like a leech by the
24th day. It is also Moore who notes in the 6th edition of his
textbook that the at this point the embryo is around 2 mm. If it is 2
mm then it is visible to the human eye. Moore puts the mudhgha stage
around 26-28 days, and by then it is 4 mm. I backed up these claims
with direct citations from the 6th edition of Moore's textbook. You,
however, cited the following site:

And indeed, at 15 days it shows the embryo. At that point the embryo
is a spherical mass, which is exactly how the garbha upanishad
described it almost 2000 years before the Qur'an (and this Hindu text,
unlike the Qur'an, even gave the time frame). Regardless, in figure 1,
not 3, we see the embryo at 24 days, not 15. At 15 days the embryo is
.6 mm, by 18 days it is 1.5 mm, by 23 days it is 2mm, and by 26 days
it is 4mm, and all of this is according to Keith Moore himself. All of
this was backed up with references to Keith Moore's own textbook - I
could have cited others, but I kept it with Moore to add to the irony.

Now, what is so amazing about calling a 2mm object a "blood clot" or a
"leech"? Nothing really, since the object is visible to the eye at
that point (and in light of the description of the Garbha Upanishad,
it is apparently visible even at two weeks!). Moore's interpretation
of the Qur'an argued further that during this period the embryo
receives nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the
leech, which feeds on blood. Well this too is not amazing, since
Aristotle also knew this, and also knew that the blood came from the
umbilical cord, a couple of blood vessels with a skin integument
around it that leads to the heart. Which one is more descriptive of
this process? Saying "leech" (which may have just been blood clot), or
saying that the embryo recieves nourishing blood via the umbilical
cord that has vessels leading to its heart? Clearly Aristotle is more
explicit about this, and I backed this up with citations from both
Moore and Aristotle.

Now, let's get into what the Qur'an refers to as the "mudhgha" stage.
Does the Qur'an say that this is at 28 days? The answer is no, it does
not. Now the game that is played here is we take a vague phrase,
"chewed lump," and see if we can find a period that corresponds to it.
Once we find a period that corresponds, we arbitrarily impose that
time period on the verse. First, an object that is 4mm is VERY visible
to the eye, so what is amazing about pointing to something and saying
it looks like a "chewed lump"? Of course, that is only if we accept
that it is actually referring to the embryo at 28 days - for all we
know, this could have been later, as the Qur'an doesn't give a date.

Now, in light of this game being played with the Qur'an, it seems only
fair that the same game can be played with Aristotle. The Qur'an says
"chewed lump," the embryo looks a little chewed at 28 days, therefore
this is a reference to the embryo at 28 days. So too with Aristotle,
he correctly stated that the heart formed before the lungs, the heart
forms in the third week and the lungs in the fourth, thus Aristotle
was making reference to the embryo in the third and fourth weeks. The
logic is the same, and the result is that Aristotle is again far more
descriptive. Again, I backed all this up with quotes from Aristotle
and Moore.

Now, ultimately the onus is on you to provide one comment from the
Qur'an regarding embryology that is amazing and could not have been
known by any human being at the time. Don't just give a link; rather
lay down the information in this forum. You have to provide a passage
from the Qur'an, tell us what you think it is saying, and then explain
*WHY* you think it is saying such. If you think the passage is
referring to a specific time-frame, explain why it is so obvious that
it is referring to that time-frame. Let's see your methodology.

Keep in mind that thus far you've basically/essentially argued that it
is sensible for an ancient man to know that the heart forms before the
lungs and the liver, that the umbilical cord is originally attached to
the heart and brings nourishing blood via two vessels covered with a
sking integument, that the semen mixes with a female contribution and
then settles in the uterus to be later surrounded by mebranes of the
chorion, yet it is NOT possible for a man to know that visibly at
certain points an embryo looks like a "chewed lump". Ask yourself if
such a position is not a bit duplicitous. It seems to me that when it
comes to embryology, there is nothing in the Qur'an that is any more
amazing than what is found in Aristotle or the Garbha Upanishad.

-Denis Giron

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 9, 2003, 11:35:30 PM3/9/03

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> And indeed, at 15 days it shows the embryo. At that point the embryo
> is a spherical mass, which is exactly how the garbha upanishad
> described it almost 2000 years before the Qur'an (and this Hindu text,

And what we ask from you is the complete citation of Garbha Upanishad. We
have not seen that yet.

Wassalam
Saifullah

Denis Giron

unread,

Mar 10, 2003, 4:52:49 PM3/10/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03030...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> I have read the works of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen. There is really
> nothing that is similar to what is there in the Qur'an. Professor T V N
> Persaud, who was also in the committee of interpretation of the statements
> on embryology in the Qur'an, is a well-known authority in the history of
> embryology. If he had found any similarities between the Qur'an and the
> ancient works, he should have pointed it out immediately. Rather he shows
> surprise at the statements in the Qur'an in one of his books (I do not
> have the reference handy and would be provided on request at a later day).

Personally I have only read Aristotle, and have yet to take a thorough
look at Galen and Hippocrates (though I'm curious, as I feel I found
stuff in Aristotle that no one on the net mentioned). The issue here
is not that Aristotle is saying things that parallel what the Qur'an
is saying. Indeed, the Qur'an simply says three veils of darkness,
nutfah, alaqa, and mudhghah, none of which is to be found in
Aristotle. Nonetheless, the issue for me is that certain proponents of
the scientific-hermeneutic approach claim that such statements point
to knowledge of embryology that no human could have had, thus we must
conclude that the Qur'an is from a divine origin. So what I try to do
is ask what these advocates of this approach feel these words are
referring to, and why. Once I have idea of the sort of exegetical
methodology being employed, I then apply it to Aristotle. If it is
argued that the Qur'an is making reference to the developing embryo
over the first four weeks, then I would argue that it can also be
shown that Aristotle was familiar with this period as well.

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 10, 2003, 5:45:12 PM3/10/03

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

<big snip> Let us get into the meat of the discussion.

> Now, what is so amazing about calling a 2mm object a "blood clot" or a
> "leech"? Nothing really, since the object is visible to the eye at
> that point (and in light of the description of the Garbha Upanishad,
> it is apparently visible even at two weeks!). Moore's interpretation

Mr. Freethought aka Denis Giron aka Dajjal says what is great about a 2 mm
object being called a "blood clot" or a "leech". This is because this
object is visible to the eye. Keith L. Moore, TVN Persaud and E. Marshal
delivered a lecture called "Embryology in the Qur'an" to Muslim Students
Association, Toronto, Canada in 1988. I reproduce below the relevent bits
from the video. Moore says on the specific issue of alaqah being small and
how hard it is to identify in the uterus, leave alone its function like a
"leech" or appearing like a "blood-clot".

"I guess it depends on how good your eyes are. But if you have normal
eyesight you should be able to see it around 22-23 days when its just
about the size of a kernel of what. But without a magnifying glass or
without some microscope you wouldnt be able to see the details that weve
shown you.

As Dr. Persaud said, when they were talking about the alaqah or leech-like
substance certainly they were not able to see that embryo - even if they
opened the uterus to look at - it would be so small. And I've seen them,
its just a little white spot. Its only when you put a magnifying glass to
it that you can actually see these details that make it look like a leech.
So they certainly did'nt have that that knowledge and I would say you
can't see it up until after three weeks." [Embryology in the Quran,
Toronto, Cananda, 1988 with Keith L. Moore, TVN Persaud and E. Marshal
Johnson. Lecture delivered to Muslim Students Association.]

Similarly, Prof. Johnson states:

"You have to be really careful on what is the definition of "seeing". I
can see a piece of dandruff on this tabletop, I can just barely make it
out because this is a nice black surface. I can see no detail in it. If I
want to see detail in it then I need some sort of visual aid something to
aid my vision I need a magnifying glass, I need a microscope. So I might
be able to see a piece of dandruff but to see any detail in it as is
described in the Quran, I need an instrument that was'nt developed until
the 1800s." [ibid.]

Hello! Are you listening Mr. Freethought?

Here are three experts in embryology versus a polemicist and satirist.
Obviously, we know who should we take the knowledge from.

> of the Qur'an argued further that during this period the embryo
> receives nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the
> leech, which feeds on blood. Well this too is not amazing, since
> Aristotle also knew this, and also knew that the blood came from the
> umbilical cord, a couple of blood vessels with a skin integument

Mr. Freethought wants us to believe that Aristotle was able to
successfully observe, study and describe a certain early stage of human
development that was not possible even with the advent of the early
microscope! So, what was Aristotle describing? Was he describing
scientific facts that pre-date modern science? Not at all. This is a most
ridiculous interpretation.

Aristotle was only describing the function of the umbilical cord. He was
not describing any embryonic stages of development, but what could clearly
be observed at birth: the fact that the umbilical cord connects the child
to the mother. He correctly understood that the fetus obtained nourishment
through the umbilical cord, but believed that it was the umbilical cord
that joins or clings to the uterus keeping both the fetus and uterus in
place:

"This is why Nature prescribes first of all the two blood-vessels that run
from the heart; and attached to these are some small blood-vessels which
run to the uterus, forming what is known as the umbilicus, the umbilicus
being of course a blood-vessel The blood-vessels join on to the uterus as
though they were roots, and through them the fetation gets its
nourishment. And that of course is the reason why the young animal stays
in the uterus" [Aristotle, "Generation of Animals", Book II, IV (740a,
page 197)]

Nowhere does Aristotle state that the function of the umbilical cord was
to enable the embryo to "cling" to the uterus wall. Whether this is a
deliberate distortion or misunderstanding is unclear, but whatever the
case, the reference to Aristotle is irrelevant. Mr. Freethought commits
the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. The Quran describes the
morphological appearance of the human embryo, whereas Aristotle describes
the function of the umbilical cord.

> around it that leads to the heart. Which one is more descriptive of
> this process? Saying "leech" (which may have just been blood clot), or
> saying that the embryo recieves nourishing blood via the umbilical
> cord that has vessels leading to its heart? Clearly Aristotle is more
> explicit about this, and I backed this up with citations from both
> Moore and Aristotle.

LOL. You can't see an umblical cord in the alaqah stage. During the
implantation (about 10 days after fertilization) that the blastocyst
develops chorionic villi for acquiring nourishment from the maternal
blood. These formations make the blastocyst literally cling to the wall.
This is retained even in the alaqah stage. Umblical cord comes much later.

> Now, let's get into what the Qur'an refers to as the "mudhgha" stage.
> Does the Qur'an say that this is at 28 days? The answer is no, it does
> not. Now the game that is played here is we take a vague phrase,
> "chewed lump," and see if we can find a period that corresponds to it.

I think you have embarassed yourself enough by now. But let us not stop
here and play your game.

"Then (fa) we change the leech-like structure into a chewed-like
substance (Mudghah)". (Surah Al-Mu'minun, Ayah 14)

The word "fa" describes quick change from one to another. The
tranformation from alaqah to Mudghah is very rapid, so the Quran describes
this by using the word (fa) denoting a quick rather than a delayed change.
So, mudghah stage should come almost immediately after the alaqah stage.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.HPX.4.33L.0303082130550.24337-100000%40club.eng.cam.ac.uk

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Mar 11, 2003, 6:10:22 PM3/11/03

>Now, what is so amazing about calling a 2mm object a
>"blood clot" or a "leech"? Nothing really, since the
>object is visible to the eye at that point

I dont think you understand what we are talking about,
yes, the OBJECT,which is the cytotrophoblistic shell,
is 2mm at this point:

look at figure 2 to see cytotrophoblistic shell:
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

but,the actual EMBYRO inside the cytotrophoblistic shell
is not 2mm! rather, it is much smaller. In order to see
the embryo,which is the leech like structure we are
talking about,you must first splice open the
cytotrophoblistic shell. Therefore, if you
are claiming that the embryo, not the cytotrophoblistic
shell, is visible to man to the point that a person can
detect that it is a leech like structure, or chewed flesh,
then I would like for you to provide a professional reference.

Here is what Dr. Moore states:

"As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the
7th century, doctors would not have known that the human
embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of
the fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided
eye because it is smaller than a kernel of wheat. "

Denis Giron

unread,

Mar 14, 2003, 6:15:04 PM3/14/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> ...

In this post I will be responding to three different posts: two from
Dr. Saifullaah, and one from Nadir. I hope neither of these gentlemen
mind my lumping their posts together. Dr. Saifullaah's two posts are
from March 9th and March 10th, respectively, and have been archived by
Google here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.HPX.4.33L.0303101237070.29438-100000%40club.eng.cam.ac.uk

Nadir's post is from March 11th, and has been archived by Google here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dd10d076.0303101851.5cd15876%40posting.google.com

In all three cases, the discussion revolves around the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an with regard to
embryology. The issue for me is whether or not the verses of the
Qur'an make statements that no human being could have known, thus
forcing us to conclude that the text is of a divine origin (hence the
title of this thread). With that introduction, I think we can begin...

Nadir wrote:

> I dont think you understand what we are talking about,
> yes, the OBJECT,which is the cytotrophoblistic shell,
> is 2mm at this point:
>
> look at figure 2 to see cytotrophoblistic shell:
> http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

It seems that Nadir is the one who has failed to understand what is
happening here. When I originally cited the sizes from Dr. Keith
Moore's textbook, I was in fact citing the ACTUAL SIZE of the embryo.
I have more to say on what can be found in Dr. Moore's own writings
that will drive this point home, but first I want to comment within
the context of the sources called to witness by Nadir and Dr.
Saifullaah.

First, as has already been stated before in this thread, if one goes
to the Islamic site (which advocates the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an) cited by Nadir above, you can see in figure
three, the ACTUAL SIZE of the embryo at FIFTEEN DAYS is 0.6mm. This
agrees with Moore's own writings, which further note that at 18 days
the actual size of the embryo is 1.5mm, 2mm by 24 days, and 4mm by 28
days. So yes, I understand this quite well - I was discussing the
actual size of the embryo, and I will drive this point home in a
bit...

First, however, I would like to comment on the claims of Moore,
Johnson, et al., cited by Nadir and Dr. Saifullaah with regard to
visibility. These comments, in a vacuum, will seem like I am poisoning
the well, but it will all come together in the end when I drive the
point home via Moore's own writings. First, Nadir noted that on the
sites that reproduce Moore's comments at these decade (or more) old
it-is-truth style conferences, where non-Muslim scientists praise the
Qur'an, he (i.e. Moore) is quoted as saying that "there were no
microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century." I agree, but they
were not necessary. I could try and expound upon Moore's own comment
in the same source that "the embryo is just visible to the unaided
eye," but it would be better if I cite a more serious source (I would
rather not get into an exegetical battle over a polemical video that
champions the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an).

Dr. Saifullaah quoted E. Marshall Johnson as making reference to the
ability to see a piece of dandruff. Note that a piece of dandruff is
often only a millimeter, or sometimes only half a millimeter, yet even
that is visible, and we're discussing objects as much as four to eight
times bigger. Furthermore, it is one thing to stand back and look at a
piece of dandruff from a couple feet away, and wholly another to get
right up on it; feel free to try it yourself with something that
small. Regardless, all of this was said in an environment where the
scientists did not necessarily feel the need to say things they
actually believed. In light of the fact that some of these men did not
embrace Islam, were paid cash, and even later ridiculed the
methodology in a Wall Street Journal article, makes all of this quite
suspect. As I already noted, this may sound like I am poisoning the
well, so I am going to now offer that we consider more serious
sources.

The best source to consider when trying to figure out what Moore (and
Persaud) REALLY believe would be their textbook (and not the one with
"Islamic additions"). So, as I have before, I am going to call to
witness Keith L. Moore & TVN Persaud, "The Developing Human:
Clinically Oriented Embryology," 6th Edition, (W.B. Saunders, 1998).
If Nadir or Dr. Saifullaah refuse to consult this source, what would
be the point of going on?

Now, as I have written previously in this thread, I recommend readers
consider this text book, particularly pages 5 and 545 for measurements
of the embryo. Note that on either page, we can see the embryo as
early as 18 days, and Moore lists it as being 1.5 millimeters. Common
sense would tell us that by this point it is visible to the human eye,
but Dr. Saifullaah (and particularly Nadir) don't think so. Well, if
you look underneath the drawing, there is an arrow pointing to a much
smaller replica of the drawing and a caption that reads "INDICATES
ACTUAL SIZE"!!! So readers can see for themselves how visible the
object is, and I can see it from quite far away.

For example, let's consider the mudhgha stage, when the embryo reaches
4mm. Common sense would tell us that even if we accept this
interpretation of the Qur'an (i.e. that this vague "chewed lump" is
undoubtedly a reference to the embryo at 28 days), common sense would
tell us that (A) a claim that it LOOKS like it has teeth marks, and
(B) the fact that it is 4mm, would mean that it is visible to the
human eye. Now of course, I could raise a number of serious objections
regarding some of the ad-hoc reinterpretation employed (like trying to
make the Qur'anic verse fit by carefully and deliberately biting a
piece of gum with the front teeth to make it look like a 28 day old
embryo), but I'll save that for another time. The real issue here is
the drawing, the arrow, and the caption that reads "INDICATES ACTUAL
SIZE." I looked at this 4mm embryo, and it is perfectly visible to the
eye. I even took a ruler, put one end on the page, and the other
against my chin - and from one foot away I could still see the
depiction of the somites. This is in a two dimensional drawing, from a
foot away. Imagine if I had the real object and got right up on it!
Anyone esle can check the source for themselves and give it a shot.
We're not talking about some conference where scientists were paid
thousands of dollars to give credibility to things they did not
believe - we're talking about a serious textbook. So please, this
should put to rest any claim about a need for microscopes.

Now, moving on to Aristotle vs the Qur'an, Dr. Saifullah wrote the
following in his post from March 10th:

> Aristotle was only describing the function of the umbilical
> cord. He was not describing any embryonic stages of development,
> but what could clearly be observed at birth: the fact that the
> umbilical cord connects the child to the mother. He correctly
> understood that the fetus obtained nourishment through the
> umbilical cord, but believed that it was the umbilical cord
> that joins or clings to the uterus keeping both the fetus and
> uterus in place

First of all, Dr. Saifullaah is wrong about what can be clearly
observed at birth. Note that Aristotle correctly wrote that the veins
of the umbilical cord are connected to the heart, and while this is
true in early development, they are NOT connected to the heart when
the baby is born, thus we have an implication of timeframe. Moore
writes that "[a]s the liver develops, the umbilical veins lose their
connection with the heart and empty into the liver" (Moore, opere
citato, p. 351). Now, if we turn in Moore's text book to pages
278-279, we find out that the liver begins to develop in the fourth
week, and blood flows into it from the fifth to tenth weeks. So
Aristotle's reference to the umbilical cord veins being connected to
the heart is both correct, and an obvious reference to development
around the fourth week and earlier.

Dr. Saifullaah further writes:

> Nowhere does Aristotle state that the function of the umbilical
> cord was to enable the embryo to "cling" to the uterus wall.

Well, Aristotle never uses the word "cling," but why is this so
important? Besides, anyone else notice that in the previous snippet
from Dr. Saifullaah, he wrote that Aristotle "believed that it was the
umbilical cord that joins or clings to the uterus"? Did he know this
or not? I think ultimately this is irrelevant - the point is that the
implication here is that he knew what was going on in the fourth week.
Of course, Dr. Saifullaah disputes this when he writes the following:

> You can't see an umblical cord in the alaqah stage.
> During the implantation (about 10 days after fertilization)
> that the blastocyst develops chorionic villi for acquiring
> nourishment from the maternal blood. These formations make
> the blastocyst literally cling to the wall. This is retained
> even in the alaqah stage. Umblical cord comes much later.

Oh, the umbilical cord comes much later? I would like to ask how much
later? Dr. Saifullah does not say, nor does he cite a source to back
up his claim. What is his evidence? Just his words. So I guess I'll
have to cite the relevant source here. I would ask that Dr. Saifullaah
see Moore, opere citato, p. 134, figure 7-6, which shows the umbilical
cord fully formed in the fourth week (around the time of the alaqa
stage). Ah, but this is not enough. See also Moore, opere citato, p.
351, figure 14-2, where we see the umbilical cord fully formed, and
the veins are already attached to the heart, and this is at 26 days!!!
Here I'd employ Dr. Saifullaah's wording: "[w]hether this is a

deliberate distortion or misunderstanding is unclear, but whatever the

case," the point remains that Aristotle was making reference to
phenomena that take place in the fourth week and earlier.

And now I'd like to close with a bit on the Garbha Upanishad. Note
that Moore also gave credit to the Garbha Upanishad's description of
embryology. He didn't do so at some conference in a foreign country
after receiving a thousand dollar honorarium, first class plane
tickets, and a room in a classy hotel; rather he wrote such in the 6th
edition of his textbook. The Garbha Upanishad is about 2,000 years
older than the Qur'an, and unlike the Qur'an it actually gives dates
for its descriptions. Dr. Saifullah wrote the following:

> And what we ask from you is the complete citation of Garbha
> Upanishad. We have not seen that yet.

Well, if you mean verse numbers, while I have seen a translation of
the Garbha Upanishad, it did not have any verse numbers. However,
George William Brown seemed to be aware of a version with some
semblance of verse or chapter numbers, and I'll cite that in a second.
First, let me remind readers what Moore himself wrote:

"A brief Sanskrit treatise on ancient Indian embryology is thought to
have been written in 1416 B.C. This scripture of the Hindus, called
Garbha Upanishad, describes ancient ideas concerning the embryo. It
states:

From the conjugation of blood an 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."
[Moore, opere citato, p. 9]

A fortnight is about half a month, or two weeks, so about 14-15 days,
and if you check images of the embryo at that period, it is about half
a millimeter, and is indeed a spherical mass. Anyway, here is what
Brown wrote in his PhD dissertation for John Hopkins University:

"The most complete and scientific statement in regard to embryology is
to be found in Garbha 3,4. One night after coition, a little lump is
formed (in the womb). In seven nights a bubble, in half a month a
ball."
[George William Brown, "The Human Body in the Upanishads," (Christian
Mission Press, 1921), p. 184]

Ball, spherical mass, whatever. I'm not sure what "3,4" signifies
(i.e. if these are chapter, verse, or stanza numbers), because the
only full translation I saw just had text. Regardless, at 14-15 days
(and we know for a fact that it means 14-15 days because the text says
so itself, which is not the case with the Qur'an) the embryo is a
little over .5 millimeters (a little bigger than a grain of salt), and
is indeed a spherical mass, thus we have an indication of how capable
ancient man might have been with regard to observing the embryo. All
of the above should serve as a heavy-enough blow to this version of
the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an.

-Denis

Denis Giron

unread,

Mar 16, 2003, 6:50:52 PM3/16/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03031...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> I think you have embarassed yourself enough by now. But let us not stop
> here and play your game.
>
> "Then (fa) we change the leech-like structure into a chewed-like
> substance (Mudghah)". (Surah Al-Mu'minun, Ayah 14)
>
> The word "fa" describes quick change from one to another. The
> tranformation from alaqah to Mudghah is very rapid, so the Quran describes
> this by using the word (fa) denoting a quick rather than a delayed change.
> So, mudghah stage should come almost immediately after the alaqah stage.

Now I have already responded to this post elsewhere, but I wanted to
make some comments that I failed to make previously. Dr. Saifullaah
wanted to discuss Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14, so we should discuss
that.

The Arabic of the relevant portion that Dr. Saifullaah is making
reference to states "fakhalaqnaa al-alaqata mudhghatan". Dr.
Saifullaah is stating that the faa before khalaqnaa implies a quick
transition. So the implication here is that if the Qur'an says
"fakhalaqnaa X, Z," it means "then we very rapidly molded/transformed
the X into a Z." Dr. Saifullaah has presented this as if there is no
other possible interpretation.

Well, in the very same verse, the very next words are "fakhalaqnaa
al-mudhghata izhaamaan." Tell me yaar, are we to believe that this
means that just as rapidly the 28 day old embryo is formed into bones?
Of course not; Dr. Saifullaah would prefer that we understand this to
mean cartilage is forming inside the embryo. It is this sort of thing
that exposes the liberal and arbitrary application of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach that takes place in such methods of
exegesis.

The reality is that those who interpret these verses have the first
instance of "fakhalaqnaa X, Z," mean that X becomes Z, but the second
instance of "fakhalaqnaa X, Z," mean that a precursor to Z (not
actually Z) forms inside of X. How's that for duplicity?!? Ultimately
what we have here is a case of retrofitting.

And of course when the very next phrase says "fakasawnaa al-izhaama
lahmaan" ("then we clothed the bones with flesh"), proponents of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach will argue that this is not an error.
However, if the Qur'an said that flesh formed before bones, rather
than vice versa, that too would have been correct. There isn't
anything objective about such methodology - the Qur'an will be
considered correct no matter what (but I suppose this part is
irrelevant to the current discussion).

To return to Dr. Saifullaah's comments on "fa," I'd like to turn back
to a subject that has been brought up several times: the way the
stages are laid out in the ahaadeeth. I would like to call to witness
Saheeh Bukhaaree Vol. 4, Bk 55, #549. I note this particular hadith
because in Hilaalee-Khan's translation (in certain additions it is
listed as vol. 4, #3332) it is acknowledged as making reference to
three different stages of forty days each (and if you have the "Noble
Qur'an" translated by Hilaalee-Khan, note that they even cite this
very hadith in a footnote to Soorat al-Hajj 22:5).

Now of course the Arabic is the same as that in #430 of book 54 (and a
couple others), but the translation differs a bit. Nonetheless, the
Arabic clearly seems to be making reference to three different stages
of forty days each. It reads: "a human being is created in the womb of
his mother for forty days (arba'eena yawman), THEN (thumma) he becomes
a clot (alaqa) for an equivalent period [of time] (mithla dhalika),
THEN (thumma) he becomes a chewed lump (mudhgha) for an equivalent
period [of time] (mithla dhalika)[.]"

Of course the common response by Muslims who support the
scientific-hermeneutic approach try and argue that "thumma" coule also
be understood as the more vague and atemporal "moreover" (though it
should be noted that "moreover" too can be seen as implying
chronology), and then try and understand "mithla dhalika" as being a
reference to this all happening within the same forty day period. A
great amount of reinterpretation has to be employed just to wrench out
an understanding that is more palatable to those who advocate this
approach. The reality, of course, is that the clear and logical
understanding of the hadith is as a reference to three different forty
day periods, and only those who have an emotional investment in the
later ad-hoc interpretation of a single period of forty days would
think otherwise.

Now, some may be wondering why this is relevant. Some may argue that
even if I am correct (and I certainly believe that I am), these are
the ahaadeeth, which could be wrong, while the discussion is about
embryology in the Qur'an. The reason such a hadith is relevant is
because it brings into question Dr. Saifullaah's vague notion of "fa"
implying rapid succession. It seems that those who had a far more
intimate relationship with the Qur'an and with Arabic than does Dr.
Saifullaah saw no problem with the alaqa and mudhgha stage being forty
days apart. So what does Dr. Saifullaah mean by "rapid"?

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 19, 2003, 7:13:41 PM3/19/03

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> Well, in the very same verse, the very next words are "fakhalaqnaa
> al-mudhghata izhaamaan." Tell me yaar, are we to believe that this
> means that just as rapidly the 28 day old embryo is formed into bones?
> Of course not; Dr. Saifullaah would prefer that we understand this to
> mean cartilage is forming inside the embryo. It is this sort of thing
> that exposes the liberal and arbitrary application of the
> scientific-hermeneutic approach that takes place in such methods of
> exegesis.

Let me make this clear to you at the outset. I am not your "yaar" and
neither you are my "yaar". Let it be this way.

The Qur'anic description is morphological. Around this time, cartilaginous
bone formation is the most prominent event during this phase. So, it is
not about liberal and arbitrary application of the scientific-hermeneutic
approach likes yours such as using Aristotle's observation on animals to
"prove" that he saw the structure of human embryo.

> And of course when the very next phrase says "fakasawnaa al-izhaama
> lahmaan" ("then we clothed the bones with flesh"), proponents of the
> scientific-hermeneutic approach will argue that this is not an error.
> However, if the Qur'an said that flesh formed before bones, rather
> than vice versa, that too would have been correct. There isn't
> anything objective about such methodology - the Qur'an will be
> considered correct no matter what (but I suppose this part is
> irrelevant to the current discussion).

Not really irrelevent. If you will use a little bit of commonsense you
would come to know that muscles need some cartilage or bone to stick.
Which one do you think would form first? Muscles?

Or to make it easier for you, whenever a tall building is constructed,
what is made first? The foundation and the superstructure, right? And
around it everything else is built. Why not take a look at Moore's book
about this issue? He gives a great deal of detail on this issue.

> reference to this all happening within the same forty day period. A
> great amount of reinterpretation has to be employed just to wrench out
> an understanding that is more palatable to those who advocate this
> approach. The reality, of course, is that the clear and logical
> understanding of the hadith is as a reference to three different forty
> day periods, and only those who have an emotional investment in the
> later ad-hoc interpretation of a single period of forty days would
> think otherwise.

Again if you would bother to read the works of Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Hajar
and al-Zamakhlani, they all agree that that stages of nutfah, alaqah and
mudghah occur during the first 40 days. This issue has been taken care of
long time ago. I do not have time to go through it now as I am terrily
busy at work as well as home. We will take care of it some other time,
insha'allah.

Wassalam
Saifullah

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 19, 2003, 7:32:05 PM3/19/03

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

The issue in this post is about the Qur'anic ayah 12-16 of Surah
al-Mu'minoon. In particular we are interested in the issue of alaqah and
how allegedly Aristole was able to see such a small embryo.

"We (God) created man from a quintessence of clay (teen). We then
(thumma) placed him as a nutfah (drop) in a place of settlement, firmly
fixed, then (thumma) We made the drop into an alaqah (leech-like
structure)...."

There are several issues involved here. The first and foremost would be
what exactly did Aristotle see and how. Unless this issue is addressed
there is no point wandering into other matters.

We have to put things in perspective. Keith Moore is a learned man and a
well-known authority in this field. In the introduction to his book "The
Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With Islamic Additions"
[3rd Edition, 1983}, Moore says:

"For the past three years, I have worked with the Embryology Committee of
King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helping them interpret
the many statements in the Quran and Sunnah referring to human
reproduction and prenatal development." [p. viii c]

It was not just Moore who was involved in this project, there were others
too. Interviews and discussions were also held with a number of
internationally eminent embryologists, obstetricians and gynaecologists
and some of the discussions have also appeared in conference proceedings.

To me this post is rather strange and surprising because it first starts
off with cheap excuses and then enters into the issue of Aristotle.

> small. Regardless, all of this was said in an environment where the
> scientists did not necessarily feel the need to say things they
> actually believed. In light of the fact that some of these men did not
> embrace Islam, were paid cash, and even later ridiculed the
> methodology in a Wall Street Journal article, makes all of this quite
> suspect. As I already noted, this may sound like I am poisoning the
> well, so I am going to now offer that we consider more serious
> sources.

So, here comes the cheapest of all excuses. Wall Street Journal article
ridicules the methodology or the men did not embrace Islam or they were
paid in cash for their work. How much was the cash, btw? Since you seem
to have this know-it-all attitude please present some evidence to back up
your claim. We need to know what is the truth just as everybody else. And
since when Wall Street Journal has become an authority on the issue of
history of science?

> Now, as I have written previously in this thread, I recommend readers
> consider this text book, particularly pages 5 and 545 for measurements
> of the embryo. Note that on either page, we can see the embryo as
> early as 18 days, and Moore lists it as being 1.5 millimeters. Common
> sense would tell us that by this point it is visible to the human eye,
> but Dr. Saifullaah (and particularly Nadir) don't think so. Well, if
> you look underneath the drawing, there is an arrow pointing to a much
> smaller replica of the drawing and a caption that reads "INDICATES
> ACTUAL SIZE"!!! So readers can see for themselves how visible the
> object is, and I can see it from quite far away.

As an electron microscopist, I can say that 1.5 mm is visible to common
eye. But again what we have to know is where would a person look for such
an object which is reddish-pink in colour on a pinkish background. It is
not about knowing how large is the object, it is about knowing where to
look for it and whether what is seen is the correct thing. I consulted a
guy at the University who works in the field of human reproduction (more
precisely, contraceptives) about the issue of locating the earliest
embryo. He said even with endoscopic methods, it is hard to locate an
embryo that is 2.0 mm across. Further, even if this is found, Moore has
already commented on this issue that without a microscope you can't see
the details of this embryo.

> We're not talking about some conference where scientists were paid
> thousands of dollars to give credibility to things they did not
> believe - we're talking about a serious textbook. So please, this
> should put to rest any claim about a need for microscopes.

Obviously, we expect you to produce the evidence that thousands of dollars
were paid to give credibility to things that they did not believe in. Do
you have the receipts or bank transfer applications as an evidence?
Please show it to us.

Further, you show to us any picture that is acquired without an optical
microscope of an embryo that is 1.5 mm long and that clearly shows the
presence of primtive heart and blood vessels. Unless you show this one
too, your claim is as good as your statement.

> First of all, Dr. Saifullaah is wrong about what can be clearly
> observed at birth. Note that Aristotle correctly wrote that the veins
> of the umbilical cord are connected to the heart, and while this is
> true in early development, they are NOT connected to the heart when
> the baby is born, thus we have an implication of timeframe. Moore
> writes that "[a]s the liver develops, the umbilical veins lose their
> connection with the heart and empty into the liver" (Moore, opere
> citato, p. 351). Now, if we turn in Moore's text book to pages
> 278-279, we find out that the liver begins to develop in the fourth
> week, and blood flows into it from the fifth to tenth weeks. So
> Aristotle's reference to the umbilical cord veins being connected to
> the heart is both correct, and an obvious reference to development
> around the fourth week and earlier.

If Aristotle can see the embryo and describe the structure of umblical
cord, Dajjal can do it too. This is the basic point. This guy has claimed
that he has read the work of Aristotle but his writing does not reflect
any basic understanding of the work which Aristotle did. To put everything
in perspective, first of all, what we need to do is know what exactly
Aristotle did to reach his conclusions. Did he dissect human embryos or
did he dissect something else? Needham says:

"There is no doubt that he (i.e., Aristotle) diligently followed the
advice of the author of Hippocratic treatise on generation and opened
fowl's eggs at different stages during their development, but he learnt
much more than the unknown Hippocratic embryologist did from them. It is
also clear that he dissected and examined all kinds of animal embryos,
mammalina and cold-blooded. The uncertain point is whether he also
dissected the human embryo. He refers in one certain place to an "aborted
embryo", and as he was able to obtain easily all kinds of animal embryos
without waiting for the case of abortion, it is likely that this was a
human embryo." [J. Needham, "A History of Embryology, 1959, Cambridge at
the University Press, p. 38-39]

Moore also states that:

"[A]ristotle wrote a treatise on embryology in which he described
development of the chick and other embryos. Aristotle is regarded as the
Founder of Embryology, despite the fact that he promoted the idea that the
mebryo developed from a formless mass, which he described as a "less fully
concocted seed with nutritive soul and all bodily parts." The embryo, he
thought, arose from menstrual blood after activated by male semen" [Moore
et al., "The Developing Human", 6th Edition, 1998, pp. 9-10]

To put the record straight, Aristotle's observation, as we have seen was
not of that of human embryo. He uses the example of well-developed animal
embryos to describe the structure of umblical cord and the blood vessels
in it. So, if Dajjal claims that indeed the structure of early human
embryo at alaqah stage can be seen, he should have a used an example of an
early study of human embryo. Strangely enough he uses Aristotle who
has used animals, where progress of an embryo's can be made, and used
it to show how human embryo develops. He hoped that nobody would be able
to check it out. Now the truth is out! Aristotle's observation was not
based on human embryo; rather it was based on animal embryos that were
reasonably well developed.

Further, if we compare the alaqah stage and the stage mentioned by
Aristotle what do we see? Dajjal's claim is that Aristotle could see the
structure of umblical cord along with the blood vessels running from heart
and liver. He also said that the embryo at 18 days is about 1.5 mm
and can be seen with naked eye. Let us do a small mathematical analysis.
An unaided normal human eye has a resolving power of 0.1 mm at best (and
at worst it can be 1 mm or more if there is a sight problem and
astigmatism!). The components of Alaqah stage that also include a network
of arteries and veins and a developing heart and they would have much
smaller structure than this. The network of arteries and veins in diagram
4-12 in Moore's book would be unresolvable by a human eye. Obviously this
can not what Aristotle has seen! Also check "Color Atlas of Clinical
Embryology" by Moore et al., 1994, pp. 14-15 for a 19 day embryo. This has
an actual size of about 2.0 mm. If I were to see the neural grove running
along the embryo that is about 4 mm across, as shown in the picture, this
would be less than 0.1 mm in the embryo, much below the resolution limit
of unaided human eye.

> 278-279, we find out that the liver begins to develop in the fourth
> week, and blood flows into it from the fifth to tenth weeks. So
> Aristotle's reference to the umbilical cord veins being connected to
> the heart is both correct, and an obvious reference to development
> around the fourth week and earlier.

The alaqah stage ends around 24 days according to Moore and this would
mean it is about 3.5 weeks. Liver would have only just about starting to
appear. Since the Alaqah stage is about 2.0 mm at this time and can appear
visible to an unaided eye, we would still not be able to see a primitive
heart and a liver just about starting to appear *inside* the embryo. As we
have mentioned earlier, such small structures are impossible to see with
an unaided eye and they require an optical microscope.

Comparing to stage with what does Aristotle wrote we see that Aristotle
mentions about various kinds of umblicus that are seen in animals, some of
them having one blood vessel and others "more numerous" [p. 197].
Obviously, Aristotle's observations are different from what we see in the
humans.

By the way, where does Aristotle mentions the phrase "umbilical cord
veins" in his writings? Please document it for all of us to see. Further,
around the fourth week and earlier we only have a primitive heart and
liver just about appearing in a structure that is about 2.0 mm.
Hence Aristotle could not have made an "obvious reference" to it.

> or not? I think ultimately this is irrelevant - the point is that the
> implication here is that he knew what was going on in the fourth week.
> Of course, Dr. Saifullaah disputes this when he writes the following:

We have already shown to you that Aristotle's experiment were not based on
humans, they were based on animals. So, you have refuted your own
position. Hence we go for a big snip.

> From the conjugation of blood an 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."
> [Moore, opere citato, p. 9]

<snip>

> "The most complete and scientific statement in regard to embryology is
> to be found in Garbha 3,4. One night after coition, a little lump is
> formed (in the womb). In seven nights a bubble, in half a month a
> ball."
> [George William Brown, "The Human Body in the Upanishads," (Christian
> Mission Press, 1921), p. 184]

I do not see anything "scientific" here. Do you want us to believe that
embryo is formed by conjugation of blood and semen? And that the embryo
formed this way becomes a bubble? LOL. What happened to your
"commonsense" now? Stopped working?

> Ball, spherical mass, whatever. I'm not sure what "3,4" signifies
> (i.e. if these are chapter, verse, or stanza numbers), because the
> only full translation I saw just had text. Regardless, at 14-15 days
> (and we know for a fact that it means 14-15 days because the text says
> so itself, which is not the case with the Qur'an) the embryo is a
> little over .5 millimeters (a little bigger than a grain of salt), and
> is indeed a spherical mass, thus we have an indication of how capable
> ancient man might have been with regard to observing the embryo. All

If the ancients were so much capable that they could "see" the ball of
cells about 0.5 mm but what they could not find was an ovum that is about
0.14 mm across. Instead they claimed that this ball of cells originated
from conjugation of blood and semen! How interesting and "scientific"?!!

> of the above should serve as a heavy-enough blow to this version of
> the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an.

Perhaps you are talking about your methodology of using Aristotle who used
animals in his experiments and bringing it in as if he did the work on
humans. And you also thought we did not know how to cross-check. Sure, we
have just given a deathly blow to such a scientific-hermeneutic approach
of yours.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/embryo.htm

Denis Giron

unread,

Mar 19, 2003, 8:42:29 PM3/19/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03030...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

I already responded to this post back on March 10th, but more has come
up, and thus I wanted to contribute a little extra. In my previous
post I noted that I had not read Hippocrates or Galen. Well, while I
have still not read the writings of the former, in the last week I
have started looking into texts authored by the latter. I can now
(re)consider Dr. Saifullaah's claim about the Qur'an not being similar
to Galen.

Quickly, regarding TVN Persaud, Dr. Saifullaah's mention of him in
this instance is not relevant. It does not follow automatically that
because Dr. Persaud failed to mention certain things (assuming he did,
I have not considered his book yet), that these things aren't worth
consideration. I'm sure Dr. Saifullaah knew that such ex-silentio
argumentation is a wee bit fallacious.

Regarding similarities between Galen and the Qur'an, Dr. Saifullaah
knows very well that they exist, as they have come up in a debate
between his site and Jochen Katz' "missionary" site. I only became
aware of this exchange between Dr. Saifullaah's site and Katz' site in
the last couple of days, but I'm Dr. Saifullaah has been aware of it
for years! Consider the following article from Katz' site:

It is a response to the following article by Elias Kareem that has
been on Dr. Saifullaah's site for almost four years:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/Embryo/BiblecopyGreek.html

This exchange started with an article on the old (and now defunct)
debate.org.uk site that claimed the Qur'an plagiarized the works of
Galen. I'm not going to defend any claims of plagiarism in the Qur'an
here, but it should be noted that this claim of plagiarism (however
erroneous) rose from two facts: (1) Galen predates the Qur'an, and (2)
the Qur'an is very similar to the writings of Galen, particularly his
two-book work "Peri Spermatos" (Latin: "De Semine"), or "On Semen".
The second point was seemingly taken for granted by Dr. Saifullaah's
site for the last four years, yet now Dr. Saifullaah denies it.
Examining this point may shed some light on the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an on embryology.

Jochen Katz' Answering-Islam site called to witness Basim F.
Musallam's book "Sex and Society in Islam," (Cambridge, 1983), but
only cited a small portion. I read through the work, and now I'd like
to quote a slightly larger portion of the text in order to raise some
points about whether or not there are similarities between Galen and
the Qur'an. We enter the text during a discussion on Soorat al-Hajj
22:5 and Soorat al-Moominoon 23:13-14:

"[Soorat al-Hajj 22:5 and Soorat al-Moominoon 23:13-14] describe the
first three stages of the foetus. The first stage of development, a
period of forty days from conception, is the nutfa (semen). The
second, also lasting forty days, is the 'alaqa ("blood-like clot").
And the third, another forty days, is the mudgha ("lump of flesh"). In
these three early stages the foetus lacks the human soul and has only
the life of plants and animals. But at the end of 120 days from
conception, the foetus is ensouled. [...] The division of these stages
into forty-day periods is not Quranic, but first occurs in the hadith:

The Prophet said: Each of you is constituted in your
mother's womb for forty days as a nutfa, then it
becomes a [sic] 'alaqa for an equal period, then a
mudgha for another equal period, then the angle is
sent and he breathes the sould into it.

The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for
believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account. In De
Semine, for example, Galen spoke of four periods in the formation of
the embryo: (1) as seminal matter; (2) as a bloody form (still without
flesh, in which the primitive heart, liver, and brain are
ill-defined); (3) the foetus acquires flesh and solidity (the heart,
liver, and brain are well-defined, and the limbs begin formation); and
finally (4) all the organs attain their full perfection and the foetus
is quickened. There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this
agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed
the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages: (as in Ibn
Sina's account of Galen): nutfa for the first, 'alaqa for the second,
"unformed" mudgha for the third, and "formed" mudgha for the fourth."
[Basim F. Musallam, "Sex and Society in Islam," (Cambridge, 1983), p.
54]

So, to begin, if you want similarities between Galen and the Qur'an,
consider Ibn Sina, "Kitaab al-Qaanoon fee al-Tibb," (Dar al-Sadir, no
date), Vol.2, p. 558. We should note that there were several Muslims
who saw the Qur'an as being in perfect harmony with Galen, yet now
those who want to push this new incarnation of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to Qur'anic embryology claim that
"[t]here is really nothing that is similar[.]" How is that to some the
Qur'an is saying the same things Galen said, yet for others there is
nothing similar?

This discrepancy alone should lend support to the belief that maybe
the Qur'an is not very clear regarding its stance on embryology, as
what it says to some Muslims contradicts what it says to others. If
there is room for such wide exegetical discordance, one cannot claim
that the text is obviously/clearly referring to XYZ. If such a claim
were true, surely someone would have noticed this reference before the
20th century.

Another possibility, of course, is the one alluded to (though not
harped on enough) by the Answering-Islam team: the Qur'an is basically
saying the same thing that Galen said before it, and these more recent
(and contrary) forms of exegesis are nothing more than an instance of
post-hoc retrofitting. I would now like to consider some of the
similarities between Galen and the Qur'an (again, I am not doing this
to support claims of plagiarism).

(1) Soorat al-Moominoon 23:13 begins with "ja'alnaahu nutfatan fee
qaraarin makeenin," or "we placed him as a drop (of semen) in a safe
lodging." If this is a reference to semen (or a mixture of semen and
the female contribution) settling in the uterus, this was certainly
realized by both Galen and Aristotle.

(2) Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14 begins with "thumma khalaqnaa al-nutfata
alaqatan," or "then we formed the sperm into a blood clot." First note
that all this talk of "leech" and "thing that clings" is something the
proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach have tried to find
in the text since it was later realized that such statements can also
be derived from the word "alaqa," and can be made to fit with later
discoveries (in a rather loose fashion). However, years prior many
understood this as simply a blood clot, or a mass of blood, and indeed
since alaqa can mean "blood clot" or "congealed blood," it is possible
that this is all that was meant.

I would like to note two different porions of Galen's text. First,
Galen mocked Aristotle's notion that the semen was not a major
contribution to the process of reproduction, and also that it
"evaporates" inside the womb. Galen observed that at one point you
have semen, and the next you have a blood clot (like the Quranic
description above), and if Aristotle was right the baby forms only
from the blood clot, which Galen found absurd. Galen wrote:

"Whatever blood escapes from the vessels into any hollow organ at all
in the animal immediately becomes a clot. So we shall by this
reasoning fashion the animal not from blood but from a clot; and we
shall be unable to find any plausible explanation why it is that the
semen alone will be expelled. For once they have come together to the
same place in the open space of the uterus, it is not possible for the
one to be expelled and the other to remain."
[Galen, De Semine, Book I, 4, 14-16, as per Phillip de Lacy
(ed./trans.), "Galen: On Semen," Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, V,3,1,
(Akademie Verlag, 1992), pp. 73-75]

So, as we can see, Galen observed a transition from "semen" (nutfa) to
"blood" or "blood clot" (alaqa), which are the exact stages mentioned
in the Qur'anic verse cited above. To give another example of this,
consider also the following:

"But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of
the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, 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
dissections, the form of the semen prevails. At this time, Hippocrates
too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the
animal a fetus; 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, 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."
[Galen, De Semine, Book I, 9, 1-4, as per de Lacy, opere citato, p.
93]

(3) Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14 then continues with "fakhalaqnaa
al-alaqata mudhghatan," or "then we formed the blood clot into a lump
of flesh." It should be wondered why in Ibn Sina and others, as noted
above, there is an "unformed" mudhgha stage, and a "formed" one.
Doesn't mudhgha mean "chewed lump," and the chewed appearance is part
of its form? The reality is that mudhgha can mean chewed lump, but
does not have to. I checked Rohi Baalbaki, al-Mawrid, (Dar el-Ilm
Lilmalayin, 1988), p. 1058, and found that mudhgha can also mean
morsel, bite, bit, something for chewing, something to be chewed. So
it does not have to have been chewed yet, but just a little bite-size
morsel... a little lump or bit. As was noted above, even in Arabic
translations of Galen, this is referred to as the "mudhgha" stage.

(4) Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14 then covers some ground that also agrees
with Galen, but the Answering-Islam team never seemed to touch on. The
text reads "fakhalaqnaa al-mudhghata izhamaan, fakasawnaa al-izhama
lahmaan," or "then we formed the lump into bones, then we clothed the
bones with flesh." As has been noted elsewhere, the idea of bones
forming before flesh seems like an error, but regardless of whether it
is true or not, it certainly was an idea held by Galen. Consider the
following:

"Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the
same time, sucking the fattest part out of them, it made them earthy
and brittle and completely without fat; and causing the viscous matter
that it drew from them in each case to grow out, 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. [...] But where
(nature) caused flesh to grow on the bones themselves before it
covered them with membranes, all such bones were less brittle."
[Galen, De Semine, Book I, 10, 13-16, as per de Lacy, opere citato,
pp. 101-103]

So, with all of the above now laid out, I think we have a good case
for disputing Dr. Saifullaah's claim that there is "really nothing
that is similar" between Galen and the Qur'an.

-Denis Giron

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 20, 2003, 2:29:15 PM3/20/03

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> post I noted that I had not read Hippocrates or Galen. Well, while I

I am saving Galen and the Qur'an for a later day, insha'allah. Why not
complete the issues one by one with Aristotle leading the way?

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.HPX.4.33L.0303171156260.1337-100000%40club.eng.cam.ac.uk

Denis Giron

unread,

Mar 21, 2003, 6:52:55 PM3/21/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03031...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
> ...

I will be responding to two posts from Dr. Saifullaah in this reply.
Both articles from Dr. Saifullaah are from March 19, and the first I
will be responding to has been archived by google here:

> The Qur'anic description is morphological. Around this time,
> cartilaginous bone formation is the most prominent event
> during this phase. So, it is not about liberal and arbitrary
> application of the scientific-hermeneutic approach

So Dr. Saifullaah claims, but he does not answer the original question
I asked. To recap, Dr. Saifullaah's interpretation of Soorat
al-Moominoon 23:14 had "fakhalaqnaa al-alaqata mudhghatan" being a
reference to the alaqa rapidly turning into a mudhgha. My question
was, does this mean that "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" means that X becomes a Y?
The above suddenly implies it does not, as now Dr. Saifullaah has a
different instance of "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" meaning that a precursor to Y
(but not Y) forms inside of X. Dr. Saifullaah claims this form of
exegesis is neither liberal nor arbitrary, yet he again fails to
explain why we should believe that in a single sentence, one instance
of "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" means X becomes Y, but another instance of
"fakhalaqnaa X,Y" means a precursor to Y forms inside of X. What
possible reason could Dr. Saifullaah have other than the fact that
such methodology suits his own purposes?

So, with Soorat al-Moominoon 23:13-14 and Soorat al-Hajj 22:5, what is
said is that first there is a drop, then a clot, then bones, then
flesh covering those bones. There is no mention of flesh of any sort
before the mentioning of bones. This should be kept in mind when we
talk about the Qur'an's amazing accuracy.

Moving on, Dr. Saifullaah makes an analogy to a building, but we're
not talking about buildings; rather we're discussing human beings.
Furthermore, are we discussing bone, or are we discussing caritlage?
Does Dr. Saifullaah know that the two are not synonymous? How can we
have a discussion on what the Qur'an really says if 'X' does not have
to mean 'X'?

Let me think back February 10th, when in this same thread Dr.
Saifullaah and I were discussing Soorat an-Nahl 16:15. It was on that
day that Dr. Saifullaah objected that the verse did not employ the
word zalzalah, the Arabic word for earthquake, even though the
min-yaa-daal root (which was employed) means to quake/shake. So I'm
going to use the same method with bone and cartilage (since this is
the way Dr. Saifullaah likes to approach to the Qur'an). The Qur'an
refers to izham (bones), not ghudhroof (cartilage), and it says these
BONES were clothed with lahm (flesh), not adhala (muscle).

> Again if you would bother to read the works of Ibn
> al-Qayyim, Ibn Hajar and al-Zamakhlani, they all agree
> that that stages of nutfah, alaqah and mudghah occur
> during the first 40 days.

Well, I have yet to consult the texts of Ibn Qayyim and Ibn Hajar
directly, and I actually know nothing whatsoever about al-Zamakhlani.
Maybe Dr. Saifullaah can offer some exact quotes? Like maybe whip out
Ibn Hajar's Fath al-Baaree bi Sharh al-Bukhaaree and give an exact
citation? I'm not saying Dr. Saifullaah is lying, but surely he
himself prefers that people actually cite texts rather than just claim
certain things.

Regarding Ibn Qayyim, while I have not consulted his texts yet, I
would like to note what Basim Musallam wrote regarding his Tibyaan.
Summarizing and quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, "al-Tibyaan fee Aqsaam
al-Qur'aan," (1st ed., Cairo, 1933), p. 337, Musallam wrote the
following:

"Basing his [i.e. Ibn Qayyim's] opinion - an absolutely common Islamic
opinion - on the hadith's timing of foetal development, he says that
the foetus is ensouled and becomes human 'in the fourth of the forty
day periods, after 120 days.'"

[Basim F. Musallam, "Sex and Society in Islam," (Cambridge, 1983), p.
54]

So what we see is that while Ibn Qayyim did (in the same work) discuss
the development of the foetus over 40 days (and by the way he too may
have observed the heart and liver in the first 27 days, describing
them as "dots"), and tried to reconcile the Qur'an with Galen and
Hippocrates, he himself seemed to acknowledge that the ahaadeeth are
referring to three forty day periods!

Okay, now on to Dr. Saifullaah's other post, which has been archived
by google here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.HPX.4.33L.0303181030260.25416-100000%40club.eng.cam.ac.uk

> It was not just Moore who was involved in this project,
> there were others too.

That is fine. The issue here is that Moore is the name most cited, yet
it seems to be the case that he himself did not embrace Islam after
pointing out this knowledge that could only have come from a divine
source. That seems to me to imply that maybe Moore doesn't really
believe that the text gives one no choice but to conclude the Qur'an
is divine (like the question asked in the title of this thread).

> Obviously, we expect you to produce the evidence that thousands of dollars
> were paid to give credibility to things that they did not believe in. Do
> you have the receipts or bank transfer applications as an evidence?
> Please show it to us.

Ummm, I never claimed to have bank statements or receipts. I defer to
the Wall Street Journal article which notes that each individual was
given a thousand dollar honorarium just for attending a conference. So
that's a thousand dollars right there, not including other conferences
or even the gifts from wealthy benefactors (like Usaama bin Ladin). As
for your question about the Wall Street Journal becoming "an authority
on the issue of history of science," I never made any such claim. The
issue here is that the article reveals that the it-is-truth style
presentations (including the one on your site) offer statements taken
out of context, statements some of these men don't really believe, et
cetera. One of the scientists called to witness on your site described
such conferences as situations involving "mutual manipulation."

> As an electron microscopist, I can say that 1.5 mm is visible to common
> eye. But again what we have to know is where would a person look for such
> an object which is reddish-pink in colour on a pinkish background.

You're assuming that the only way to see such a thing is while it is
still in the womb. Well, what about aborted foetuses? Who knows what
other methods were available! And by the way, readers wont have to
defer to eminent microscopists from the engineering department at
Cambridge; they can just pick up Moore's textbook and see that he has
drawings indicating the actual sizes.

> Moore has already commented on this issue that without a
> microscope you can't see the details of this embryo.

Details? What details? Details like the heart forming before the lungs
and liver? When we're discussing the Qur'an, no such details are
given. The reality is that the text only says "drop," "clot," "lump,"
et cetera... no details are given. The "details" that Dr. Saifullaah
is thinking of are the ones that are imposed on the text in
interpretations that have come fourteen centuries after the text was
written.

> Further, you show to us any picture that is acquired without an optical
> microscope of an embryo that is 1.5 mm long and that clearly shows the
> presence of primtive heart and blood vessels.

I think Dr. Saifullaah has capitalized on the fact that I put a great
amount of emphasis on the notion of what is observable. Aristotle
claimed to have observed the heart form before the lungs and liver,
and that is exactly what happens, so I believe him when he states that
he observed such. Of course such knowledge could also be acquired
without direct observation, and that too is important as THE REAL
ISSUE in this discussion is what people knew before the Qur'an.

> Did [Aristotle] dissect human embryos or

> did he dissect something else? Needham says:

[... snip quotations ...]

> To put the record straight, Aristotle's observation, as we have seen was
> not of that of human embryo. He uses the example of well-developed animal
> embryos to describe the structure of umblical cord and the blood vessels
> in it.

Hold on a second here. It is true that Aristotle observed animals, but
he may have also observed aborted foetuses (and Galen and Hipocrates
certainly did). Your texts did not rule out the observation of aborted
foetuses; rather it only noted that such conclusions can be reached
without the observation of human foetuses. Also note that Aristotle
made vague reference to "the Anatomies" or "Anotomical Drawings," so
that too may have been another source.

Regardless, Dr. Saifullaah wants to rule out observing a human foetus
directly. Would he like me to concede on that point? Fine, I will for
now. Suppose Aristotle only worked with animals. Nonetheless, when
discussing viviparous production, it is taken for granted (unless
otherwise noted) that what happens in one animal, happens in another.
The quotes from Aristotle that I have called to witness are true of
many mammals (if not all). So when Aristotle says XYZ takes place, he
means in humans (he also means in pigs, dogs, cats, but in humans
nonetheless). Is Dr. Saifullaah saying that it is perfectly sensible
to know about early development in a pig, but impossible to know such
things about a human being?

Let's use the umbilical cord, and heart and lung issues. Aristotle
says the heart forms before the lungs, and he is correct. If the
Qur'an said such (or even if it was vague and said "we form the heart
and lungs"), proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach would
jump on it and cite it as a scientific miracle. Note that when
advocates of this methodology interpret the Qur'an, they determine the
dates (which are NOT mentioned in the Qur'an) by seeing if they can
impose the stage on a rough area that has something similar to their
interpretation going on.

So, since the heart forms in the third week, and the lungs in the
fourth, if the Qur'an said "we form the heart and lungs," this would
be treated as chronological, and an obvious reference to development
in the third and fourth weeks, and we'd hear about how you need a
microscope to know such things, et cetera. This is how this
methodology works. However, when Aristotle states that the heart forms
before the lungs and liver, the same praise is not granted him.

Dr. Saifullaah wants to wonder about how Aristotle reached his
conclusions, yet we are never given any clue how the author of the
Qur'an reached their conclusions. It is assumed a priori that the text
is from God, and that no human could have known such things, and this
assumption taints the view of those in this discussion. With what Dr.
Saifullaah has brought to the table, we realize that such amazingly
accurate conclusions as the heart forming before the lungs/liver, and
the umbilical cord originally being attached to the heart, can be
reached without the usage of microscopes, and even without the use of
direct observation of the human foetus!

If it is true that statements accurately describing processes that
happen in the third and fourth weeks can be achieved without
microscopes and direct observation of a human foetus, then brining up
the point that the author of the Qur'an did not have a microscope is
irrelevant! Think about how duplicitous it is to say that no human
could ever have said drop, clot, lump, bones (even though Galen said
something similar), yet it is understandable that a person could
describe the order in which the organs develop!

> Dajjal's claim is that Aristotle could see the
> structure of umblical cord along with the blood vessels running from heart
> and liver. He also said that the embryo at 18 days is about 1.5 mm
> and can be seen with naked eye.

Ah, but I never said that Aristotle observed the embryo at 18 days.
The time of 18 days was brought up to meet Nadir's comments about
sizes of the embryo. I noted that the embryo is 2mm at 24 days, and he
tried to refute this by brining up a site that puts the embryo at 15
days at 0.6mm... I merely mentioned 18 days to show the chronological
growth between 15 and 24 days.

Now, regarding Aristotle and the umbilical cord, do you want me to
accept that maybe he did not observe this directly in a human embryo?
Sure, I will, fine. We realize, nonetheless, that such accurate
descriptions can be reached without observing the embryo directly!

> Since the Alaqah stage is about 2.0 mm at this time and can appear
> visible to an unaided eye, we would still not be able to see a primitive
> heart and a liver just about starting to appear *inside* the embryo.

As I understand it, Ibn Qayyim observed the heart, liver and brain in
the first 27 days. Basim Musallam translates and summarizes it as
follows: "as it grows, a spot appears in the middle, and that is the
place of the heart[, a]nother appears above it, and that is the spot
of the brain, and one to the right the liver spot" [Musallam, opere
citato, p. 55]. Now, the dates are a little hard for me to accept, so
maybe he just means that's where they'll be, but this seems to imply
that he observed such things. And surely the embryo is not exactly
opaque. Furthermore, as has been stated above, even if I were to
concede that such things cannot be observed in a developing human
being, we now know that this is not the only method (as the claim is
accurate nonetheless), thus asking how the author of the Qur'an did it
without a microscpoe seems like a non-sequitor.

> By the way, where does Aristotle mentions the phrase "umbilical cord
> veins" in his writings?

I mean the vessels that carry blood through the umbilical cord to and
from the heart. Would you prefer I not use the word veins? For
reference, Aristotle writes the following:

Barnes, "The Complete Works of Aristotle," Vol 1, (Princeton, 1985),
p. 1149.]

It is later, in 745b20ff (Barnes, p. 1157) that he comments on the
number of blood vessels inside different animals varying based on
their size.

> We have already shown to you that Aristotle's experiment were not based on
> humans,

You never showed such. It was only showed that he used methods other
than humans, and that may have been sufficient enough. Regardless, as
you should have realized by now, I am more than willing, nonetheless,
to concede to such a belief for the sake of argument in this
discussion on the Qur'an.

Regarding the Qur'an vs the Garbha Upanishad...

> I do not see anything "scientific" here. Do you want us to believe that
> embryo is formed by conjugation of blood and semen? And that the embryo
> formed this way becomes a bubble?

Uhhh, first, I am not claiming that the Garbha Upanishad (or Galen,
Aristotle, et cetera) is 100% accurate. Regarding the mixture of blood
and semen, this is debated in the Talmud, as some believe the female
contribution is menstrual blood, while others think it is only "the
purest part" (tractate Niddah I believe). The Qur'an doesn't seem to
say otherwise. On the contrary it just says drop, and then blood.
Maybe the egg looks a little bloody, who knows... The issue was
regarding the spherical mass at 14 days, which visibly agrees with
Moore's depiction.

Furthermore, the word "bubble" is translated as "vesicle" in Moore's
textbook, and is claimed to be at about a week old. Note that Ibn
Qayyim described the embryo at this point as being "spherical" (like a
bubble?), and both Galen and Hippocrates claimed to have observed
aborted foetuses from about six days that they described as the semen
enveloped in a yolk-like membrane. Maybe vesicle, bubble, spherical,
yolk, membrane, all being claimed to be around the end of the first
week, is a reference to the blastocyst.

In the end, this has been fun, and I look forward to your next
contribution to this discussion on whether or not the Qur'an makes
statements about embryology that are so accurate that we have no
choice but to conclude that they are from a divine source.

-Denis Giron

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 28, 2003, 10:54:23 PM3/28/03

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

We will first concentrate on the issue of Aristotle and the claim that
whatever the Qur'an says can easily be seen with an unaided eye. In other
words, if Aristotle can see it then anybody else can see it too.

> Ummm, I never claimed to have bank statements or receipts. I defer to
> the Wall Street Journal article which notes that each individual was
> given a thousand dollar honorarium just for attending a conference. So
> that's a thousand dollars right there, not including other conferences
> or even the gifts from wealthy benefactors (like Usaama bin Ladin). As

The Wall Street Journal article does not "note" that each of the
guys wwere given a thousand dollar honorarium. Rather it makes a
statement with no evidence. You need much more education than these basic
things. In the conferences, the invited speakers and guests are provided
the first-class or business class return fare to attend, a very good
accomodation, pick up serevice from the airport and dropping them back as
well as expenses such as food. I can vouch for this because I have
attended conferences where I was an invited speaker. I was provided the
airfare, picked up from the airport and taken to my hotel (everything
paid, of course!) and then dropped back to the airport after the end of
conference. The invited apeakers are also given gifts either as cheques or
as an item. It is *very* common. Everybody who goes to conferences
frequently knows these things happen. We do not feel anything like a
scandal just as Wall Street Journal has.

> You're assuming that the only way to see such a thing is while it is
> still in the womb. Well, what about aborted foetuses? Who knows what
> other methods were available! And by the way, readers wont have to
> defer to eminent microscopists from the engineering department at
> Cambridge; they can just pick up Moore's textbook and see that he has
> drawings indicating the actual sizes.

What about the aborted foetuses? What about them? Please tell us more. We
are eager to hear what you have say about how their age can be known since
the day of conception.

> > Moore has already commented on this issue that without a
> > microscope you can't see the details of this embryo.
>
> Details? What details? Details like the heart forming before the lungs
> and liver? When we're discussing the Qur'an, no such details are
> given. The reality is that the text only says "drop," "clot," "lump,"
> et cetera... no details are given. The "details" that Dr. Saifullaah
> is thinking of are the ones that are imposed on the text in
> interpretations that have come fourteen centuries after the text was
> written.

So, the attack now comes as the best for of defence. Obviously, Dajjal
knows very well that Aristotle saw the heart, liver and blood vessels in
his embryology based on animals. Dajjal claimed that if Aristotle could
see it then Dajjal can see it too. He assumed that we will not be able
to check out what was being hidden behind the smoke-screen. And now all of
sudden the very mention of word "details" sends him into a state of frenzy
and panic. Instead of arguing his case for Aristotle, he now attacks and
shells cheap excuses by claiming that the interpretation was imposed on
the words like "nutfah", "alaqah", etc. some 1400 hundred years ago after
the text was written.

This guy had been claiming that the Qur'an was written late and was a
product of multiple hands. All of a sudden in order to give credence to
his argument he now jumps into the traditional bandwagon that says that
the text of written some 1400 years. A clear inconsistency. Further, his
claim of "imposed" interepretation is laughable. To refute this one should
point out the embryology committee used the Arabic language dictionaries
mentioned below as well as the books of tafseer, explanation of hadith,
etc. in their investigation to study the meaning and interpretation of
the words daling with embryology iin the Qur'an and Hadith. This can be
easily verified by checking out the 3rd edition of Moore's book that has
Islamic additions. [pp. 458k-458s]. The dictionaries that were used are
listed:

1. Mu'jam Maqayees al-Lughah, by Abu Al-Husain Ahmad Ibn Zakariya Ibn
Faris (d. 395 AH). Dar al-Kutub al-`ilmiyah, Iran.

2. Al-Sihah Taj al-Lughah wa Sihah al-Arabiah, by Abu Nasr Isma'il Ibn
Hammad al-Jawhary (332-393 AH), Second printing (1399 AH, 1979 AD), Dar
Al-Ilm Lil-Malayeen, Beirut, Lebanon.

3. Al-Mufradat fi Ghareeb Al-Qur'an, by Abu Al-Qasim Husain Ibn Mohammad
Ibn Al-Fadl, known as Ar-Raghib Al-Asfahani, (d. 502 AH), Dar Al-Ma'refah,
Beirut, Lebanon.

4. Lisan Al-'Arab, by Abu Al-Fad; Jamaluddin Mohammad Ibn Makram Ibn 'Ali
Ibn Ahmad Ibn Manzoor (630-711 AH), Dar Sadir Beirut, Lebanon.

5. Taj Al-'Aroos Min Jawahir Al-Qamoos, by Abu Al-Faidh Al-Sayed Mohamnad
Ibn Mohammad Ibn Mohammad Ibn Razzak, widely known as Mortada Al-Zabeedy
(1145-1205 AH), First printing (1306 AH), Cairo.

6. Moghni Al-Labib Min Kutub Al-A'areeb, by Jamaluddin Ibn Hisham
al-Ansari (d. 761AH), First printing (1399 AH, 1979 AD), Dar Nashr
Al-Kutub al-Islamiyah, Lahore, Pakistan.

7. Al-Qamus Al-Muheet by Al-Fayruzabadi.

As one can see none of the above authors are contemporary. And hence the
"imposed" interpetation could not have been made some 1400 years after
the advent of the Qur'an! So, Dajjal, what happened to your much-touted
commonsense? We do not see any of it here anymore.

Furthermore each interpretation was discussed with a number of
contemporary Muslims scholars and specialists in linguistics and exegisis.
This was the Committee's means of ascertaining the religious, linguistic
and exegetical aspects of the study.

> > Further, you show to us any picture that is acquired without an optical
> > microscope of an embryo that is 1.5 mm long and that clearly shows the
> > presence of primtive heart and blood vessels.
>
> I think Dr. Saifullaah has capitalized on the fact that I put a great
> amount of emphasis on the notion of what is observable. Aristotle
> claimed to have observed the heart form before the lungs and liver,
> and that is exactly what happens, so I believe him when he states that
> he observed such. Of course such knowledge could also be acquired
> without direct observation, and that too is important as THE REAL
> ISSUE in this discussion is what people knew before the Qur'an.

Now how can such knowledge be acquired without direct observation? By
mathematics? Or perhaps Aristotle went in a time-warp to get an idea about
of what is written in Moore's book? Kindly enlighten us with you
know-it-all attitude.

As for the REAL ISSUE your argument has been refuted as soon as it was
shown that the knowledge of Aristotle's embryology was by working on
animals not humans.

> > To put the record straight, Aristotle's observation, as we have seen was
> > not of that of human embryo. He uses the example of well-developed animal
> > embryos to describe the structure of umblical cord and the blood vessels
> > in it.
>
> Hold on a second here. It is true that Aristotle observed animals, but
> he may have also observed aborted foetuses (and Galen and Hipocrates
> certainly did). Your texts did not rule out the observation of aborted
> foetuses; rather it only noted that such conclusions can be reached
> without the observation of human foetuses. Also note that Aristotle
> made vague reference to "the Anatomies" or "Anotomical Drawings," so
> that too may have been another source.

We are not interested in "vague" references. What we are interested in is
something that is solid on which you can rest your case. But what we see
is that you still are steeped into your own world of "may be". Is this the
way you argue your point? The texts that I have quoted are unsure about
the issue whether Aristotle observed human embryos. If he indeed did how
old was it?

> Regardless, Dr. Saifullaah wants to rule out observing a human foetus
> directly. Would he like me to concede on that point? Fine, I will for
> now. Suppose Aristotle only worked with animals. Nonetheless, when
> discussing viviparous production, it is taken for granted (unless
> otherwise noted) that what happens in one animal, happens in another.
> The quotes from Aristotle that I have called to witness are true of
> many mammals (if not all). So when Aristotle says XYZ takes place, he
> means in humans (he also means in pigs, dogs, cats, but in humans
> nonetheless). Is Dr. Saifullaah saying that it is perfectly sensible
> to know about early development in a pig, but impossible to know such
> things about a human being?

Well, as soon as you concede the point to me, your case on Aristotle has
collapsed. The simple mathematics for here is simple. We simply multiply
the rest of your arguments based on Aristotle and poorly constructed
rhetoric with zero and the answer is again zero. Obviously, we are not
here to waste your time and our time on useless points when you can't even
show us the basic issue that Aristotle observed the human embryo? We are
least bothered about what happens in the animals whether it is viviparous
or oviparous. Hence, the red-herrings goes for a big snip.

> > By the way, where does Aristotle mentions the phrase "umbilical cord
> > veins" in his writings?
>
> I mean the vessels that carry blood through the umbilical cord to and
> from the heart. Would you prefer I not use the word veins? For
> reference, Aristotle writes the following:

Aha! All the way you have been accusing us of "imposing" an
"interpretation". Now when we ask you to produce where exactly did
Aristotle mention the phrase "umbilical cord veins" in his writings, you
come up with what you "mean". I am sorry, but you have undone your case
again by showing that you do not practise what you preach. And also
that you can't consistently argue about anything without using dubious
interpretation.

> > We have already shown to you that Aristotle's experiment were not based on
> > humans,
>
> You never showed such. It was only showed that he used methods other
> than humans, and that may have been sufficient enough. Regardless, as
> you should have realized by now, I am more than willing, nonetheless,
> to concede to such a belief for the sake of argument in this
> discussion on the Qur'an.

LOL. I like the way you argue when trapped. As I said earlier, the moment
you conceded, your argument was nullified. No matter what excuses you
make, you still are where you are.

> > I do not see anything "scientific" here. Do you want us to believe that
> > embryo is formed by conjugation of blood and semen? And that the embryo
> > formed this way becomes a bubble?
>
> Uhhh, first, I am not claiming that the Garbha Upanishad (or Galen,

But you did quote a guy who was amazed with such an "accuracy" of Garbha
Upanishad when it mentions ball like structure of embryo. Why quote it if
this was not what you meant?

> Aristotle, et cetera) is 100% accurate. Regarding the mixture of blood
> and semen, this is debated in the Talmud, as some believe the female
> contribution is menstrual blood, while others think it is only "the
> purest part" (tractate Niddah I believe). The Qur'an doesn't seem to
> say otherwise. On the contrary it just says drop, and then blood.

If the menstrual blood has contribution in the formation of an embryo, the
Qur'an and hadith does not say it. If you claim it does, then you have to
show it.

> Maybe the egg looks a little bloody, who knows... The issue was
> regarding the spherical mass at 14 days, which visibly agrees with
> Moore's depiction.

Who knows? I thought those learned Pandits who wrote Garbha Upanishad knew
it.

A 14 day embryo only appears as a bulge as it is completely implanted in
the endometrium. Only when a cross-section of it is made, a spherical
structure is visible.

> In the end, this has been fun, and I look forward to your next
> contribution to this discussion on whether or not the Qur'an makes
> statements about embryology that are so accurate that we have no
> choice but to conclude that they are from a divine source.

I look forward to a discussion where less excuses are shelled and more
evidence is presented.

Regards
Saifullah

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dd10d076.0303251143.390651af%40posting.google.com

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Mar 28, 2003, 10:54:29 PM3/28/03

I now have Dr Moore' book and I have taken a look
through it, it appears as if it is possible to physically
view the mudgah stage, but NOT the alaqah stage, therefore,
this remains as an evidence.

Denis Giron

unread,

Mar 31, 2003, 3:24:19 AM3/31/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03032...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
> ...

This is a response to both Nadir Ahmed and Dr. Saifullaah. Nadir's
post can be read here:

Dr. Saifullaah's post can be read here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.HPX.4.33L.0303241059300.2566-100000%40club.eng.cam.ac.uk

I'm lumping these two posts together (and I apologize in advance if
this offends either of these gentlemen) mainly due to the fact that
Nadir's post was very short, and my answer to both will be very
similar (actually the same). Let us begin.

As I understand it, the argument of the scientific hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an on embryology is that the Qur'an makes a number
of statements about the human fetus that could not have been known by
any human being at the time since there were no microscopes, thus the
this knowledge came from the divine (in case Dr. Saifullaah forgot
that this was the subject of the debate, he can consult the title of
this thread). So I understood the argument roughly as follows:

(1) Person X (in this case the author of the Qur'an)
made statement Y.
(2) Statement Y can only be known via observation or
from divine knowledge.
(3) Person X never observed Y (no microscope).
(4) Therefore, person X made statement Y with the
help of divine knowledge.

That was the argument as I understood it. If a person makes a
statement about what is going on in the third and fourth weeks of
embryonic development, either he observed it, or he got his
information from Allaah. Well, I applied that sort of thinking to
Aristotle, and since he didn't get his knowledge from Allaah (while I
have not proven Aristotle was not divinely inspired, I'm sure we can
all assume such), Aristotle reached his conclusions via observation.
But now Dr. Saifullaah notes that Aristotle may have reached his
conclusion via other methods (observing other organisms, et cetera),
and he claims victory when I concede to that point.

Has my argument collapsed? Not really, as the main issue was to
critique the scientific-hermeneutic approach to Qur'anic embryology.
It seems now that one can no longer argue that "the author of the
Qur'an could not of observed such things, thus it came from the
divine." Dr. Saifullaah has given us another avenue: people can reach
accurate descriptions without direct observation and without divine
guidance! The statements I called to witness are accurate nonetheless.
With that, let me respond to Dr. Saifullaah's comments.

> What about the aborted foetuses? What about them?

I raised that as an issue within the context of you wondering where a
person would look for a 2-4mm object which is reddish-pink in colour
on a pinkish background, and then you spoke of endoscopic methods. So
you're still forcing a person to believe that observation has to occur
inside the womb, when Galen, Hippocrates and possibly Aristotle
(according to Needham) talked of observing aborted fetuses. If you can
observe an aborted fetus, it does not have to be against a pink
background, nor do you need to employ endoscopic methods. That was the
only point there - context.

> This guy had been claiming that the Qur'an was written late and was a
> product of multiple hands.

Where have I used the word "late" for the Qur'an? First of all, yes I
do believe (and have argued) that the Qur'an is a work of multiple
hands. In our discussions on Cook and Crone, however, I have said in
the past that I never sought to give evidence that the Qur'an is
"belated" (as Cook and Crone described it), but rather only that it
may have been a work of multiple hands. I never claimed the Qur'an
was belated, and as for my claim that the Qur'an is a work of multiple
hands, even if I am wrong, this does not prove the Qur'anic statements
on embryology are thus true and from a divine origin. So of course, we
see that all of this is irrelevant, as we are here discussing the
Qur'an on embryology, and whether or not men could have come to
certain conclusions about fetal development.

Now, finally we get to the issue of what the Qur'an says, and how it
is interpreted. Dr. Saifullaah cites a number of dictionaries, and
that is great. The issue here is the interpretation pulled together
after Moore. Since Dr. Saifullaah has called to witness these
dictionaries, as well as the committee of contemporary Muslims
scholars and specialists in linguistics and exegisis, maybe NOW he can
answer the question I have asked about what the Qur'an actually says.

So, for the third time, I'm going to ask my question about Soorat
al-Moominoon 23:14. We are, afterall, discussing whether or not the
Qur'an's comments on embryology are from a divine source. Dr.
Saifullaah only wants me to concede that maybe Aristotle did not
observe human embryos directly. Fine, I concede, again. So, can Dr.
Saifullaah finish celebrating this concession and get back to the
discussion?

Dr. Saifullaah made claims about the accuracy of the embryonic
description in the Qur'an, and claimed I was "embarrassed" by the
proper interpretation of Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14, which he claimed
was not arbitrary. The relevant Arabic reads as follows:

fakhalaqnaa al-alaqata mudhghatan,
fakhalaqnaa al-mudhghata izhaaman

then we formed the clot into a morsel,
then we formed the morsel into bones.

With regard to the clot turning into a morsel, Dr. Saifullaah wants us
to understand that as an instance of the 24 day old embryo very
rapidly forming into a 28 day old embryo (the alaqa becomes a
mudhgha), so here "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" means the X quickly turns into a
Y. Then, however, with the morsel turning into bones, Dr. Saifullaah
wants us to understand that as a precursor to bone (cartilage) forming
inside the morsel. So "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" no longer means the X quickly
turns into a Y, but rather that a precursor to the Y (but not the Y)
forms inside of X.

So, Dr. Saifullaah, which is it? If this is not "liberal and
arbitrary," as you claimed, why not explain how we know what
"fakhalaqnaa X,Y" means and when. Is there a set logic to this form of
exegesis, or do you just go along with whatever suits your purpose?
This is a question I am asking for the third time. This question
should be easy to answer since you have the support of the
dictionaries and the committee of scholars, not to mention that the
Qur'an is clearly making accurate scientific statements that no man
could have known.

> Now how can such knowledge be acquired without direct observation? By
> mathematics? Or perhaps Aristotle went in a time-warp to get an idea about
> of what is written in Moore's book?

HA! Dr. Saifullaah misses the irony here. Again, Aristotle said the
heart forms before the liver. The reality is that the heart forms in
the third week and the liver in the fourth. If the Qur'an said "the
heart forms before the liver" (which, by the way, is a far more
detailed statement than just saying, drop, blood clot, morsel, bones),
advocates of the scientific-hermeneutic approach would ask how the
author of the Qur'an could have known about phenomena that occur in
the third and fourth weeks. We would be told that the author of the
Qur'an had no microscope, thus this knowledge is from the divine.
Aristotle had neither microscopes nor divine guidance, yet he
correctly noted that the heart forms before the liver. How did he
reach this conclusion? He claims that this is partly via observation.
Maybe he observed a fetal pig, maybe an aborted human fetus (and saw
the dots mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim), maybe he saw drawings, maybe,
maybe, maybe... I don't know how he reached the statement. The fact
still remains that he was right, thus we see that even before the
advent of Islam, men were making statements that could be understood
as accurately describing fetal development in the third week,
regardless of how they may have come to make these descriptions.

> We are not interested in "vague" references. What we are interested in is
> something that is solid on which you can rest your case. But what we see
> is that you still are steeped into your own world of "may be".

With regard to how Aristotle reached his accurate conclusions (like
the umbilical cord vessels/veins originally being connected to the
heart, the heart forming before the liver and lungs), all we have is
"may be". Maybe it was from cutting open pigs, dogs, or whatever.
Maybe it was from observing aborted fetuses. Maybe it was from
anatomical drawings he had access to. The point is, he reached a
correct conclusion without divine guidance, and that is the issue
here. Could man, without microscopes, make accurate statements about
early embryonic development without divine guidance? The answer is
clearly yes. Now, this does not prove the Qur'an is not from a divine
origin, but it does demonstrate that we are NOT forced to believe that
the Qur'anic statements regarding embryology could only have come from
a divine source.

> Aha! All the way you have been accusing us of "imposing" an

> "interpretation". Now when we ask you to produce where exactly did
> Aristotle mention the phrase "umbilical cord veins" in his writings, you
> come up with what you "mean".

I never claimed Aristotle used the exact phrase "umbilical cord
veins," but he did very cleary describe the blood vessels of the
umbilical cord being attached to the heart. In case you forgot, a vein
is a blood vessel. Sheesh.

> > Uhhh, first, I am not claiming that the Garbha Upanishad (or Galen,
>
> But you did quote a guy who was amazed with such an "accuracy" of Garbha
> Upanishad when it mentions ball like structure of embryo. Why quote it if
> this was not what you meant?

Uhhhh, because I was discussing the issue of the embryo being
spherical at fourteen days, not any other claim. As you yourself
noted, "a 14 day embryo only appears as a bulge as it is completely
implanted in the endometrium," and "only when a cross-section of it is
made, a spherical structure is visible." So, was the wise pandit who
wrote the Garbha Upanishad 2,000 years before the Qur'an a man who
made a cross-section in a tiny little 14 day old embryo? Gosh, how did
he do it?!? Once again, the bifurcation between observation and
divinde guidance is brought into question.

> If the menstrual blood has contribution in the formation of an embryo, the
> Qur'an and hadith does not say it. If you claim it does, then you have to
> show it.

Uh, I never claimed the Qur'an says it does. I merely said the Qur'an
does not say otherwise. All the Qur'an says is drop, clot, morsel,
bone, et cetera. The processes behind such are never described.

That's all for now. I think the above is sufficient for proving my
case, which is the following: the argument that a lack of microscopes
in the seventh century proves the Qur'anic statements on embryology
demonstrate a divine origin is plainly false. Now, again, I concede
that nothing in my post has proved the Qur'an is not from God.
However, I never sought out to do such. My simple point, thus far, is
that Nadir and Dr. Saifullaah have failed to prove that the embryonic
statements in the Qur'an could only have come from the Divine.

-Denis Giron

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Apr 4, 2003, 7:44:27 PM4/4/03

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

<snip>

> information from Allaah. Well, I applied that sort of thinking to
> Aristotle, and since he didn't get his knowledge from Allaah (while I
> have not proven Aristotle was not divinely inspired, I'm sure we can
> all assume such), Aristotle reached his conclusions via observation.
> But now Dr. Saifullaah notes that Aristotle may have reached his
> conclusion via other methods (observing other organisms, et cetera),
> and he claims victory when I concede to that point.

We have not claimed "victory" and neither we have started to flash "V"
signs. What we have, in fact, reminded you is that your comparison between
the Aristotle's observation and what is mentioned in the Qur'an are
incompatible in many ways; the first and foremost being that Aristotle's
observation was not based on human embryology. You conceded that we are
correct in our observation concerning Aristotle and the result being your
argument is completely nullified, a big zero, zilch, void, naught. Whether
you accept it gracefully (which we have not seen yet!) or with lots of
grunts, grudges or cheap excuses (there is plenty of it already!) is not
going to change the fact that your argument was flawful at its very core.

> > What about the aborted foetuses? What about them?
>
> I raised that as an issue within the context of you wondering where a
> person would look for a 2-4mm object which is reddish-pink in colour
> on a pinkish background, and then you spoke of endoscopic methods. So
> you're still forcing a person to believe that observation has to occur
> inside the womb, when Galen, Hippocrates and possibly Aristotle
> (according to Needham) talked of observing aborted fetuses. If you can
> observe an aborted fetus, it does not have to be against a pink
> background, nor do you need to employ endoscopic methods. That was the
> only point there - context.

We specifically asked you about the aborted fetuses. But you have not said
anything about the age of the aborted fetuses observed by Aristotle.
Instead of that we have to put up with your long and useless argument
about what Needham has written about Aristotle's observation. To be more
specific, please bring us an image of a 19 day old embryo observed using
an unaided eye showing its internal features clearly. This will sort
everything out for you and your argument. This is really simple, if you
bother to prop up your argument in a solid way.

> Now, finally we get to the issue of what the Qur'an says, and how it
> is interpreted. Dr. Saifullaah cites a number of dictionaries, and
> that is great. The issue here is the interpretation pulled together
> after Moore. Since Dr. Saifullaah has called to witness these
> dictionaries, as well as the committee of contemporary Muslims
> scholars and specialists in linguistics and exegisis, maybe NOW he can
> answer the question I have asked about what the Qur'an actually says.

The tune has suddenly changed. Earlier, Dajjal was claiming that the
interpretation of the Qur'anic terms were modern, some 1400 years after
the advent of the Qur'an. When the evidence was presented to show that
the researchers, in fact, used older material, argument now shifts to "the
interpretation pulled together after Moore". What about the original
argument of interpretation of the Qur'anic terms being modern? Well, as
expected Dajjal has no evidence to support it! And this guy
has been boasting about what a terrible blow he has inflicted on the
scientific-hermeneutic approach of the Qur'an. Empty vessels make lot of
noise. We have known this phrase since childhood.

Moore and his co-workers the last person to compile the material on the
issue of the embryology in the Qur'an. So, if anybody is interested in
knowing what he and his co-workers have to say, they can read the
literature available.

> With regard to the clot turning into a morsel, Dr. Saifullaah wants us
> to understand that as an instance of the 24 day old embryo very
> rapidly forming into a 28 day old embryo (the alaqa becomes a
> mudhgha), so here "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" means the X quickly turns into a
> Y. Then, however, with the morsel turning into bones, Dr. Saifullaah
> wants us to understand that as a precursor to bone (cartilage) forming
> inside the morsel. So "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" no longer means the X quickly
> turns into a Y, but rather that a precursor to the Y (but not the Y)
> forms inside of X.

And you want us to defend or refute your statements? You made a claim
and hence you prove it. What is your evidence to show that your statements
are true? References please! We do not want your cheap talk here.

> HA! Dr. Saifullaah misses the irony here. Again, Aristotle said the
> heart forms before the liver. The reality is that the heart forms in
> the third week and the liver in the fourth. If the Qur'an said "the
> heart forms before the liver" (which, by the way, is a far more
> detailed statement than just saying, drop, blood clot, morsel, bones),

The reality is this. Aristotle did not observe the human embryo in the
uterus. That is it. So, let us drop the issue and come back to human
embryology.

> > We are not interested in "vague" references. What we are interested in is
> > something that is solid on which you can rest your case. But what we see
> > is that you still are steeped into your own world of "may be".
>
> With regard to how Aristotle reached his accurate conclusions (like
> the umbilical cord vessels/veins originally being connected to the
> heart, the heart forming before the liver and lungs), all we have is
> "may be". Maybe it was from cutting open pigs, dogs, or whatever.
> Maybe it was from observing aborted fetuses. Maybe it was from
> anatomical drawings he had access to. The point is, he reached a

May be this or may be that. This is how a guy trying to "refute" the
embryological issues argue and brag about how he has provided a blow
scientific-hermeneutic approach of the Qur'an. Nothing is based on firm
facts. Everything is hinged on "may be"s. As I have already said, let us
come to the human embryology and discuss the issues rather than wandering
on the embryology of a chick, or a pig or a dog. These animals do not
concern us a bit!

> > Aha! All the way you have been accusing us of "imposing" an
> > "interpretation". Now when we ask you to produce where exactly did
> > Aristotle mention the phrase "umbilical cord veins" in his writings, you
> > come up with what you "mean".
>
> I never claimed Aristotle used the exact phrase "umbilical cord
> veins," but he did very cleary describe the blood vessels of the
> umbilical cord being attached to the heart. In case you forgot, a vein
> is a blood vessel. Sheesh.

"Sheesh"ing already! May be you did not mean it like the way you meant
"umbilical cord veins" as seen by Aristotle. But anyway, the conclusion
here is that you have changed the tune from the original statement of
yours that says "so Aristotle's reference to the umbilical cord veins
being connected to the heart is both correct" to "I never claimed
Aristotle used the exact phrase "umbilical cord veins". LOL! Shall we say
"Sheesh"! And you thought you can get away by changing your tune?

I did not "forget" that a vein is a blood vessel as much as an artery is a
blood vessel. Nor did I forget that the concept of vein and artery is
rather late.

> Uhhhh, because I was discussing the issue of the embryo being
> spherical at fourteen days, not any other claim. As you yourself
> noted, "a 14 day embryo only appears as a bulge as it is completely
> implanted in the endometrium," and "only when a cross-section of it is
> made, a spherical structure is visible." So, was the wise pandit who
> wrote the Garbha Upanishad 2,000 years before the Qur'an a man who
> made a cross-section in a tiny little 14 day old embryo? Gosh, how did
> he do it?!? Once again, the bifurcation between observation and
> divinde guidance is brought into question.

Gosh! this embryo was formed by coagulation of semen and menstrual blood.
This wise pandit could see this 0.5 mm ball but he could not see the 0.1
mm ball-like structure called ovum. What an outstanding observation? Don't
you agree?

> That's all for now. I think the above is sufficient for proving my
> case, which is the following: the argument that a lack of microscopes
> in the seventh century proves the Qur'anic statements on embryology
> demonstrate a divine origin is plainly false. Now, again, I concede
> that nothing in my post has proved the Qur'an is not from God.
> However, I never sought out to do such. My simple point, thus far, is
> that Nadir and Dr. Saifullaah have failed to prove that the embryonic
> statements in the Qur'an could only have come from the Divine.

Cock-a-doodle-doo! More bragging about your "sufficient" proof that is
laced with "may be" this or "may be" that. Next time please come up with
something better.

Wassalam
Saifullah

[ http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.HPX.4.33L.0303101237070.29438-100000%40club.eng.cam.ac.uk
]

Denis Giron

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 6:36:11 PM4/6/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03040...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> What we have, in fact, reminded you is that your comparison between
> the Aristotle's observation and what is mentioned in the Qur'an are
> incompatible in many ways; the first and foremost being that Aristotle's
> observation was not based on human embryology.

Am I the only one who noticed the implicit claim being made by Dr.
Saifullaah above? I think Dr. Saifullaah should be a little more
careful with his language. He claims that I cannot compare Aristotle
to the Qur'an when it comes to claims about embryology; he claims the
two are incompatible, and claims such because "Aristotle's observation
was not based on human embryology." If this is the key difference
between the Qur'an and Aristotle, this means that Dr. Saifullaah
believes that the claims in the Qur'an *WERE* based on human
embryology (id est, the conclusions were reached via methods different
from Aristotle's), but of course no evidence is given to support such
an implication.

And that is the real problem with Dr. Saifullaah's attack. He wants to
complain about *HOW* Aristotle reached his conclusions, yet he makes
no attempt to tell us how the author(s) of the Qur'an reached
his/her/their conclusions, thus we can't be sure that the methods were
different. Of course, the point of this thread is to see if one can
adduce a divine origin for the Qur'an based on the comments the book
makes on embryology. The assumption, as I have noted before, is that
there can only be a dichotomy between direct observation and divine
guidance.

So too then, where Aristotle was correct, he either reached his
conclusion based on direct observation or divine guidance. Of course
it is here that we realize that other methods may have been possible.
Then the question is, why not assume other methods for the author of
the Qur'an? This does not mean that I am going to set out to prove
that the author of the Qur'an observed aborted fetuses or dissected
animals; this only means that the argument "the author of the Qur'an
had no microscope, therefore he had divine guidance" employs a false
bifurcation.

> We specifically asked you about the aborted fetuses. But you have not said
> anything about the age of the aborted fetuses observed by Aristotle.

Again, Dr. Saifullaah has confused the context of specific points of
the discussion. Let me recap this portion of the discussion: I noted
that a 1.5 mm object is visible to the human eye. Dr. Saifullaah
agreed, but then in his post from March 19th, he spoke of endoscopic
methods, and wondered "where would a person look for such an object
which is reddish-pink in colour on a pinkish background." I brought up
aborted fetuses only within the context of these implications that one
has to use endoscopic methods and/or find it against a pink
background. So, the conclusion is that a 1.5 mm object (regardless of
who observes it) does not have to be seen via endoscopic methods, nor
does it have to be against a background of similar color.

Moving along, we get to the subject of properly understanding
"fakhalaqnaa X,Y" in the Qur'an:

> And you want us to defend or refute your statements? You made a claim
> and hence you prove it. What is your evidence to show that your statements
> are true? References please! We do not want your cheap talk here.

Yet again, Dr. Saifullaah obfuscates the actual state of the
discussion. We are discussing various different points in this thread.
Let me go over the history of this part of the discussion so as to rid
ourselves of this confusion. It was on March 10th that Dr. Saifullaah
said that I was being "embarassed," and then he wrote the following:

"The word "fa" describes quick change from one to another. The
tranformation from alaqah to Mudghah is very rapid, so the Quran
describes this by using the word (fa) denoting a quick rather than a
delayed change. So, mudghah stage should come almost immediately after
the alaqah stage."

So I'm not the positive claimant in this instance, Dr. Saifullaah is!
I have asked him three times already to elaborate on his claim
regarding the proper understanding of the Arabic in Soorat
al-Moominoon 23:14. The above clearly argues that "fakhalaqnaa
al-alaqata mudhghatan" means the alaqa quickly forms into a mudhgha,
thus the implication is that it is clear that "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" means
the X is quickly formed into a Y. Of course, in the same sentence and
verse, the very next words are "fakhalaqnaa al-mudhghata izhaaman,"
but suddenly Dr. Saifullaah doesn't want "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" to mean
that the X is quickly formed into a Y; rather now it means a precursor
to Y forms inside the X.

So, for the fourth time, I am asking Dr. Saifullaah by what logic does
he determine the proper interpretation of "fakhalaqnaa X,Y". Is he
going to defend the Qur'an's scientific accuracy? Or will he only go
on attacking Aristotle's methodology?

> The reality is this. Aristotle did not observe the human embryo in the
> uterus. That is it. So, let us drop the issue and come back to human
> embryology.

Once again, there is a subtle implication that the author of the
Qur'an did reach his/her conclusion via observing the human embryo in
the uterus. Of course, there is no evidence for such, as we don't know
what methods were used. In fact, the point of this discussion is to
adduce possible methods. The question hovering over this discussion is
whether a mere mortal could write what is found in Soorat al-Moominoon
without divine guidance. To this point the answer seems to be yes,
since Aristotle and Galen made amazingly accurate statements without
divine guidance (again, I have not proven Aristotle and Galen were not
divinely inspired, but I feel it is safe to assume such).

Dr. Saifullaah wants to argue that Aristotle may have reached many of
his conclusions via observing animals. That's fine! I wouldn't even
care if Aristotle claimed that he knew the heart formed before the
lungs and liver simply because "my neighbor, Jerry, told me so."
Regardless of whether Aristotle observed drawings, aborted fetuses,
dissected animals, attended a lecture or just guessed, the conclusion
is still the same: Aristotle made an amazingly correct statement
without divine guidance and without a microscope! Thus we see that the
bifucation between miscroscopes and divine guidance is a non sequitor.

> But anyway, the conclusion here is that you have changed the
> tune from the original statement of yours that says "so
> Aristotle's reference to the umbilical cord veins
> being connected to the heart is both correct" to "I never claimed
> Aristotle used the exact phrase "umbilical cord veins". LOL!

Dr. Saifullaah is beating a dead horse, and it seems that he wants to
take us away from what this part of the discussion was originally
about: Aristotle knowing that blood vessels in the umbilical cord
originally attach to the heart. When this was brought to Dr.
Saifullaah's attention he claimed it could be observed at birth. When
this was proven false, Dr. Saifullaah opted to raise red herrings
about my use of the word vein. Fine, I scratch the word "vein." As I
said before, Aristotle never specifically used the word "vein," rather
he used the term "blood vessels," and the statement is true
nonetheless.

> Gosh! this embryo was formed by coagulation of semen and menstrual blood.
> This wise pandit could see this 0.5 mm ball but he could not see the 0.1
> mm ball-like structure called ovum. What an outstanding observation?

Yet another double standard from Dr. Saifullaah. Does the Qur'an
mention the ovum? No, it does not. If Garbha Upanishad can be
discredited for failing to mention the ovum, then why not also
discredit the Qur'an for failing to mention the ovum? Let's stay
consistent here.

To conclude, let me remind readers that the point of this discussion
is to determine if the statements in Soorat al-Moominoon (and maybe
elsewhere in the Qur'an) regarding human embryology prove the Qur'an
is from a divine origin. Despite all his contumely, Dr. Saifullaah has
surely not presented any evidence to make us believe the statements in
Soorat al-Moominoon could only have been from the divine, much less
that they are even accurate! On the other hand, I feel that this
discussion has brought serious doubt about the claim that the
statements in the Qur'an can only boild down to a bifurcation between
direct observation and divine guidance.

-Denis Giron

Denis Giron

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 6:36:13 PM4/6/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03032...@posting.google.com>...

Okay. So Nadir claims that the alaqah stage could not have been
observed. His implication is that this could only have come from a
divine source. So, I would like for Nadir to elaborate on what he
means by the alaqah stage. Nadir, please don't just give us a link,
but rather explain in your own words what "alaqah" is a reference to,
and how you know it is a reference to that. Let's examine your
exegetical methodology, and see if it is the Qur'an that agrees with
science, or just your interpretation.

So, the questions to answer are:

(1) What does the Qur'an say?
(2) What do you believe the Qur'an means when it says such?
(3) How do you know that is what the Qur'an means?

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Apr 7, 2003, 7:08:34 PM4/7/03

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> So too then, where Aristotle was correct, he either reached his
> conclusion based on direct observation or divine guidance. Of course
> it is here that we realize that other methods may have been possible.
> Then the question is, why not assume other methods for the author of
> the Qur'an? This does not mean that I am going to set out to prove
> that the author of the Qur'an observed aborted fetuses or dissected
> animals; this only means that the argument "the author of the Qur'an
> had no microscope, therefore he had divine guidance" employs a false
> bifurcation.

Let us get somethings clear first. You started off by saying that
Aristotle was able to see "umbilical cord veins", liver, heart and what
not and associated with it as if he observed the human embryo. We pointed
out to you that Aristotle's observation was not on human embryos and to
this you conceded. If you are shown that a point is invalid because of
improper comparison, it means it can't be used to make analogies. So, do
not bring in useless arguments like if Aristotle saw a "umbilical cord
veins" then he must surely be divinely guided or otherwise. I can see a
computer screen right in front of me and I know it is for true, does that
mean I am divinely guided or otherwise?

> > We specifically asked you about the aborted fetuses. But you have not said
> > anything about the age of the aborted fetuses observed by Aristotle.
>
> Again, Dr. Saifullaah has confused the context of specific points of
> the discussion. Let me recap this portion of the discussion: I noted
> that a 1.5 mm object is visible to the human eye. Dr. Saifullaah
> agreed, but then in his post from March 19th, he spoke of endoscopic
> methods, and wondered "where would a person look for such an object
> which is reddish-pink in colour on a pinkish background." I brought up
> aborted fetuses only within the context of these implications that one
> has to use endoscopic methods and/or find it against a pink
> background. So, the conclusion is that a 1.5 mm object (regardless of
> who observes it) does not have to be seen via endoscopic methods, nor
> does it have to be against a background of similar color.

Even if I concede that I got "confused" (which I was not!), let us look at
your point. A 1.5 mm aborted fetus contains mass of other material also
from which it has to be distinguished. How can one know where to look for
it and whatever he or she has seen is correct. To give an example have a
look at this link:

http://www.prolife.org.uk/abortionThumbnails.htm

They provide images of fetus from 56 days onwards and the mess in which a
fetus is seen. So, if you want to prove the point concerning Aristotle
observation of a human fetus, you have to first show what exactly he has
seen. We have asked you again and again to show a picture of a 1.5 mm
embryo and the details therein, acquired without using a microscope, to
prove you point. So far, as expected, you have not and we expect that you
will not for good reasons.

> So I'm not the positive claimant in this instance, Dr. Saifullaah is!
> I have asked him three times already to elaborate on his claim
> regarding the proper understanding of the Arabic in Soorat
> al-Moominoon 23:14. The above clearly argues that "fakhalaqnaa
> al-alaqata mudhghatan" means the alaqa quickly forms into a mudhgha,
> thus the implication is that it is clear that "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" means
> the X is quickly formed into a Y. Of course, in the same sentence and
> verse, the very next words are "fakhalaqnaa al-mudhghata izhaaman,"
> but suddenly Dr. Saifullaah doesn't want "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" to mean
> that the X is quickly formed into a Y; rather now it means a precursor
> to Y forms inside the X.

To remind you, you were the one who claimed that the meanings associated
with the words dealing with embryology are modern. As expected no
references were provided and you went on and on with your
"interpretations". When we brought the evidence to show that the
embryology committee used old Arabic dictionaries, tafseers, among others,
you suddenly turned the issue to something else. This kind of attitude is
undesirable. It shows that you simply can't prove and stand by your point.
Rather you like to shift from one thing to another. The issue of
fakhalaqnaa is no different either. You did not provide any evidence to
support your "interpretation"; you expected us to show whether you are
correct or incorrect in your "interpretation". So be it!

The word al-Khalq can mean depending upon the context:

1. To decide or plan
2. To create something without a previous example
3. Originating one thing from another

This is what is cited from various Islamic sources that include old
Arabic dictionaries, tafsers etc. in Moore's book containing Islamic
additions [p. 458m]. The most appropriate meaning here is originating one
from another since "fa" is used. The phrase "fakhalaqna al-`alaqata
mudghtan" would mean mudgha orignated from `alaqah. The phrase
"fakhalaqna al-mudgata izaaman" would mean izaam originated from mudgha.
The use of "fa" means that the phases originated one after the other
without time lag. Now do you see any problem with that?

> So, for the fourth time, I am asking Dr. Saifullaah by what logic does
> he determine the proper interpretation of "fakhalaqnaa X,Y". Is he
> going to defend the Qur'an's scientific accuracy? Or will he only go
> on attacking Aristotle's methodology?

Perhaps you meant your methodology of sneaking Aristotle into the
discussion of human embryology assuming that nobody would catch you.
LOL. So, much for your "scientific accuracy" and honesty. Somebody has to
point out to issues before you admit that they are wrong.

> adduce possible methods. The question hovering over this discussion is
> whether a mere mortal could write what is found in Soorat al-Moominoon
> without divine guidance. To this point the answer seems to be yes,
> since Aristotle and Galen made amazingly accurate statements without
> divine guidance (again, I have not proven Aristotle and Galen were not
> divinely inspired, but I feel it is safe to assume such).

But amazingly we still are not been provided the evidence that either
Galen or Aristotle could see a 1.5 mm human embryo inside the uterus and
its functions like clinging, and later on appearance of somites, skelatal
structure and its clothing with flesh. In the light of the absence of
evidence we have to believe in a statement from an atheist that it is safe
to believe that Aristotle and Galen were divinely inspired. An atheist
talking about inspiration? This is nothing but oxymoronic and
contradiction of terms.

> Dr. Saifullaah is beating a dead horse, and it seems that he wants to
> take us away from what this part of the discussion was originally
> about: Aristotle knowing that blood vessels in the umbilical cord
> originally attach to the heart. When this was brought to Dr.
> Saifullaah's attention he claimed it could be observed at birth. When
> this was proven false, Dr. Saifullaah opted to raise red herrings
> about my use of the word vein. Fine, I scratch the word "vein." As I
> said before, Aristotle never specifically used the word "vein," rather
> he used the term "blood vessels," and the statement is true
> nonetheless.

Why write a big paragraph with no substance rather than admitting that
Aristotle did not say anything about "umbilical cord veins". You admit
that was a mistake and we move ahead. Why waste our time?

> > Gosh! this embryo was formed by coagulation of semen and menstrual blood.
> > This wise pandit could see this 0.5 mm ball but he could not see the 0.1
> > mm ball-like structure called ovum. What an outstanding observation?
>
> Yet another double standard from Dr. Saifullaah. Does the Qur'an
> mention the ovum? No, it does not. If Garbha Upanishad can be
> discredited for failing to mention the ovum, then why not also
> discredit the Qur'an for failing to mention the ovum? Let's stay
> consistent here.

We are not using double standards here. The argument is that this wise
pandit could see a 0.5 mm ball ike structure but he could not see a 0.1 mm
structure called ovum. We did not dismiss Garbha Upanishad because the
pandit could not see ovum; we dismissed it because he claimed that embryo
is formed from the union of menstrual blood and semen. So, we are
consistent in the argument and you are incoherent in understanding what
our argument is. We are not surprised!

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.almuhajiroun.com/nonmuslims/Sciences/Embryology.htm

Denis Giron

unread,

Apr 10, 2003, 12:49:44 PM4/10/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03040...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

> Let us get somethings clear first. You started off by saying that
> Aristotle was able to see "umbilical cord veins", liver, heart and what
> not and associated with it as if he observed the human embryo.

Yes, and as I explained, I did such within the context of the
bifurcation between direct observation and divine guidance. The
argument for embryology in the Qur'an is that there were no
microscopes at the time, thus the information is from Allaah (did you
catch the bifurcation?!?). So, using that same dichotomy, either
Aristotle observed it directly, or he had guidance from Allaah. Thus
if he didn't have divine guidance, he observed it directly... Ah, but
then you are the one who offered a third option. Maybe Aristotle
reached his conclusions with neither divine guidance nor direct
observation. That's fine, and what we see is that it kills the
original bifurcation.

> We pointed out to you that Aristotle's observation was not on
> human embryos and to this you conceded.

Hold on. I said I was willing to concede on this point for the sake of
argument, but as I told you back on March 21st, you never actually
demonstrated that Aristotle's findings were not based on observing a
human embryo, rather you only asserted such. Let us recall the quote
you called to witness from Needham:

"There is no doubt that he (i.e., Aristotle) diligently followed the
advice of the author of Hippocratic treatise on generation and opened
fowl's eggs at different stages during their development, but he
learnt much more than the unknown Hippocratic embryologist did from
them. It is also clear that he dissected and examined all kinds of
animal embryos, mammalina and cold-blooded. The uncertain point is
whether he also dissected the human embryo. He refers in one certain
place to an "aborted embryo", and as he was able to obtain easily all
kinds of animal embryos without waiting for the case of abortion, it
is likely that this was a human embryo."

[Joseph Needham, "A History of Embryology," (Cambridge 1959), pp.
38-39]

Now this doesn't demonstrate that Needham believes Aristotle did not
base any of his findings on the observation of a human embryo. While
it does menion that Aristotle used other methods, it does not negate
him also resorting to the observation of human embryos. In fact, the
last sentence actually supports the belief that Aristotle observed a
human embryo, so I'm going to requote that sentence along with the
sentences that followed which Dr. Saifullaah failed to mention:

"He refers in one certain place to an "aborted embryo", and as he was
able to obtain easily all kinds of animal embryos without waiting for

the case of abortion, it is likely that this was a human embryo. Ogle
brings forward six or seven passages which all contain statements
about human anatomy and physiology only to be explained on the
assumption that he got his information from the foetus. So it is
probable that his knowledge of biology was extended to man in this
way, as would hardly have been the case if he had lived in later
times, when the theologians of the Christian Church had come to
severer conclusions about the sanctity of foetal as well as adult
life."
[Needham, "A History of Embryology," pp. 38-39]

So while I'm willing to concede, for the sake of doing away with the
false dichotomy between direct observation and divine guidance that is
applied to the Qur'an, that maybe Aristotle reached his conclusions
without ever observing a human embryo, this is surely not something
you hae proven (as I told you on March 21st). The evidence seems to
imply there was some observation; of what exactly, I do not know.

> If you are shown that a point is invalid because of
> improper comparison, it means it can't be used to make
> analogies.

Here we go again! Dr. Saifullaah once again claims that the comparison
is improper without presenting any evidence. The comparison would only
be "improper" in the sense that Dr. Saifullaah means if we knew for a
fact that the author of the Qur'an did use direct observation while
Aristotle did not. The reality is that we are, for the most part, in
the dark as to how exactly either source reached their conclusions
(though we clearly have some picture of what Aristotle might have
done). So we can't say the comparison of the Qur'an to Aristotle is
improper.

> So, do not bring in useless arguments like if Aristotle saw
> a "umbilical cord veins" then he must surely be divinely
> guided or otherwise.

Please reread my argument. Aristotle correctly noted that the blood
vessels in the umbilical cord are connected to the heart. This is
clearly something that takes place in early development. You claimed
it could be observed at birth, and you were proven wrong. Now, within
the paradigm of the original bifurcation, either Aristotle observed it
directly, or he knew such via divine guidance. Of course, as you have
correctly noted, there may be another option, and I agree. Thus we see
that accurate discussion of early development in the womb can be
carried out even without direct observation or divine guidance. Do you
see how this is significant for a discussion on the Qur'an?

Now, to drive this point home, let me turn the question on Dr.
Saifullaah. He seems to think that Aristotle was not observing the
foetus directly, and I'm willing to concede to that very real
possibility. He also seems to think Aristotle was not divinely
inspired, and I'm willing to concede to that very real possibility as
well. Dr. Saifullaah wants to ask me how Aristotle reached his
conclusions. Well, I don't know; you tell me! How did Aristotle know
that the umbilical cord and its blood vessels are originally attached
to the heart? How did Aristotle know that the heart forms before the
lungs and liver? Regardless of what methods he uses, the claims are
still correct.

> To remind you, you were the one who claimed that the meanings associated
> with the words dealing with embryology are modern.

Obviously those websites which call on Keith Moore are post-Keith
Moore. I doubt they were quoting Moore's writings before he wrote
them. If you want to say others had these ideas before Moore, fine.
This is not a key part of my argument, and I am more than willing to
drop it.

Moving on to the question of fakhalaqnaa X,Y:

> The most appropriate meaning here is originating one
> from another since "fa" is used. The phrase "fakhalaqna al-`alaqata
> mudghtan" would mean mudgha orignated from `alaqah. The phrase
> "fakhalaqna al-mudgata izaaman" would mean izaam originated from mudgha.

Finally I get an answer (sort of). So, now, since this description is,
according to you, accurate, does the mudhghah actually turn into
bones? I'm sure you'll say no, cartilage forms inside the mudhghah.
So, you claim that fakhalaqnaa X,Y means the Y is formed from (or
originates from) the X, but in what sense? In the first sense, the Y
originates from the total X, while in the second sense, a precursor to
Y (but not Y) originates from part of the X, not the whole, and this
formation happens inside the X, correct?

The second sense seems strained. Furthermore, how does Dr. Saifullaah
know when to choose the first sense or the second sense? Does he just
arbirtrarily choose that which suits his purposes? Now that you're
finally starting to answer the question, maybe you can elaborate and
answer the question fully (i.e. back up your claim that these
interpretations are neither arbitrary nor liberal).

> Perhaps you meant your methodology of sneaking Aristotle into the
> discussion of human embryology assuming that nobody would catch you.

Aristotle is still on the table (as is the Garbha Upanishad, and then
we have Galen).

> But amazingly we still are not been provided the evidence that either
> Galen or Aristotle could see a 1.5 mm human embryo inside the uterus and
> its functions like clinging, and later on appearance of somites, skelatal
> structure and its clothing with flesh.

Again we see the double standard. Does Aristotle or Galen say anything
specific about a 1.5 mm embryo? No. Does the Qur'an say anything about
a 1.5 mm embryo? Again, the answer is no. Does the Qur'an ever make
any mention of somites? No, it does not; rather Dr. Saifullaah derives
this from his own meta-interpretation. Does the Qur'an say anything
about skeletal structures? No, it does not; rather all it says is that
a morsel turns into bones. That tells you nothing about the structure.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

> The argument is that this wise pandit could see a 0.5 mm ball
> ike structure but he could not see a 0.1 mm structure called
> ovum. We did not dismiss Garbha Upanishad because the
> pandit could not see ovum; we dismissed it because he claimed that embryo
> is formed from the union of menstrual blood and semen.

First of all, it does not logically follow that if a person can see
something, they automatically should be able to see something else a
fifth the size. Furthermore, seeing the 0.5 mm spherical structure is
only relevant within the context of the bifurcation between direct
observation and divine guidance. Once again, as Dr. Saifullaah himself

noted, "a 14 day embryo only appears as a bulge as it is completely
implanted in the endometrium," and "only when a cross-section of it is
made, a spherical structure is visible."

Dr. Saifullaah wants to argue that the wise pandit got it wrong when
he mentioned a mixing of semen and menstrual blood. That's fine, but
that does not answer the original question: was the wise pandit who

wrote the Garbha Upanishad 2,000 years before the Qur'an a man who

made a cross-section in a tiny little 14 day old embryo? Unlike the
Qur'an, our wise Hindu scholar gave a date (two weeks), and said it
would be spherical. If you make a cross-section, by Dr. Saifullaah's
own admission, you'll see that the embryo is indeed spherical at 14
days.

Even if the Hindu author was wrong about everything else, by Dr.
Saifullaah's own admission the wise pandit was correct when he said it
is spherical at 14 days (yet one can only see this after making a
cross secting and looking at with a microscope!), so either he
observed it directly, he had divine guidance, or there is a third
option. If Dr. Saifullaah chooses the third option, he concedes that
it is possible to make an accurate statement about a human embryo as
early as 14 days with neither direct observation nor divine guidance,
and that is certainly significant for this discussion on Qur'anic
embryology.

-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

Apr 14, 2003, 12:36:54 PM4/14/03

I will be more than happy to answer your questions,
as I understand it, I have made the point that the alaqah
stage can not be seen by the naked human eye, and Denis could not
not contest it, therefore, I will procede on that premise.

(1) What does the Qur'an say?

when speaking of the embryo, it mentions a stage of alaqah(meaning leech like,
something which clings, and blot clott) which procedes the mudgah stage.
It is easy to identify the mudgah stage because the chewed
appearance of the embryo. Upon investigating the stages before the
mudgah stage, we do find a stage in which the embryo
does resemble a leech. Here is an example:

and figure 3:
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

as for the other 2 meanings of alaqah, I believe that they actually do fit the
embryo at this stage, but first I will discuss leech for right now.

(2) What do you believe the Qur'an means when it says such?

it is very possible that the quran is referring to to these images of the
embryo as provided above.

(3) How do you know that is what the Qur'an means?

their is a stage in the developement of the embryo, where it does look like
a leech, therefore, most likely this is what the quran is talking about

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Apr 17, 2003, 11:11:43 AM4/17/03

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> Yes, and as I explained, I did such within the context of the
> bifurcation between direct observation and divine guidance. The
> argument for embryology in the Qur'an is that there were no
> microscopes at the time, thus the information is from Allaah (did you
> catch the bifurcation?!?). So, using that same dichotomy, either
> Aristotle observed it directly, or he had guidance from Allaah. Thus

The argument for embryology in the Qur'an is that there were no

microscopes at the time is true. This is because the early stages of
embryo such as nutfah al-amshaj, alaqah, mudgah etc. can't be seen clear
enough without an unaided eye. This is true even for their description
can be shown. We will come back to that a little bit later reminding
ourselves that you are yet to show us an image 18-20 day embryo acquired
not using any microscopy tools.

> > We pointed out to you that Aristotle's observation was not on
> > human embryos and to this you conceded.
>
> Hold on. I said I was willing to concede on this point for the sake of
> argument, but as I told you back on March 21st, you never actually
> demonstrated that Aristotle's findings were not based on observing a
> human embryo, rather you only asserted such. Let us recall the quote
> you called to witness from Needham:

Let me get the issue straight here. You claimed that Aristotle saw
umblical cord and how the blood vessels run to heart and other parts of
the body as if Aristotle's observation was on humans. When it was pointed
out to you that Aristotle's observation was on animals and chick eggs, you
then "conceded" that it is true. So, in the first place you had to
demonstrate your point that the observations of Aristotle were on human
embryos; which you did not. Now you tell us to demonstrate that
Aristotle's findings were not based on observing a human embryo? Is that
not interesting? Over to Needham.

> Now this doesn't demonstrate that Needham believes Aristotle did not
> base any of his findings on the observation of a human embryo. While
> it does menion that Aristotle used other methods, it does not negate
> him also resorting to the observation of human embryos. In fact, the
> last sentence actually supports the belief that Aristotle observed a
> human embryo, so I'm going to requote that sentence along with the
> sentences that followed which Dr. Saifullaah failed to mention:

If Aristotle indeed see the human embryo, then you tell us what exactly
did he see? Bring us the proof. At least, it will clear up the matter that
you are pushing.

> So while I'm willing to concede, for the sake of doing away with the
> false dichotomy between direct observation and divine guidance that is
> applied to the Qur'an, that maybe Aristotle reached his conclusions
> without ever observing a human embryo, this is surely not something
> you hae proven (as I told you on March 21st). The evidence seems to
> imply there was some observation; of what exactly, I do not know.

Now we do not have to prove anything in the case of Aristotle when you
yourself are unsure about what Aristotle observed. When you are sure about
what Aristotle saw, please come back to us with evidence.

Whatever Aristotle may have observed may be true for a particular animal
or set of animals. But that does not mean that it is true for human
embryology.

> Please reread my argument. Aristotle correctly noted that the blood
> vessels in the umbilical cord are connected to the heart. This is
> clearly something that takes place in early development. You claimed
> it could be observed at birth, and you were proven wrong. Now, within

What I had asked you to show is a picture of an early embryo acquired
not using any microscopy aids showing umblical cord and blood vessels
connected to heart. But you did not show. You claimed something which you
can't even show. How about that? And after all this you come here with
your usual bragging about how I was proved "wrong". Where did I say
exactly that umblical cord can be observed only at birth and not at any
other time?

> conclusions. Well, I don't know; you tell me! How did Aristotle know
> that the umbilical cord and its blood vessels are originally attached
> to the heart? How did Aristotle know that the heart forms before the
> lungs and liver? Regardless of what methods he uses, the claims are
> still correct.

Correct with respect to what? We are discussing human embryology and
Aristotle was talking about embryology in animals. If you can get into the
same wavelength dealing with the discussion of human embryology, there
will be some progress.

> > To remind you, you were the one who claimed that the meanings associated
> > with the words dealing with embryology are modern.
>
> Obviously those websites which call on Keith Moore are post-Keith
> Moore. I doubt they were quoting Moore's writings before he wrote
> them. If you want to say others had these ideas before Moore, fine.
> This is not a key part of my argument, and I am more than willing to
> drop it.

We can very well understand why all of sudden this has stopped being the
"key part" of your argument so much so that you are willing to drop it
like a hot potato. The others that were dropped like a hot potato were the
claim that Moore and others were paid to do their job and Aristotle where
the argument was "conceded". And obviously, with this kind of attitude
your argument can't go any where. Of course, you can always brag about
your "achievements"! We have seen enough of those cock-a-doodle-doos from
you.

> > The most appropriate meaning here is originating one
> > from another since "fa" is used. The phrase "fakhalaqna al-`alaqata
> > mudghtan" would mean mudgha orignated from `alaqah. The phrase
> > "fakhalaqna al-mudgata izaaman" would mean izaam originated from mudgha.
>
> Finally I get an answer (sort of). So, now, since this description is,
> according to you, accurate, does the mudhghah actually turn into
> bones? I'm sure you'll say no, cartilage forms inside the mudhghah.
> So, you claim that fakhalaqnaa X,Y means the Y is formed from (or
> originates from) the X, but in what sense? In the first sense, the Y
> originates from the total X, while in the second sense, a precursor to
> Y (but not Y) originates from part of the X, not the whole, and this
> formation happens inside the X, correct?

You got the answer, not a sort of an answer, with an evidence. This is
certainly unlike your claim that the meaning of the terms used to describe
the embryological statements in the Qur'an as being a modern day
invention. What was your evidence? You wanted to drop the issue. How
interesting! We are amused. LOL.

As for the issue of "fakhalaqna X, Y" what is clear is that one originates
from the other, but only in the sense of characteristics of the embryo.
That is to say `alaqah, a leech-like structure, comes from nutfah, a
drop-like structure. In the same way mudgha, a chewed-like structure comes
from `alaqah, a leech-like structure. Similarly, izaam, bones, originate
from mudgha, a chewed-like structure. In a gist, what we see in the
Qur'anic description is the charactertic of the shape of an embryo.
It has nothing to do with the amount of precursor transforming, i.e., a
part of X or whole of X. Let us now deal with them one by one. The page
numbers given are from Moore and Persaud's "The Developing Human", 1998,
6th Edition. All other references are fully cited.

The word Nutfah means a drop or small amount of water [Moore et al. "The
Developing Human" with Islamic Additions, p. 458n]. One of the interesting
things about the Qur'an and hadith is a complete rejection of the use of
menstrual blood in embryology, as opposed to Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen
and Garbha Upnishad. The word nutfah is quite comprehensive in meaning
and has been used in the Islamic literatue to denote sexual secretion.

"thumma za`alnaahu nutfatan fi kharaarim makeen" Then We placed him as a
nutfah in a place of rest, firmly fixed.

This verse stating that nutfah has been placed in a place of rest has been
understood using the verse 76:2.

"inna khalaqn-al-insaana min nutfatin amshaajin..." Verily, We have
created man from a mixed nutfah. An important point to note here is that
"nutfah" is a singular noun while "amshaj" is a plural modifying
adjective. According to conventional rules of Arabic grammar, singular
nouns are normally modified by singular adjectives, and thus the term
"nutfah amshaaj" was perplexing to earlier Qur'anic scholars. However,
this peculiarity of the language can be explained, since we note that the
zygote remains singular as a nutfah, like a drop, while internally the
chromosomes and other contributions from the sperm and ovum form a plural
mixture described as amshaaj. Therefore, from the point of view of
science, amshaaj is accurate as a plural adjective modifying the singular
nutfah, which is really a multifacetted entity. This drop-like structure
is placed in a "resting place" just like the embryo gets implanted in the
uterus after it travels all the way from fallopian tubes. For more
information see Moore et al. "The Developing Human" with Islamic
Additions, p. 30n.

Another related verse is 80:19 that says:

"min nutfatin khalaqahu fa-qaddara", Of a nutfah; He created him, then
He made him according to a measure/plan.

The key word here is qaddar. It means "'correct origin' indication of
the entire extent and nature of the thing and its destiny; to plan a thing
with marks that outlines it; decide its stages, i.e., nutfah then alaqah"
[Moore et al. "The Developing Human" with Islamic Additions, p. 458L].
Notice also the presence of conjunction "fa" indicating that as soon as
after the formation of zygote the future programme of the new individual
is laid down. This is the result of union of male and female pronuclei
which has already undergone the shuffle of genes in the process of
cross-over of chromosomes.

"thumma khalaqn-al-nutfata `alaqatan" means nutfah, a drop-like structure
results in `alaqah, a leech like structure. Nutfah amshaaj, when it is
firmly placed inside is womb, looks like a drop, a ball of cells forming
morula, then blastocyte. This structure then attaches to the endometrial
epithelium. Around 17th day the lengthening of the embryo takes place.
There is a time lag between the change of embryo from a drop-like round
structure to that of `alaqah. Hence the conjunction thumma that
indicates a time lag between the sequence is appropriate. The embryo
enlongates until it starts to look like a leech. The embryo is attached to
the wall of the chorion, which has chorionic villi that are attached to
the endometrium. The embryo is surrounded by amniotic fluid just as the
leech is surrounded by water. The embryo nourishes by taking the nutrients
from the host just as the leech does. Another meaning of `alaqah is a
blood clot. The external appearance of the embryo during this phase is
similar to that of a blood clot. The blood is present in the blood vessels
but it does not flow until the end of the third week, when the heart
begins to beat [p. 77]. The network of blood vessels with no blood
flow (enough though the blood is fluid!) give rise to a structure that
resembles a blood clot [p. 76, Fig. 4-12]. Towards the end of the `alaqah
period around 23-24 days the lateral view of an embryo starts to look like
a leech [p. 86, Fig. 5-3 shows a view around 24-25 days with the
appearance of somites]

"fakhalaqna al-`alaqata mudghtan" means mudgha, a chewed-like structure,
orignated from `alaqah, a leech-like structure. The `alaqah stage finishes
around 3.5 weeks or roughly 23-24 days. Around 21 days [p. 84], the
somites start to appear and they get progressively more prominent towards
the end of the fourth week. This gives embryo is chewed-liked shape or
mudgha. As one can see, the tranformation of the shape from leech-like to
a chewed-like happens rapidly. Hence the conjunction "fa" is very
appropriate.

Somites are the most conspicuous feature of the period in which mudgha
stage takes place and it is also noted by Hamilton and Mossman:

"The somites are conspicuous features of embryos in the period under
consideration and are readily seen on surface contour. They are the bases
from which the greater part of the axial skelaton and musculature is
developed." [W. J. Hamilton and H. W. Mossman, "Hamilton, Boyd and
Mossman's Human Embryology", 1972, W. Heffer & Sons Ltd: Cambridge & The
Wlilliams and Wilkins Co.: Baltimore, p. 178]

The presence of multitude of somites along the neural tube of the embryo
makes the embryo appear like a substance that has been chewed and
imprinted by the teeth (nota bene: note the sequence of appearance of
axial skelaton and then musculature, we will come back to it later). There
are other interesting implications of embryo being a mudgha, or
chewed-like:

1. The appearance of somites change continuously just as teeth imprint
change on a substance with each act of chewing. The embryo changes its
overall shape [pp. 92-99] but the structure derived from somites remain.

2. The period between fourth week onwards (i.e., the onset of mudgha
stage) is also the time of organogenesis.

"It is evident from the above account that all major organs and organ
systems are formed during the fourth to eighth weeks. This period is
therefore also called the period of organogenesis." [T. W. Sadler,
"Langman's Medical Embryology", 1985, 5th edition, Williams and Wilkins,
p. 76]

Since new tissue masses appear in the embryo, the embryo also turns its
position to adjust the centre of gravity with respect to its new mass.
This is similar to turning of the substance during chewing.

3. In 22:5 we read from nutfah "then (thumma) from a mudgha, some formed
and some unformed". The indicates that mudgha stage at a later time
(thumma indicating a sequence with a time lag) also contains partly formed
and partly unformed tissue. This is again true because in mudgha, after a
delay, organs appear, some differentiated and other undifferentiated.
There are examples that one can see in Moore's book pp. 92-99 by closely
following the stages week by week. Some of them are lens placode (which
would become eye later), nose placode (which would become nose later),
otic vesicle (developing inner ear) etc. that are undifferentiated. The
ones which are differentiated are heart, liver and some blood vessels such
as aorta.

"fakhalaqna al-mudgata izaaman" and "fa kasawna-l-izaama lahman":
Since these two are closely related, let us look at them one by
one. "fakhalaqna al-mudgata izaaman" would mean izaam originated from
mudgha, a chewed-like structure. Hamilton and Mossman inform us about
somites (representing the teeth-marks on a mudgha) result in the formation
of axial skelaton and musculature.

The somites starts to differentiate early in the fourth week that
gives rise to sclerotome and dermomytome. It is the former that is of
interest here. At the end of fourth week, the sclerotome cells become
polymorphous and form a loosely woven tissue known as mesenchyme. It
is the character of mesenchymal cells to migrate and differentiate in
many ways. They may give rise to osteoblasts (the bone forming
cells), chondroblasts (cartilage forming cells) and fibroblasts (fibre
forming cells). Bone development in the limbs commences in the embryonic
limb buds from mesenchymal cells [p. 420]. Mesenchyme in the buds begins
to condense and by sixth week of development the first so-called hyaline
cartilage models. Again as one can see the transition from mudgha to izaam
is rather rapid and hence the conjuntion "fa" is appropriate.

By the end of the sixth week, the embryo acquires a soft skeleton, and

cartilaginous bone formation is the most prominent event during this

phase. As the limbs elongate and the bones form, myoblasts aggregate and
develop into a large muscle mass in each limb bud. In general, this muscle
mass separates into dorsal (extensor) and ventral (flexor) components. The
limb musculature develops in situ from the mesenchyme surrounding the
developing bones.

"The first indication of the limb musculature is found in the seventh week
of development as a condensation of mesenchyme near the base of the buds.
In the human embryo, this mesenchyme is derived from the somatic
mesdoderm. From here it migrates into the limb buds.

With the elongation of limb buds, the muscular tissue splits into flexor
and extensor components." [T. W. Sadler, "Langman's Medical Embryology",
1985, 5th edition, Williams and Wilkins, p. 150]

What about the sequence of izaam and "clothing" of izaam with laham?

"As the bones of the appendicular skeleton become differentiated, the
mesoderm from which the muscles will take shape tends to aggregate in
masses grouped dorsal to, or ventral to, the developing skeletal parts."
[B. M. Patten, "Human Embryology", 1968, 3rd edition, McGraw Hill Book
Co., p. 248]

Hence the sequence of izaam and clothing of izaam is again in rapid
succession as indicated by the conjunction "fa" in "fa kasawna-l-izaama
lahman".

In summary, the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles
(flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm. The cartilage bones
are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around
them is undifferentiated. It later differentiates into the muscles and
ligaments attached to the bones. Hence the ayah "fa kasawna-l-izaama
lahman" that deals with "clothing" of the bones, is correct from our
knowledge of embryology.

> The second sense seems strained. Furthermore, how does Dr. Saifullaah
> know when to choose the first sense or the second sense? Does he just
> arbirtrarily choose that which suits his purposes? Now that you're
> finally starting to answer the question, maybe you can elaborate and
> answer the question fully (i.e. back up your claim that these
> interpretations are neither arbitrary nor liberal).

We have already answered quite a lot above. Since you are so much
concerned about "interpretation" why is that your interpretation is never
supplied with a reference? How do we know whether you are telling us the
truth? How do we know that your interpretation is neither arbitrary nor
liberal? We have already provided you with a death blow concerning your
bragging about how the terms of embryology mentioned in the Qur'an are
modern and have come after 1400 years after the advent of the book.
The evidence that we have presented shows that the embryology
committee used extensive sources from the past ranging from
dictionaries, tafseers among others. After this what are you left with?
Going back to the Islamic sources? As far as my interpretation is
concerned, you are most welcome to check the tafseers and then come back
to us.

> > Perhaps you meant your methodology of sneaking Aristotle into the
> > discussion of human embryology assuming that nobody would catch you.
>
> Aristotle is still on the table (as is the Garbha Upanishad, and then
> we have Galen).

A drowining man needs clutches of straw to save his life....

> > But amazingly we still are not been provided the evidence that either
> > Galen or Aristotle could see a 1.5 mm human embryo inside the uterus and
> > its functions like clinging, and later on appearance of somites, skelatal
> > structure and its clothing with flesh.
>
> Again we see the double standard. Does Aristotle or Galen say anything
> specific about a 1.5 mm embryo? No. Does the Qur'an say anything about
> a 1.5 mm embryo? Again, the answer is no. Does the Qur'an ever make
> any mention of somites? No, it does not; rather Dr. Saifullaah derives
> this from his own meta-interpretation. Does the Qur'an say anything
> about skeletal structures? No, it does not; rather all it says is that
> a morsel turns into bones. That tells you nothing about the structure.
> Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

We are not going ahead of ouerselves. The Qur'an does not mention the
sizes of the embryo but it does mention its characteristics. A stage of
embryo when it clings after it has changed its shape from a round "drop",
it definitely has to be early. Since we are provided with a sequence and
we can follow the sequence to see if the embryo has those characteristics.

By the way, I did not find the meaning of the word "meta-interpretation".
Please can you provide me the reference of a dictionary which I can look
at to clarify myself before I answer your wild allegations.

> > The argument is that this wise pandit could see a 0.5 mm ball
> > ike structure but he could not see a 0.1 mm structure called
> > ovum. We did not dismiss Garbha Upanishad because the
> > pandit could not see ovum; we dismissed it because he claimed that embryo
> > is formed from the union of menstrual blood and semen.
>
> First of all, it does not logically follow that if a person can see
> something, they automatically should be able to see something else a
> fifth the size. Furthermore, seeing the 0.5 mm spherical structure is
> only relevant within the context of the bifurcation between direct
> observation and divine guidance. Once again, as Dr. Saifullaah himself
> noted, "a 14 day embryo only appears as a bulge as it is completely
> implanted in the endometrium," and "only when a cross-section of it is
> made, a spherical structure is visible."

The observation that a 14 day embryo appears as a bulge is observed
through microscopy techniques. See for example an 8X magnified image of a
12 day old embryo in p. 50, Fig. 3-3. Obviously the claim that embryo
becomes like a ball is quite interesting but we need to know how did it
reach to that stage. Your wise pandit made a rather unwise claim that it
is a result of the union of semen and menstrual blood. The brings us to a
big question? Did this wise pandit observed what he is saying or did he
observe something else? Or did he simply guess? May be you have some
interesting things to say about it.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.HPX.4.33L.0304111011510.1159-100000%40club.eng.cam.ac.uk

Denis Giron

unread,

Apr 17, 2003, 11:11:55 AM4/17/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03041...@posting.google.com>...

> as I understand it, I have made the point that the alaqah
> stage can not be seen by the naked human eye, and Denis could not
> not contest it

Well, of course, before we can decide what can be contested and what
cannot, we should consider how Nadir interprets the word alaqah as it
appears in the Qur'an.

> It is easy to identify the mudgah stage because the chewed
> appearance of the embryo.

That the mudhgha stage (as per its mention in the Qur'an) is where
Nadir claims it to be (though Nadir has not made an explicit claim
regarding this, the implication is that he sides with the
interpretations of the websites he called to witness) is still up for
debate, but we'll set that aside for now.

> Upon investigating the stages before the
> mudgah stage, we do find a stage in which the embryo
> does resemble a leech. Here is an example:
>
> http://www.almuhajiroun.com/nonmuslims/Sciences/Embryology.htm
>
> and figure 3:
> http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

Okay, and it is Nadir's claim that this is NOT observable to the human
eye. So let us consider the sites he has called to witness, and
whether or not the claim found in the Qur'an is a reference to
something observable. In both sites called to witness by Nadir, the
relevant image is figure 1 (figure 3 does not offer the resemblance to
a leech). Nadir's position is that (as is demonstrated by figure 1 at
either site) the embryo resembles a leech, thus when the Qur'an makes
a reference to 'alaqa (which can be translated as "leech"), it is
referring to development at this stage. So, the first question I have
for Nadir is, in the comparison offered in figure 1, what are the
similarities between the leech and the embryo?

It seems to me that the only similarity is the rough shape of each.
Nadir claims to now have access to Moore's textbook. In light of the
fact that figure 1 shows a depiction of an embryo at 24 days, could
Nadir kindly consult the actual size of the embryo at 24 days and
explain what details in the description are not observable? The shape
of an object is observable, correct? So, is there something other than
the shape that makes the 24-day-old embryo visibly resemble a leech?

> it is very possible that the quran is referring to to these images

> of the embryo as provided above. [...] their is a stage in the

> developement of the embryo, where it does look like a leech,
> therefore, most likely this is what the quran is talking about

Well, my comments are above. Now, I would also like to ask Nadir to
further perform his analysis. In his initial post on the subject of
embryology contributed to this thread, he leaned heavily in favor of a
divine explanantion. In light of the way this thread has evolved
through the discussion between Dr. Saifullaah and myself, does Nadir
think the only possibilities for this particular interpretation of thr
Qur'an lie within the paradigm of a bifurcation between direct
observation and divine guidance? For what reason does Nadir think this
is evidence of divine guidance (if at all)?

Denis Giron

unread,

Apr 24, 2003, 3:57:37 AM4/24/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03041...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
> ...

Apologies to Dr. Saifullaah for the delay in my response (the Easter
Holiday practically eliminated my net access). For those who would
like to read the post I am responding to in its entirety, it has been
archived by Google here:

I will touch on Aristotle, and then get into the Qur'an specifically,
but first, to begin, I'd like to focus on a comment and request Dr.
Saifullaah made towards the end of his post:

> I did not find the meaning of the word "meta-interpretation".
> Please can you provide me the reference of a dictionary which I can look
> at to clarify myself

I don't know of a dictionary that would have "meta-interpretation,"
though I also know of no dictionaries that would have "anti-Islamic,"
or "anti-Hadith," or "pro-Iraqi," et cetera. The English language
allows for compound words to be created out of existing words and
prefixes. The term "meta-interpretation" is used in Philosophy
departments. If you have a text, and offer your thoughts on its
meaning, that is an interpretation. If you offer your thoughts on an
interpretation (which is common in both religious and philosophical
circles), you're interpreting an interpretation, and thus offering a
"meta-interpretation". This is certainly something I accuse Dr.
Saifullaah of with regard to this discussion on the Qur'an and
embryology, and I will try to explain why in my comments below.

> The argument for embryology in the Qur'an is that there were no
> microscopes at the time is true.

It is true that there were no microscopes at the time the Qur'an was
uttered, but this does not justify the false bifurcation that I have
been attacking in this thread. The argument is usually summed up as
something like "the author of the Qur'an did not have a microscope,
thus this information came from the divine." It implies that the only
two possibilities are direct observation and divine guidance, and
while you have not overtly conceded that this bifurcation is false, I
think this discussion has demonstrated that such logic is poor (and
more of the same will be brought out below).

> you are yet to show us an image 18-20 day embryo acquired
> not using any microscopy tools.

Again, my argument was that if we are going to work under the false
dichotomy between direct observation and divine guidance, then any
text that makes an accurate statement about an embry at 20, 18, or
even 14 days, was either derived by divine guidance or direct
observation. If there are third and fourth options for Aristotle,
Galen, and the wise Pandit who wrote the Garbha Upanishad, then so too
there are other options for the author of the Qur'an.

> Let me get the issue straight here. You claimed that Aristotle saw
> umblical cord and how the blood vessels run to heart and other parts of
> the body as if Aristotle's observation was on humans.

Once again, Aristotle correctly stated that the umbilical cord had
blood vessels running to the heart (which only happens in early
development). As per the original bifucation, he either observed this
directly, or he was divinely inspired. Your option is to either admit
that Aristotle was divinely inspired, admit that he observed it
directly, or throw the false dichotomy out. My vote is behind the
third option. This is why this is relevant to the Qur'an, because it
means that accurate statements can be made with neither divine
guidance nor direct observation, thus negating one crux of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to Qur'anic embryology (as I
understand it).

> Now you tell us to demonstrate that
> Aristotle's findings were not based on observing a human embryo?

I did not tell you to demonstrate such. I merely commented that while
you claimed to have shown that Aristotle did not observe human
embryos, you actually had not shown such. You called Needham to
witness, and Needham did not support your extreme position.

> If Aristotle indeed see the human embryo, then you tell us what exactly
> did he see? Bring us the proof.

If we're still working under the false dichotomy between direct
observation and divine guidance that is applied to the Qur'an, then
Aristotle observed every correct statement that was not divinely
inspired (and if a correct statement was not drawn from direct
observation, then it was inspired by Allaah). If we can finally do
away with this silly dichotomy that is applied to the Qur'an, then
I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea what exactly Aristotle
observed, and how exactly he arrived at his various conclusions.

> Whatever Aristotle may have observed may be true for a particular animal
> or set of animals. But that does not mean that it is true for human
> embryology.

That's true, but the claim that the heart forms before the liver and
lungs is true in human embryology, as is his claim that the umbilical
cord has blood vessels connected to the heart (I have demonstrated
this in past posts in this thread that made reference to Moore's
textbook).

> And after all this you come here with
> your usual bragging about how I was proved "wrong". Where did I say
> exactly that umblical cord can be observed only at birth and not at any
> other time?

When I first raised Aristotle's comments on the umbilicus in an
attempt to bring the issue of what man (whether he be the author of
the Qur'an or some other person) could know about early development,
on March 10th you responded with the following:

"Aristotle was only describing the function of the umbilical cord. He
was not describing any embryonic stages of development, but what could
clearly be observed at birth: the fact that the umbilical cord
connects the child to the mother."

As I later noted, you are incorrect. What Aristotle described (blood
vessels inside a skin integument that makes up the umbilicus being
attached to the heart) cannot be observed at birth.

> We are discussing human embryology and
> Aristotle was talking about embryology in animals.

The human being is an animal, and Aristotle's position was basically
that human embryology is the same as roughly all other viviparous
producers. This is why textbooks on human embryology (Needham, Moore,
et cetera) mention Aristotle, because he was stating his position on
human embryology as well. He basically broke his studies on embryology
into different categories: viviparous production, pseudo-viviparous
production, oviparous production, et cetera. Humans (along with dogs,
pigs, monkeys, et cetera) fall under viviparous production, and the
statements I have brought to the table are what Aristotle considered
to be true of viviparous production. So, if you want to know
Aristotle's postion on what originates first in the human embryo, his
position is that the heart forms before the lungs and liver. His
position is that the umbilical cord originally has blood vessels
attached to the heart. Sure, he has the same position for many other
viviparous mammals, but so what? We're discussing human embryology in
this thread, and the comments I have brought to the thread are
correct.

Now we can get into Dr. Saifullaah' exegesis regarding Qur'anic
embryology. Keep in mind that, as is alluded to in the title of the
thread, the issue at hand here is if the Qur'anic statements regarding
embryology are proof that the Qur'an is from a divine source. I will
argue below that the interpretations offered by Dr. Saifullaah are not
sufficient enough to demonstrate that the Qur'an is from a divine
source. This does not mean I am setting out to prove the Qur'an is NOT
from a divine origin (this has never been my goal in this thread).

> As for the issue of "fakhalaqna X, Y" what is clear is that one originates
> from the other, but only in the sense of characteristics of the embryo.
> That is to say `alaqah, a leech-like structure, comes from nutfah, a
> drop-like structure. In the same way mudgha, a chewed-like structure comes
> from `alaqah, a leech-like structure. Similarly, izaam, bones, originate
> from mudgha, a chewed-like structure.

But originate in what sense? This is the issue that Dr. Saifullaah has
tried desperately to avoid. The sense that bones originate from the
mudhgha, in Dr. Saifullaah's interpretation, is with not actual bones,
but a precursor to bone (cartilage) forming inside the mudhgha (in
case Dr. Saifullaah forgot, bone is different from cartilage, and
izaam does not mean cartilage). However, with the mudhgha forming from
the alaqa, it is the entire alaqa that turns into the mudhgha. So we
see that the exegesis that Dr. Saifullaah applies to "fakhalaqna X,Y"
as per Soorat al-Moominoon is sufficiently vague so as to arbitrarily
employ variant interpretations.

In light of this, let me note what Imran Aijaz wrote regarding the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an back on December 25,
2001:

"Certain words and phrases in the Qur'an are open to multiple
interpretation and exegeses. What the proponents of the scientific
miracles type polemic are trying to do is to selectively pick out the
exegesis which supports their claims of scientific accuracy. This, I
find to be very arbitrary, why not select the one which would conflict
with science? The main reason is very simple. Because you already have
a presupposition that the Qur'an cannot be wrong. But this is
precisely what is being attempted at a demonstration, so the argument
begs the question on what correct exegesis is."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0bkok%24nfl%241%40samba.rahul.net

This observation by Imran is particularly applicable with regard to
the way Dr. Saifullaah interprets the logical structure "fakhalaqnaa
X,Y" in Soorat al-Moominoon. In one instance it means the entire X
becomes a Y, in the other instance it has a precursor to Y forming
inside the X. Why not reverse the chosen interpretation, and have
"fakhalaqnaa al-mudhghata izhaamaan" mean that the entire mudhgha
turns into bone? Dr. Saifullaah has given no reason to assume we
should choose one understanding of "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" and not the
other. He just keeps dancing around the issue without explaining why
we should believe that the Qur'an is referring specifically to his
chosen method of exegesis.

> "inna khalaqn-al-insaana min nutfatin amshaajin..." Verily, We have
> created man from a mixed nutfah. An important point to note here is that
> "nutfah" is a singular noun while "amshaj" is a plural modifying
> adjective. According to conventional rules of Arabic grammar, singular
> nouns are normally modified by singular adjectives, and thus the term
> "nutfah amshaaj" was perplexing to earlier Qur'anic scholars. However,
> this peculiarity of the language can be explained, since we note that the
> zygote remains singular as a nutfah,

Huh? When did we agree that the nutfa is a reference to the zygote?
Did anyone else catch how Dr. Saifullaah slipped that in there?
Originally he wrote that "[t]he word Nutfah means a drop or small
amount of water [...] and has been used in the Islamic literatue to
denote sexual secretion," and by sexual secretion I think it is clear
that the reference is to semen. So already we see the problems with
Dr. Saifullaah's exegesis, as he begins by assuming that the nutfa is
a reference to the zygote.

> while internally the
> chromosomes and other contributions from the sperm and ovum form a plural
> mixture described as amshaaj.

Of course the Qur'an itself makes no reference to chromosomes. Note
that of the Qur'anic translations I have seen, it is perfectly
sensible as a mixed drop, or even mixed/mingled semen. There is no
reference to the zygote or chromosomes, thus there is no need for Dr.
Saifullaah to import such things. Mixed drop, or mixed semen is not a
statement that no man could have made without divine guidance, so
scratch this as proof that the Qur'an is from a divine origin.

> This drop-like structure
> is placed in a "resting place" just like the embryo gets implanted in the
> uterus after it travels all the way from fallopian tubes.

That sperm (and later the developing embryo) is placed in the uterus
was understood by Galen and Aristotle, so this too is something that a
man could have known without divine guidance.

> This is the result of union of male and female pronuclei
> which has already undergone the shuffle of genes in the process of
> cross-over of chromosomes.

Of course the Qur'an does not make reference to any of this. The
Qur'an only mentions a drop (or semen), a mixed drop, a drop in the
womb, a drop becoming a clot, the clot becoming a morsel, the morsel
becoming bones, the bones being clothed with flesh. There is
absolutely no reference in the Qur'an to male and female pronuclei,
the shuffle of genes, or the process of cross-over of chromosomes,
thus there is no need for Dr. Saifullaah to bring such things to the
table.

> "thumma khalaqn-al-nutfata `alaqatan" means nutfah, a drop-like structure
> results in `alaqah, a leech like structure.

And in what sense one structure results in the other is, as has been
pointed out numerous times, wholly vague.

> Nutfah amshaaj, when it is
> firmly placed inside is womb, looks like a drop, a ball of cells forming
> morula, then blastocyte.

Or nutfa amshaaj could mean mixed/mingled semen, and surely that does
not look like a blall of cells; rather it would look like
mixed/mingled semen.

> This structure then attaches to the endometrial epithelium.

Of course the Qur'an never mentions such, so this is not relevant.

> Around 17th day the lengthening of the embryo takes place.

Of course, the Qur'an gives no dates, nor does it ever mention "the
lengthening of the embryo," thus this too is irrelevant.

> The embryo enlongates until it starts to look like a leech.

> [...]

> The external appearance of the embryo during this phase is
> similar to that of a blood clot.

Does it resemble a blood clot, or a leech? Both? Does this not make
alaqa quite vague, as it can mean leech, or blood clot? It seems to me
that, as was alluded to in the criticism by Imran Aijaz cited above,
that Dr. Saifullaah makes use of a given interpretation when it suits
his purposes. Of course, nutfa could just mean congealed blood, and
that be the end of it. Of course, at one point Dr. Saifullaah
interprets alaqa as leech, and then interprets the interpretation
(hence a meta-interpretation) so as to make it fit with one aspect,
and then when he feels it necessary, he interprets the very same word
as blood clot, and then interprets the interpretation (again, a
meta-interpretation) when he feels he can make it fit something else.
Of course, no explanation is given by Dr. Saifullaah as to why we
should assume this is what the Qur'an is making reference to; rather
he just assumes this is what the Qur'an is making reference to.

> "fakhalaqna al-`alaqata mudghtan" means mudgha, a chewed-like structure,
> orignated from `alaqah, a leech-like structure.

Keep in mind that mudhgha can also mean simply morsel, though Dr.
Saifullaah conveniently leaves that out. And of course we have the
usual objections about how one originates from the other, in what
sense? No explanation is given.

> The `alaqah stage finishes around 3.5 weeks or roughly 23-24 days.

Of course, the Qur'an makes no reference to dates, thus these points
are not relevant.

> Around 21 days [p. 84], the somites start to appear and
> they get progressively more prominent towards
> the end of the fourth week. This gives embryo is chewed-liked shape or
> mudgha.

Of course, the Qur'an makes no references to somites. We see how
desperate Dr. Saifullaah is to make this fit. Mudhgha can mean morsel,
or chewed lump (i.e. a bite sized lump that is about to be chewed, or
has been chewed). He interprets it as meaning chewed lump, and then
interprets his interpretation (i.e. he offers a meta-interpretation)
so as to make the chewed lump be a reference to somites! Of course,
Dr. Saifullaah once again gave us no reason for why we should assume
his interpretation and meta-interpretation is what the Qur'an is
making reference to.

> "It is evident from the above account that all major organs and organ
> systems are formed during the fourth to eighth weeks. This period is
> therefore also called the period of organogenesis." [T. W. Sadler,
> "Langman's Medical Embryology", 1985, 5th edition, Williams and Wilkins,
> p. 76]

Considering the fact that Aristotle correctly noted the order in which
certain organs formed, should we also assume Aristotle was familiar
with "the period of organogenesis"? If not, it would seem odd that Dr.
Saifullaah thinks the Qur'an saying "morsel/chewed-lump" is a
reference to "the period of organogenesis," but saying the heart forms
before the lungs and liver is not. We see how strained Dr.
Saifullaah's interpretation is, and how much irrelevant material he
imports to the discussion.

> "fakhalaqna al-mudgata izaaman" and "fa kasawna-l-izaama lahman":
> Since these two are closely related, let us look at them one by
> one. "fakhalaqna al-mudgata izaaman" would mean izaam originated from
> mudgha, a chewed-like structure. Hamilton and Mossman inform us about
> somites (representing the teeth-marks on a mudgha) result in the formation
> of axial skelaton and musculature.

Now the question about the proper interpretation of "fakhalaqnaa X,Y"
still stands. Are we saying that the entire mudhgha forms into a
skeleton, or that the skeleton (or a precursor to such) forms inside
the mudhgha? These are, as I'm sure Dr. Saifullaah is aware of, two
drastically different descriptions, and I would like to know how Dr.
Saifullaah determines when one understanding of "fakhalaqnaa X,Y" is
necessary and not the other.

> At the end of fourth week, the sclerotome cells become
> polymorphous and form a loosely woven tissue known as mesenchyme.

Of course the Qur'an makes no reference to the mesenchyme.
Furthermore, the mesenchyme is part of the embryonic mesoderm, set in
a gelatinous ground substance from which connective tissue, cartilage
and bone forms. If bone and cartilage form from mesenchyme, then the
mesenchyme is not bone, and the Qur'an makes reference only to bone,
thus Dr. Saifullaah is importing something that is not mentioned in
the Qur'an. As for clothing the bones with flesh, even Galen mentioned
that, and further Galen even made direct reference to the periosteal
membranes, which the Qur'an makes no mention of, thus "clothing the
bones with flesh" (even if accurate) is not a statement that no man at
the time could have known.

So, we see that Dr. Saifullaah has failed to justify his
interpretations, and has also failed to demonstrate that the Qur'an
contains statements regarding embryonic development that no human
being could have known. With that, I can end off with the discussion
on the Garbha Upanishad (note that the author of the Garbha Upanishad
correctly noted that the embryo is spherical at 14 days):

> Your wise pandit made a rather unwise claim that it
> is a result of the union of semen and menstrual blood. The brings us to a
> big question? Did this wise pandit observed what he is saying or did he
> observe something else? Or did he simply guess? May be you have some
> interesting things to say about it.

With a big smile, I again point out that I do not know how the wise
pandit-ji came to such a conclusion. Yes, the author was wrong when he
said conception is the result of a mixing of a semen and menstrual
blood. Nonetheless, what we are discussing is his statement that at 14
days the emrbyo is spherical, when indeed it is, and we only know this
from viewing a cross-section of a 14 day old embryo through a
microscope. So, if we're still under the original bifurcation, either
he observed it directly, or received such information from Allaah. If
you want to offer a third option (such as a guess, or a reference to
something else), then you are conceding that accurate statements can
be made regarding early development without a microscope or divine
guidance.

-Denis Giron

Denis Giron

unread,

Apr 26, 2003, 12:24:16 AM4/26/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03041...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
> ...

While I have already responded to this post by Dr. Saifullaah
elsewhere in the thread, I would like to offer some more comments. I
would like to focus on Dr. Saifullaah's interpretations of the word
"thumma" and the prefix "fa," as I think this points to a discrepancy
as well. First consider what Dr. Saifullaah wrote regarding "thumma":

> Hence the conjunction thumma that indicates a time
> lag between the sequence is appropriate.

[...]

> thumma indicating a sequence with a time lag

Now, with the above in mind, consider what Dr. Saifullaah wrote
regarding the prefix "fa":

> the presence of conjunction "fa" indicating that as
> soon as after the formation of zygote

[...]

> the tranformation of the shape from leech-like to

> a chewed-like happens rapidly Hence the conjunction
> "fa" is very appropriate.

[...]

> Again as one can see the transition from mudgha
> to izaam is rather rapid and hence the conjuntion
> "fa" is appropriate.

[...]

> Hence the sequence of izaam and clothing of izaam
> is again in rapid succession as indicated by the
> conjunction "fa"

The implication here is obvious: thumma and fa, according to Dr.
Saifullaah's interpretation (at least when he sees fit) represent two
drastically different time frames, with the former implying some sort
of time lag and the latter implying a quick change. The point that Dr.
Saifullaah is trying to get across is that the two are not the same,
they are not equal; thumma is clearly longer than fa. If this is
indeed the case, then it raises a number of new issues for what the
Qur'an and ahadeeth say regarding embryonic development. Let us then
compare different portions of the Qur'an to one another, as well as to
the ahaadeeth.

Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14 goes as follows:

Thumma khalaqnaa al-nutfata alaqatan

Then we formed the nutfa into an alaqa

Fakhalaqnaa al-alaqata mudhghatan

Then we formed the alaqa into a mudhgha

The first portion employs thumma, while the second employs fa, thus by
Dr. Saifullaah's exegesis, these events happen in drastically
different time frames. However, let us now reconsider this to the
relevant (and infamous) "forty days" hadith that has come up on more
than one occasion in this thread. The hadith reads as follows:

Inna ahada kum yuhma'u khalquhu fee
batni ummahi arba'eena yawmaan

A human being is formed in the womb

of his mother for forty days

Thumma yakunu alaqatan mithla dhalika

Then he becomes an alaqa for an equal period

Thumma yakunu mudhghatan mithla dhalika

Then he becomes a mudhgha for an equal period

The word "thumma," according to Dr. Saifullaah, implies a time delay
that is greater than the rapid sequence implied by the prefix "fa."
Thumma is to be considered different from fa. But if that is the case,
then the above hadith (which appears several times in Imam Bukhaaree's
Saheeh) CONTRADICTS the Qur'an in the sense that the Qur'an (at least
in Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14) employs "fa" to describe the time
sequence between the alaqa and the mudhgha, while the relevant
ahaadeeth employ "thumma." Of course, the more obvious conclusion
would be that the problem is with Dr. Saifullaah's exegesis, not the
Qur'an and ahadeeth, and I'll argue that below. However, for now, let
us suppose that Dr. Saifullaah's heremeneutic style has not been
brought into question, rather the problem lies with the ahaadeeth
(which by every Muslim's admission, are prone to error). We should
compare the Qur'an to itself, thus I would like to make mention of
Soorat al-Hajj 22:5, which goes as follows:

Fa'inna khalaqnaakum min turabin

Then certainly we created you from dust

Thumma min nutfatin

Then from nutfa

Thumma min alaqatin

Then from alaqa

Thumma min mudhghatin

Then from mudhgha

Now Dr. Saifullaah made mention of Soorat al-Hajj 22:5, but only
focused on the notion of formed and unformed mudhgha, conveniently
omitting the fact that "thumma" is also employed for the transition
from alaqa to mudhgha. In Soorat al-Moominoon the transfer from alaqa
to mudhgha employs "fa," but in Soorat al-Hajj "thumma" is employed.
If these time frames are to be considered blatantly different, then we
have a contradiction in the Qur'an. Of course, I don't really believe
this actually demonstrates an error in the Qur'an (or an discrepancy
between the Qur'an and ahaadeeth). However, I do think this
demonstrates just to what lengths Dr. Saifullaah will go in his
exegetical desperation to wrench some sort of amazing accuracy from
these passages.

The reality is that there is not necessarily a significant difference
between thumma and fa, but Dr. Saifullaah would like readers to
believe such since it suits his purposes in given instances. I'm
curious if Dr. Saifullaah is going to now try and argue that "thumma"
in Soorat al-Hajj or the relevant hadith quoted above does not imply a
time delay.

Finally, in Soorat 'Abasa 80:18, a question is asked regarding from
what man is created. In the next verse, the answer is "min nutfatin
khalaqahu," or "from semen He created him." For all of Dr.
Saifullaah's hermeneutic gymnastics, nutfa still means drop, or semen
(fluid, emission), and this is significant, as this portion of the
Qur'an (as well as the rest) seems to only take into account the semen
(something the ancient Jews and ancient Greeks were aware of), never
mentioning the ovum. This glaring omission is quite amazing
considering the fact that some claim this text contains information
regarding embryonic development that only Allaah could have known at
the time.

-Denis Giron

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

May 2, 2003, 8:50:46 AM5/2/03

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

We have to first start off with the recurring problem with Denis Giron,
i.e., the basic understanding of the issues involved. The first and
foremost is on the nature of the study conducted by Moore, Persaud,
Johnson, Zindaani and others on the issue of embryology in the Qur'an and
hadith. Denis is rather fond of saying that "There is absolutely no

reference in the Qur'an to male and female pronuclei, the shuffle of
genes, or the process of cross-over of chromosomes, thus there is no need

for Dr. Saifullaah to bring such things to the table" or "Of course, the
Qur'an makes no references to somites" or "Of course the Qur'an makes no
reference to the mesenchyme" etc. Of course, Mr. Giron would not even say
whether these words were available either in English or Arabic during the
advent of Islam. A nice evasive tactic! Denis' above insinuations will
be correct only we are dealing with exact studies. Exact studies are
possible between the two entities when there is a presence of common mode
of expression such as harmony in language and thought. In the comparative
studies of modern embryology and the embryological statements in the
Qur'an and hadith, there exist no common mode of expression because the
words used in modern embryology have come into usage in the last century
or so and ones that are mentioned in the Qur'an and hadith are very
rudimentary. The only way to study the expressions made in the past
containing embryology and to compare it with modern emrbyology is to
correlate them. Correlation is the only technique that bridges the gap
between the modern technical jargon and the simple and scientifically
inadequate language of the past. Now if Denis would have bothered to read
the title of the book by Moore and Zindaani which says "The Developing
Human Embryo: Clinically Oriented Emrbyology With Islamic Additions:
Correlation Studies with Qur'an and Hadith". The keyword here is
correlation. This word has been used in almost all the literature that I
have seen from Moore, Persaud, Zindaani et al. on the issue of embryology
in the Qur'an and hadith. This essentially means that Moore, Persaud,
Zindaani et al. were certainly aware that they can only tackle the subject
on the grounds of correlation studies not the exact studies. So, Denis'
attempt to ridicule by making statements like "Of course the Qur'an makes
no reference to the mesenchyme" etc. shows how deeply ignorant he is on
the basic issues involving this topic. So, what we will do as we go down
is to snip these statements loaded with attitude.

Correlation bridges the gap of understanding of the past and the
understanding of the present. It also bridges the gap between individuals
of two different knowledge levels, whether contemporary or whether living
in different ages. To cite an example, a few years ago BBC showed a
programme on embryology (I think the name of the programme was "The Human
Body" and I have to check it once again!). It discussed the early stage of
embryo and guess what! It described the early embryo as a leech, getting
its nourishment from the mother. The camera then turned towards a man on
whose arm was a leech sucking his blood to make the point. So, the
presenter made a good correlation between a very technical concept of the
nature of an early embryo and leech to ensure that people with various
backgrounds can understand it. Personally, I also had been asked to tell
school kids about various molecules and instruments that we work with,
during the national science week. A molecule called fullerne comes up
quite often. The best way to describe the shape of this molecule is to
have a football ready. This is because it resembles like a football
(12 pentagons and rest of them hexagons) with a carbon atom placed at
each of the corners. The school kids in the UK know what a football is and
hence they can correlate the football with the structure of fullerene
molecule. Of course, one can also say that the structure of fullerne comes
by partially trucating twelve vertices of the platonic solid called
icosahedron. For many school students such an explanation is not only
Greek and Latin but also fails to convey how exactly a truncated
icosahedron looks like. Correlation, obviously does away with a lot of
technical issues. For example, correlation of a fullerene to a football
would give a very accurate idea about the structure of fullerene
molecule; it will also give an idea about where carbon atoms are located.
But correlation would not say anything about the comparison between the
resonant frequency or chemical reactivity of fullerene molecule as
compared to the football. These specifics are more to do with the nature
of atomic bonding than the overall shape of the structure. Hence
correlation sacrifices technical detail for the simplicity and
comprehensibility of the issue at hand. This is true for the Qur'an
where the expression has been made in such a way that it is easier for
people of various mental capacities to grasp the message.

One should also add that much of the TV programmes that are scientific in
nature are often correlated with something much simpler and easy to
understand. Correlation not only to improve the viewership by keeping the
interest but also to impart the essential scientific knowledge to
non-specialists.

Now that we know that the studies conducted by Moore et al. are
correlation studies between modern embryology and the statements
concerning embryology mentioned in the Qur'an, let us see how they are
correlated.

A hadith recorded by Ahmad in Musnad says (also mentioned by Moore and
Zindani, The Developing Human: With Islamic additions, p. 12d) where a Jew
asked the Prophet, SAW:

"O Mohammad, what is the man created from?" The Prophet replied: O Jew,
(he is) created from both: from the man's nutfah and from the woman's
nutfah."

Moore et al. have correlated the nutfah of man and woman to semen and
ovum, respectively, by considering that nutfah, the drop, is round shaped.
Semen comes out as drops and ovum is also resembles a drop,
i.e., it is round-shaped. Similarly nutfah-amshaj that is a mixed-drop
again resembles like a drop, round shaped. "inna khalaqn-al-insaana min

nutfatin amshaajin..." Verily, We have created man from a mixed nutfah. An

important point to note here is that "nutfah" is a singular noun while

"amshaj" is a plural modifying adjective. According to conventional rules
of Arabic grammar, singular nouns are normally modified by singular
adjectives, and thus the term "nutfah amshaaj" was perplexing to earlier
Qur'anic scholars. However, this peculiarity of the language can be

explained, since we know now that the zygote remains singular as a nutfah,

like a drop, while internally the chromosomes and other contributions from
the sperm and ovum form a plural mixture described as amshaaj. Therefore,
from the point of view of science, amshaaj is accurate as a plural
adjective modifying the singular nutfah, which is really a multifacetted
entity. This drop-like structure is placed in a "resting place" just like
the embryo gets implanted in the uterus after it travels all the way from
fallopian tubes. For more information see Moore et al. "The Developing
Human" with Islamic Additions, p. 30n.

The drop-like shape of ovum and the "mixed drop" can be verified
by looking at some of the beautiful images in L. Nillson's book "A Child
Is Born", 1993, Dell Publishing, pp. 46-47 for ovum and pp. 56, 58-63 for
"mixed-drop".

As for the next stage, i.e., alaqah, leech, a suspended thing or a
blood clot, Moore et al. have correlated it to shape of the embryo at this
stage. The embryo resembles like a leech as has been discussed earlier.
The embryo is also suspended in the chorionic cavity through a connecting
stalk [Moore and Persaud, p. 78, Fig. 4-14]. We have already discussed how
the embryo also appears like a blood clot. The blood is present in the

blood vessels but it does not flow until the end of the third week, when
the heart begins to beat [p. 77]. The network of blood vessels with no
blood flow (enough though the blood is fluid!) give rise to a structure
that resembles a blood clot [p. 76, Fig. 4-12].

Next we come to the mudghah stage. Mudghah literally means a piece of
substance which has been chewed [Moore et al. The Developing Human: With
Islamic Additions, p. 446d]. This stage has been correlated with the
origin of somites as it is the most conspicuous feature right after the
alaqah stage.

The presence of multitude of somites along the neural tube of the embryo
makes the embryo appear like a substance that has been chewed and

imprinted by the teeth.

Izam stage is correlated to the bone stage. The cartilage models first
appears and then they also start to ossify. Osteogenesis of long bones
start first in the 7th week from primary ossification centres in the
middle of the cartilaginous models of the long bones [Moore and Persaud,
p. 437]. The first indication of limb musculature appears around the same
time as beginning of ossification.

With the elongation of limb buds, the muscular tissue splits into flexor
and extensor components." [T. W. Sadler, "Langman's Medical Embryology",
1985, 5th edition, Williams and Wilkins, p. 150]

And the muscles start to envelope around the bones.

> circles), you're interpreting an interpretation, and thus offering a

> "meta-interpretation". This is certainly something I accuse Dr.
> Saifullaah of with regard to this discussion on the Qur'an and
> embryology, and I will try to explain why in my comments below.

How do we know that your interpretation does not fall into the category
of "meta-interpretation"? Are you going to be both the judge and jury for
deciding who is right and who is wrong? What is worse is that you have
simply not provided an evidence to back up any of the statements that you
have made concerning the embryological statements in the Qur'an and
Hadith. You first started off by saying that these are modern day
interpretations and when asked for proofed you wanted the easy way out,
i.e., drop the case. On top of this what do you do? Accuse us of
"meta-interpretations"! How hypocritical and shameful of you to start
accusing others!? How will we know that you are correct in the statements
that you are making and not telling us your usual cock-and-bull stories?

The problems for Denis does not end here. He has a hobby-horse called
"dichotomy" which he usually brings in whenever a mention of microscope is
made. What we had asked him at least two times (and now the third time!)
to show us the image of an early embryo acquired using no microscopy
tools. But the interesting thing is he does not want to show it. This is
the easiest way to show that we are into false dichotomy. Instead his

excuse comes in various forms. One such form says:

> Again, my argument was that if we are going to work under the false
> dichotomy between direct observation and divine guidance, then any
> text that makes an accurate statement about an embry at 20, 18, or
> even 14 days, was either derived by divine guidance or direct
> observation. If there are third and fourth options for Aristotle,
> Galen, and the wise Pandit who wrote the Garbha Upanishad, then so too

> there are other options for the author of the Qur'an.

That is red-herring. As for Panditji, who wrote the Garbha Upanishad,
he claimed that the structure of a 14 day "mass" was spherical and was
formed by the union of semen and menstrual blood. Now Denis magnifies the
issue of a spherical shape of the "mass" and leaves the important issue of
how it came about by brushing it under the carpet. He then says that
"we're still under the original bifurcation, either he observed it
directly, or received such information from Allaah". We are basically
asked to believe in a statement that says that a 14 days spherical
"mass" formed by the union of semen and menstrual blood is basically
"inspired". Why not then the statements from Aristotle, Galen and
Hippocrates that say nearly the same thing that conception begins with the
contribution of semen and menstrual blood be considered as "inspired"? It
is like rewarding a cheat for getting his answer right even though his
fundamental calculation was wrong. Denis' problem do not stop here. He
has a habit of not supplying all the relevant information. What exactly
does Garbha Upanishad say about the sequence of development of humans:

"... it is held [by Garbha Upanishad] that a new bring is present in the
form of a nodule by the first night, a vesicle on the seventh day, and a
node a fortnight after intercourse. This node was said to become attached
to the uterus in one month, although the head was thought to appear only
after two months, the feet in three, the tarsals, abdomen, and hips in
four, the vertebral column in five, and nose, eyes, and ears in sixth
month. The soul was thought to enter the body in the seventh month..."
[A. W. Meyer, "The Rise of Embryology, 1939, Stanford University Press:
Stanford, CA, p. 18]

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the Panditji was right on
the issue of node, correlating it to a spherical structure of zygote, we
see that he was wrong to say that this node attaches to the uterus in one
month. We know that the node or the spherical mass attaches to the uterus
much earlier than a month; around 6 days, to be more precise. We have
conclude that the node was given a guided tour of the woman's sexual
organs for a month before getting attached somewhere in the uterus. Thus,
Panditji was also wrong he the beginning when he claimed that this node
was due to a combination of semen and menstrual blood and he was wrong
after he claimed that the node or the spherical mass became attached to
the uterus in one month (and not to mention horrible errors in the later
stages!). So much for the "wisdom" of the Panditji which Denis was
flaunting about!

Now comes Aristotle into the picture. Denis started off with Aristotle as
if he made his observations on humans. When confronted with the issue, he
"conceded" that this is not true but instead says that:

> Once again, Aristotle correctly stated that the umbilical cord had
> blood vessels running to the heart (which only happens in early
> development). As per the original bifucation, he either observed this
> directly, or he was divinely inspired. Your option is to either admit
> that Aristotle was divinely inspired, admit that he observed it
> directly, or throw the false dichotomy out. My vote is behind the
> third option. This is why this is relevant to the Qur'an, because it
> means that accurate statements can be made with neither divine
> guidance nor direct observation, thus negating one crux of the
> scientific-hermeneutic approach to Qur'anic embryology (as I
> understand it).

But, Sir, you did not show us that Aristotle indeed saw that umblical cord
had blood vessels running to the heart as it happens in the earlier
development. Aristole did not say such a thing and it is you who are
claiming it without evidence. How interesting! If you would bother to read
Moore's book a little bit more closely you would find that it is true
that umblical cord has blood vessels running to the heart and liver even
in a well-formed fetus and neonate. Please see figures 14-46, 14-47, and
14-48 in Moore's book [pp. 392-394]. If Aristotle observed this in the
animals, we are not really surprised. Aristotle was describing the
function of the umbilical cord:

being of course a blood-vessel - a single blood vessel in some animals,
and consisting of more numerous ones in others. Round these blood vessels
there is a skin-like integument, because the blood vessels being weak need
a protective covering to keep them safe and sound. The blood-vessels join

on to the uterus as though they were roots, and through them the fetation
gets its nourishment. And that of course is the reason why the young

animal stays in the uterus." [Aristotle (Trans. A. L. Peck), "Generation
of Animals", 1953, William Heinemann Ltd.: London and Harvard
University Press: Cambridge (MA), Book II, 740a, page 197)]

Commenting on above statements, Aristotle adds:

"In viviparous animials, as stated earlier, the embryo obtains its growth
through the umblical attachment.... The umblicus consists of blood
vessels in a sheath. In the larger animals, such as the ox and the like,
it contains numerous blood vessels, in medium-sized animals, two, and in
the smallest, one." [op cit. 745b, p. 239]

Aristotle performed dissections [op cit. 740a, p. 197 and more on it
below] and used it to describe in detail the blood vessels and the
connecting organs [See Aristotle's (Trans. A. L. Peck) "Historia
Animalium", Book III, Chapter 3]. Obviously, ascribing "early development"
to Aristotle is clearly Denis' invention. Aristotle's observations are
clearly on young animals not on a microscopic creature. And one can guess
what happened to his claim of his hobby-horse called "bifurcation". Gone
into the drain! We will flush this argument more as we go down.

> > The argument for embryology in the Qur'an is that there were no
> > microscopes at the time is true.
>

> It is true that there were no microscopes at the time the Qur'an was
> uttered, but this does not justify the false bifurcation that I have
> been attacking in this thread. The argument is usually summed up as
> something like "the author of the Qur'an did not have a microscope,
> thus this information came from the divine." It implies that the only
> two possibilities are direct observation and divine guidance, and
> while you have not overtly conceded that this bifurcation is false, I
> think this discussion has demonstrated that such logic is poor (and
> more of the same will be brought out below).

What this discussion so far has demonstrated is that:

1. You could not prove the claim that Moore and others were "paid" to say
whatever they said about the Qur'an and hadith.

2. You represented Aristotle as if he was observing humans, but when
confronted, you "conceded" to what we have said. Just a few paragraphs
above you claimed as if Aristotle observed "early development" of joining
of blood vessel of umblical cord to the heart. Aristotle, on the other
hand, had observed it in young animals.

3. You claimed that the meanings of the words mentioned in the Qur'an were
modern and again when confronted you were "willing" to "drop" it.

4. We asked you to produce a picture of an early embryo acquired unaided
that shows the features unambiguously. So far, we have seen no evidence
except for the excuses. This combined with point 2 above refuted your
hobby-horse called "bifurcation".

5. One should also add that you do not even know the methodology used by
Moore et al. for studying the embryological statements in the Qur'an and
hadith. They used the correlation studies whereas you used exact studies.
It is quite clear that exact studies are inapplicable in comparing the
statements from the past and the present due to linguistic gap.

Impressed with your list of "achievements", Mr. Giron? There is more as
we go down.

> > Now you tell us to demonstrate that
> > Aristotle's findings were not based on observing a human embryo?
>

> I did not tell you to demonstrate such. I merely commented that while
> you claimed to have shown that Aristotle did not observe human
> embryos, you actually had not shown such. You called Needham to
> witness, and Needham did not support your extreme position.

What is doubtful is if Aristotle observed a human embryo just like he
observed the animals. You yourself are not sure about it. Who are you
going to convince? Rest of the world?

> > Whatever Aristotle may have observed may be true for a particular
animal
> > or set of animals. But that does not mean that it is true for human
> > embryology.
>

> That's true, but the claim that the heart forms before the liver and
> lungs is true in human embryology, as is his claim that the umbilical
> cord has blood vessels connected to the heart (I have demonstrated
> this in past posts in this thread that made reference to Moore's
> textbook).

We have discussed the issue of umblical cord. Let us again have a look at
what Aristotle says about formation of heart first and how he came to
this conclusion:

"On the account in all blooded animals it is the heart which can first be
seen as something distinct, as this is the first principle, both of the
"uniform" and of the "non-uniform" parts - since this justifiably
designated as first principle of the animal or organism from the moment
when it begins to need nourishment, for of course that which exists grows,
and, for an animal, the ultimate form of nourishment is blood or its
counterpart. Of these fluids the blood vessels are the receptacle, and
therefore the heart is the first principle of them as well. This is
CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT IN THE RESEARCHES AND IN THE DISSECTIONS." [op cit.
196-197]

In another place Aristotle says that the formation of heart is first,
because it

"... is plain not only to senses (for after all it is the matter of fact)
but also to reason." [op cit., 740a, p. 193]

As far as "plain" to senses it concerned, we have already seen that
Aristotle saw it through his dissections. As for the "reason" for the
formation of heart first, Aristotle says:

"As the source of the sensations is in the heart, the heart is the first
part of the whole animal to be formed;..." [op cit., 743b, p. 225]

So, the conclusion that the heart formed first was arrived through
dissections. Now the question arises which animal did Aristotle dissect to
reach this conclusion. My guess is that it is some kind of a relatively
large bird egg at an early stage of embryo. I would be looking into some
of the embryology-related issues of various kinds of bird eggs,
insha'allah, when I get time.

Writing under the section 'Aristotle's Biological Method' in the book"The
Cambridge Companion to Aristotle", the author says:

"Rather the isolated cases of more or less complete description of animals
(e.g., the ape at HA 2 8 and the chamaeleon at HA 2 11) represent not the
occasional instances of completed taxonomical descriptions, but rather the
earliest stage of information gathering, prior to the general description
of individual animals being broken down into their casually interesting
parts. Thus the description of the dissection of the blind mole to reveal
its hidden eyes at HA 4 8, 533a I-II is described not in the interests of
providing a complete account of the mole's structure and morphology, but
simply in order to show that this unique case (the only one of a
vivaparous quadruped lacking one of the five senses) is the result of the
imperfect in the working out of nature" [J. Barnes, "The Cambridge
Companion to Aristotle", 1999, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK),
pp. 123-124]

HA is "Historia Animalium", a book written by Aristotle that contains
detailed description of various internal parts of animals as observed
through dissection. That Aristotle used dissection and based some of his
conclusions, whether right or wrong, through inductive-deductive method,
as opposed to earlier (and later) methods of pure deduction from a priori
premises is well-known. His attack on his predecessors' work, sprinked in
his works, was usually laced with the complaints of insufficient
observation.

As for liver and lungs forming after heart, Aristotle could have easily
reached this conclusion through dissections as well. As for the quotation
from Moore's book, we are still waiting to see if you can produce us any
image of an early embryo acquired without microscopic aids, showing
unambiguously the presence of heart. You will then have your point! Until
then you are most welcome to make as much noise as you want.

> > And after all this you come here with
> > your usual bragging about how I was proved "wrong". Where did I say
> > exactly that umblical cord can be observed only at birth and not at
any
> > other time?
>

> When I first raised Aristotle's comments on the umbilicus in an
> attempt to bring the issue of what man (whether he be the author of
> the Qur'an or some other person) could know about early development,
> on March 10th you responded with the following:
>
> "Aristotle was only describing the function of the umbilical cord. He
> was not describing any embryonic stages of development, but what could
> clearly be observed at birth: the fact that the umbilical cord
> connects the child to the mother."

I asked you specifically as per your claim that I said umblical cord can
be observed *only* at birth. The above statement of mine does not say that
the umbilical cord can only be observed at birth. I said it could clearly
be observed at birth. Before you raise a polemic, please try to improve
your reading comprehension.

> As I later noted, you are incorrect. What Aristotle described (blood
> vessels inside a skin integument that makes up the umbilicus being
> attached to the heart) cannot be observed at birth.

Aristotle also did dissections as we have already shown above.

> > We are discussing human embryology and
> > Aristotle was talking about embryology in animals.
>

> The human being is an animal, and Aristotle's position was basically
> that human embryology is the same as roughly all other viviparous
> producers. This is why textbooks on human embryology (Needham, Moore,
> et cetera) mention Aristotle, because he was stating his position on
> human embryology as well. He basically broke his studies on embryology

Where exactly did Aristotle state that his position was "basically that
human embryology is the same as roughly all other viviparous producers"?
Please give us the reference so that we can verify and see whether you are
cooking up stories and using meta-interpretations.

> > As for the issue of "fakhalaqna X, Y" what is clear is that one
originates
> > from the other, but only in the sense of characteristics of the
embryo.
> > That is to say `alaqah, a leech-like structure, comes from nutfah, a
> > drop-like structure. In the same way mudgha, a chewed-like structure
comes
> > from `alaqah, a leech-like structure. Similarly, izaam, bones,
originate
> > from mudgha, a chewed-like structure.
>

> But originate in what sense? This is the issue that Dr. Saifullaah has
> tried desperately to avoid. The sense that bones originate from the

The answer is right in front of you and you say that we are trying to
"desperately" avoid. Or is it that you getting too desparate that you
can't even comprehend what has been said. I said that the origin of one
phase from another is in the sense of characteristics of the embryo. The
round drop-like structure of embryo changes to a leech-like structure and
this leech-like structure changes to a chewed-liked structure. These show
the change the morphology of the embryo. This is the way Moore et al. have
correlated the early stages of embryology. "A New System For Classifying
Human Development" which is an abstract of the paper presented by Moore
and Zindaani (8th Saudi Medical Conference, 1983) has been reproduced in
the Islamic Additions version of Moore's book [see pp. 446f-446g]. This
discusses the characteristics of embryo as mentioned in the Qur'an and
correlates it with its morphological structure. The correlation is also
carried out by tying it with some of the characteristics of the embryo at
each stage.

> the alaqa, it is the entire alaqa that turns into the mudhgha. So we
> see that the exegesis that Dr. Saifullaah applies to "fakhalaqna X,Y"
> as per Soorat al-Moominoon is sufficiently vague so as to arbitrarily
> employ variant interpretations.

I have provided the reference at each and every stage of the
discussion and one can go back and check what I am saying. How do we know
that what you are claiming to be true? For all we know, you are simply
inventing the stories to confuse the people. So far, what is clearly not
available from side are the references. And hence we simply go for a snip.

> denote sexual secretion," and by sexual secretion I think it is clear
> that the reference is to semen. So already we see the problems with
> Dr. Saifullaah's exegesis, as he begins by assuming that the nutfa is
> a reference to the zygote.

Semen is Arabic is called "Mani'" and as expected Arabic translations of
Galen's book "On Semen" is called "Kitab al-Mani'" not "Kitab al-Nutfah".
So, it is you who is inventing that nutfah can be clearly a reference to
"semen". What was your evidence? None! In the Islamic literature, nutfah
has been used in reference to both male and female sexual secretions.
Moore et al. have correlated this term with the type or shape of the
secretion; the men's secretion being emitted as drops and the female
secretion being ovum's shape resembles like a drop. Nutfah-amshaaj or
"mixed-drop" has been correlated to a zygote after confirming what it
means from the Arabic language dictionaries, tafseers etc. This is because
zygote still resembles like a drop, round and spherical.

> > This drop-like structure
> > is placed in a "resting place" just like the embryo gets implanted in
the
> > uterus after it travels all the way from fallopian tubes.
>

> That sperm (and later the developing embryo) is placed in the uterus
> was understood by Galen and Aristotle, so this too is something that a
> man could have known without divine guidance.

The discovery of "sperm" was in the 17th century by a guy called Johan Ham
van Arnhem. Leeuwenhock reported his findings in a letter to the Royal
Society in London. What Galen and Aristotle have mentioned is semen not
sperm. So, Mr. Giron, who is spinning the stories here?

> his purposes. Of course, nutfa could just mean congealed blood, and
> that be the end of it. Of course, at one point Dr. Saifullaah

Of course, nutfah could mean "congealed blood" provided you bring an
evidence to show that it does! We are not interested in your cock-and-bull
stories.

> Considering the fact that Aristotle correctly noted the order in which
> certain organs formed, should we also assume Aristotle was familiar
> with "the period of organogenesis"? If not, it would seem odd that Dr.
> Saifullaah thinks the Qur'an saying "morsel/chewed-lump" is a
> reference to "the period of organogenesis," but saying the heart forms
> before the lungs and liver is not. We see how strained Dr.
> Saifullaah's interpretation is, and how much irrelevant material he
> imports to the discussion.

We have already shown that Aristotle's observation was through
dissections and you have already shown the inability to produce the
evidence of an image of early embryo acquired without any microscopic
aids. We have already shown you that study by Moore et al. is a
correlation study not exact study as you have assumed. What are you left
with? Cheap excuses! We will soon see more of it, insha'allah.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

Denis Giron

unread,

May 9, 2003, 8:11:52 AM5/9/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03050...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
> ...

Apologies for the delay in my reply. This is a response to Dr.
Saifullaah's post from May 2nd, which has been archived by Google
here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.HPX.4.33L.0305021042070.12172-100000%40club.eng.cam.ac.uk
"
Quickly, I want to touch on Aristotle. My understanding is that with
Aristotle, he broke down the animals into three categories: viviparous
producers, pseudo-viviparous producers, and oviparous producers. This
is drawn from the following:

We must observe how rightly nature orders generation in regular
gradation. The more perfect and hotter animals produce their young
perfect in respect of quality (in respect of quantity this is so with
no animal, for the young always increase in size after birth), and
these generate living animals within themselves from the first. The
second class do not generate perfect animals within themselves from
the first (for they are only viviparous after first layign eggs), but
still they are externally viviparous. The third class do not produce a
perfect animal, but an egg, and this egg is pefect."
[From Aristotle, Generatione Animalium, Book II, pt 1, 733a32-733b7,
as per Jonathan Barnes (ed.), "The Complete Works of Aristotle," Vol
1, (Princeton, 1985), p. 1138]

Man, along with dogs, apes, mice, cats, pigs, et cetera, falls into
the first category. Thus, I understand it, that unless a specific
exception is noted, discussion on viviparous producers is a reference
to man (as well as dogs, et cetera). Thus if Aristotle's position is
that XYZ happens with viviparous production, unless he is noting an
exception (such as XYZ does not happen with certain animals, such
as...), this states his position with regard to man. In a nutshell
then, if Aristotle's position is that the heart forms before the lungs
with viviparous producers, this is his position regarding human
development (as well as feline devolpment, canine development, equine
development, et cetera). Now regarding this aspect of human
development, either he observed this directly, or God told him so. But
Dr. Saifullaah says that it is more likely that there are third and
fourth options: Aristotled observed it in animal dissections, and
assumed via induction that the same was the case with those viviparous
producers which he did not observe; or maybe he inferred such via an
appeal to his own notions of common sense. Fine, and Dr. Saifullaah
has, again, blown away the false dichotomy between direct observation
and divine guidance. One can actually have an opinion about man, with
neither direct observation on an embryo nor divine guidance.

Moving on to the exegesis of the Qur'an, Dr. Saifullaah complained
that I had, on several ocassions, said things along the lines of

"There is absolutely no reference in the Qur'an to male and female
pronuclei, the shuffle of genes, or the process of cross-over of
chromosomes, thus there is no need for Dr. Saifullaah to bring such
things to the table" or "Of course, the Qur'an makes no references to
somites" or "Of course the Qur'an makes no reference to the

mesenchyme" et cetera. Dr. Saifullaah can talk of "correlation" all he
wants, but the statements I have made above are true. Dr. Saifullaah
takes a vague statement, then gives a long discourse on embryological
development, and then claims the statement is a reference to what he
noted in his discourse. In such instances, it is more than fair to
note that which is being imported by Dr. Saifullaah. It is absurd to
go into a long discussion on what the Qur'an says regarding somites
when the Qur'an actually never mentions somites. Think about how much
Dr. Saifullaah drew from the simple statement "chewed lump" (which
could also mean simply morsel, bite-sized bit, et cetera).

Let me offer an analogy that will demonstrate the ultimate irony in
Dr. Saifullaah's exegesis. Suppose there is a seventh century Arab
(who is *NOT* Muhammad, and *NOT* an author of the Qur'an), who is
*NOT* divinely inspired; rather he is just an ordinary man. Suppose
this man believes that God first creates semen (just semen, not a
zygote, or some ball of chromosones), and then in the womb forms the
semen into a blood clot (just a blood clot, not a 24 day old embryo),
and then forms the blood clot into a morsel (just bite-sized lump of
material, not a 28 day old embryo with somites), and then forms the
morsels into bones, and clothes the bones with flesh.

In such an instance, the stages of development in this hypothetical
Arab's mind would be:

semen --> blood clot --> morsel --> bones --> clothing of bones

Now, if he were writing this in Arabic, the word for "semen" could be
nutfa, the word for "blood clot" could be alaqa, the word for "morsel"
could be mudhgha, the word for "bones" could be izham, and when this
hypothetical Arab wants to have God say "then we clothed the bones
with flesh," he could write fakasawnaa al-'izhama lahman.

Okay, now I'm NOT claiming this is the precise position of the Qur'an.
However, it is wholly possible for a man to have an erroneous
conception of human development that is similar in wording to the
Qur'an's position. This does not mean the Qur'an is in error. However,
in such an instance, the vast majority of exegesis that Dr. Saifullaah
applied to the Qur'an would be applicable to the writings of this
hypothetical Arab. What this demonstrates is that it is possible for a
human being, who is not divinely inspired, to write something that
does not convey some amazing scientific knowledge, and then have this
writing seem like divine inspiration under Dr. Saifullaah's methods of
exegesis. What this analogy uncovers is an ironic flaw in Dr.
Saifullaah's hermeneutics: even if the text being discussed was not
divinely inspired, and was not referring to what Dr. Saifullaah claims
it is referring to, his approach would apply just the same!

That analogy aside, let us consider Dr. Saifullaah's exegesis, as per
his most recent post to this thread...

> A hadith recorded by Ahmad in Musnad says (also mentioned by Moore and
> Zindani, The Developing Human: With Islamic additions, p. 12d) where a Jew
> asked the Prophet, SAW:
>
> "O Mohammad, what is the man created from?" The Prophet replied: O Jew,
> (he is) created from both: from the man's nutfah and from the woman's
> nutfah."
>
> Moore et al. have correlated the nutfah of man and woman to semen and
> ovum, respectively,

Dr. Saifullaah has criticized me for calling these interpretations
"modern". Let me drive this home. Moore, Persaud, and Zindaanee were
born in the 20th century. Dr. Saifullaah above calls only them to
witness. That's what we call a modern interpretation. I may be wrong,
but I recall that the term "ovum" is a very late/recent (if not
"modern") one; if I am correct, this to is a modern interpretation. So
yes, some portions of Dr. Saifullaah's interpretations are quite
modern after all.

The dictionaries I have looked in have "nutfah" means "semen." Sorry,
but making a reference to the semen of the male and the "semen" of the
female does not count as a reference to the ovum. The Talmud aludes to
the "semen" of the woman in certain parts. A *LITERAL* reading of
Leviticus 12:2, or Hebrews 11:11 would also have women producing
"semen" (interestingly, Theophylactus, in his "Expositio in Epistulam
ad Hebraeos" to Heb. 11:11 notes exactly the possiblity that the verse
could be speaking of the fact both men and women produce "sperma,"
i.e. seed/semen). Note that Censorius in his "De Die Natali Liber"
(see 5:4) notes that Diogenes, Hippo and the Stoics believe only the
male produces semen, while Anaxagoras, Alcmaeon, Parmenides,
Empedocles and Epicurus thought that women did also. Even Galen made
vague reference to the "sperma" semen/seed of the female. If we are
really so naive as to think that reference to female seed/semen is a
reference to the ovum, then we would have to believe that man has been
aware of the ovum for over 2500 years!

> by considering that nutfah,
> the drop, is round shaped.

As I understand it, and as I noted in a post to SRI on April 17th that
noted several Arabic dictionaries, nutfa is from the root "natafa," to
drip, dribble, trickle, ooze. A drop can be round, but which Arabic
dictionary did Dr. Saifullaah consult to get the word nutfa to
actually mean any explicit reference to roundness? It seems to me that
it is perfectly sensible to understand "nutfa" as an emission, i.e.
semen, and all the Arabic dictionaries I consulted treat it as such.
Dr. Saifullaah's interpretation seems to clearly be the more strained
one.

Regarding "nutfah amshaaj," Dr. Saifullaah writes:

> this peculiarity of the language can be
> explained, since we know now that the zygote remains
> singular as a nutfah, like a drop, while internally the
> chromosomes and other contributions from
> the sperm and ovum form a plural mixture described as amshaaj.

Huh? Did Dr. Saifullaah give us any reason to assume it is a reference
to chromosomes? Which word hinted at chromosomes? What's wrong with
just mixed/mingled semen? Am I the only one who sees the major leaps
that Dr. Saifullaah makes with his exegesis? And, to refute my silly
claim that these interpretations are "modern," maybe Dr. Saifullaah
can't properly quoteand cite the medieval Arabic dictionary that
notes chromosomes in relation to "nutfah amshaaj"?

> As for the next stage, i.e., alaqah, leech, a suspended thing or a
> blood clot, Moore et al. have correlated it to shape of the embryo at this
> stage. The embryo resembles like a leech as has been discussed earlier.

There is a difference between a blood clot and a leech. Which is it?
Or does Dr. Saifullaah feel that it is convenient to have it mean one
when he can make it fit, and the other when he can make that fit?
Furthermore, take the point when the embryo resembles a leech (24
days), how do we know the Qur'an is claiming it is a leech at that
specific time?

> Next we come to the mudghah stage. Mudghah literally means a piece of
> substance which has been chewed [Moore et al. The Developing Human: With
> Islamic Additions, p. 446d]. This stage has been correlated with the
> origin of somites as it is the most conspicuous feature right after the
> alaqah stage.

I have a question, if we got about fifty people to thoroughly chew a
piece of meat, and then spit it out, which mark would correspond to
the somites? How about before the piece is chewed? Indeed, mudhgha can
also mean morsel, so if we have a yet-to-be-chewed piece of something
(like a new piece of gum), could Dr. Saifullaah point out the somites
on it? Furthermore, to refute my audacious and ridiculous claim that
this interpretation is "modern," could Dr. Saifullaah quote and cite a
specific medieval dictionary that states that "mudhgha" is a reference
to somites?

> Izam stage is correlated to the bone stage. The cartilage models first
> appears and then they also start to ossify.

Once again we see the leaps that Dr. Saifullaah makes. The Qur'an
makes no reference to "cartilage models," rather it only mentions
"bone". Does Dr. Saifullaah know that there is a difference between
izham (bones) and ghudhroof (cartilage)? If cartilage turns into bone,
then cartilage is something different from bone (simple logic), and
the Qur'an only mentions bones.

> And the muscles start to envelope around the bones.

And Galen said something similar... does Dr. Saifullaah consider the
bones being clothed with flesh to be something no man could have
known? How does the Qur'an differ from Galen with regard to the bones
being clothed with flesh in Dr. Saifullaah's opinion?

> How do we know that your interpretation does not fall into the category
> of "meta-interpretation"?

Which interpretation? I have tried to be careful to not say exactly
what the Qur'an meant, as that could be analogous to arguing that the
Qur'an contains an error, and is thus not divinely inspired. My only
argument has been that Dr. Saifullaah has failed to demonstrate some
information regarding embryology in the Qur'an that no mere human
could have uttered. As for his meta-interpretation, I demonstrated
that quite clearly, and now Dr. Saifullaah wants to accuse me of doing
the same. Let's suppose I have done just that (especially, for
example, with Aristotle). Does this some how negate that fact that Dr.
Saifullaah is only showing how his meta-interpretation (not the actual
Quranic text) correlates with science? Does Dr. Saifullaah know that
his tu quoque is fallacious?

> The problems for Denis does not end here. He has a hobby-horse called
> "dichotomy" which he usually brings in whenever a mention of microscope is
> made. What we had asked him at least two times (and now the third time!)
> to show us the image of an early embryo acquired using no microscopy
> tools.

I never claimed that I can show a microscopic (or sliehgtly larger)
image without a microscope; rather I was attacking a false dichotomy
that Dr. Saifullaah himself is quick to shake off when it is applied
to others. Again, the gist of the logic is that if a man (such as the
man who allegedly first recited the Qur'an) makes an accurate comment
about human development, he either observed it directly or was
divinely inspired. However, with Aristotle and the Garbha Upanishad,
suddenly Dr. Saifullaah wants to say there are other options:
inferring something from the dissection of a non-human animal,
guessing, et cetera. Thus he has himself demolished the bifurcation.

> That is red-herring. As for Panditji, who wrote the Garbha Upanishad,
> he claimed that the structure of a 14 day "mass" was spherical and was
> formed by the union of semen and menstrual blood.

Yes, and he made a number of other errors, as was shown by Dr.
Saifullaah. Nonetheless, "Panditji" (as Dr. Saifullaah lovingly calls
the author of the relevant portion of the Garbha Upanishad) said that
at 14 days, the embryo is spherical. Note that the Qur'an *NEVER*
gives a date, but this Upanishad does. Why is this relevant? Well, if
one observes a cross-section of the embryo at 14 days, it is indeed
spherical. It is irrelevant if everything else Panditji wrote was an
error; what is relevant is the fact that he correctly said the embryo
is spherical at 14 days. So, under the original false dichotomy,
either Panditji observed this directly (not bloody likely!), or
received his information from Allaah. Which was it? If Dr. Saifullaah
dares to pick a third option, he has admitted that the bifurcation
between divine guidance and direct observation is foolhardy, which is
my position. Does Dr. Saifullaah admit that it is possible to make an
accurate statement with neither divine guidance nor direct
observation?

> 1. You could not prove the claim that Moore and others were "paid" to say
> whatever they said about the Qur'an and hadith.

The Wall Street Journal article said they were given thousand dollar
honorariums, and Moore listed other benefactors. You said this is
perfectly common, so I dropped it ("like a hot potato" if you prefer).

> 2. You represented Aristotle as if he was observing humans,

Right, because he either observed them, or Allaah gave him the
information. Oh but wait, you now want to no longer work under such a
silly dichotomy. If that's the case, then I'm willing to retract any
claim that Aristotle observed humans directly. :)

> 3. You claimed that the meanings of the words mentioned in the Qur'an were
> modern and again when confronted you were "willing" to "drop" it.

I was willing to drop it, but you don't seem to be. So please show me
the dictionaries that are not modern that refer to nutfa as zygote, or
mention chromosomes, somites, the ovum, et cetera...

Now on to properly interpreting "khalaqnaa X,Y"...

> I said that the origin of one phase from another is in the
> sense of characteristics of the embryo.

In what sense? What does this mean? When the mudhgha turns into bone
it takes on characteristics of bone? Elucidate please! Think about
Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14. The logical structure "khalaqnaa X,Y"
appears three times in that single verse:

(1) nutfa - alaqa
(2) alaqa - mudgha
(3) mudhgha - izhaam

Shouldn't it mean the same time each time in this sentence? Dr.
Saifullaah's various forms of exegesis have it meaning different
things. Does the alaqa form inside the nutfa, or does the entire nutfa
become an alaqa? Does the mudhgha form inside the alaqa, or does the
entire alaqa become an mudhgha? Do the bones form inside the mudhgha,
or does the entire mudhgha become an bones? How do you know which is
which? Or is the Qur'an so vague that it does not specific when it is
one and not the other? And if it so vague, does this not deliver a
strong blow to claims of "scientific accuracy"?

> Semen is Arabic is called "Mani'" and as expected Arabic translations of
> Galen's book "On Semen" is called "Kitab al-Mani'" not "Kitab al-Nutfah".

What's the point of this? Does this mean nutfa does not mean semen? Of
course not, so this is a pointless comment. Again, nutfa means semen
according to Wehr and others.

> So, it is you who is inventing that nutfah can be clearly a reference to
> "semen". What was your evidence? None!

I'll cite three Arabic dictionaries for you. I looked up "nutfa" in
J.G. Hava, Al-Faraid: Arabic English Dictionary, 5th edition, (Dar
el-Mashreq, 1982), and semen was listed. I looked up "nutfa" in Rohi
Baalbaki, al-Mawrid, (Dar el-Ilm Lilmalayin, 1988), and semen was
listed. I looked up "nutfa" in J Milton Cowan (ed.), Hans Wehr - A
Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 4th ed (wiesbaden, 1979), and
semen was listed. None of these sources make any reference to
"zygote". There's your evidence.

> > his purposes. Of course, nutfa could just mean congealed blood, and
> > that be the end of it. Of course, at one point Dr. Saifullaah
>
> Of course, nutfah could mean "congealed blood"

My mistake! Nutfa does not mean congealed blood... nutfa means semen
(alaqa means congealed blood). Sorry.

Anyway, let's sum up. Dr. Saifullaah loves to dance in this thread,
and I find it to be alot of fun, but really this is pointless. The
question is, as per the title of the thread, if the Qur'an contains
statements that imply divine knowledge. With regard to embryology, Dr.
Saifullaah has surely not demonstrated anything amazing. Instead, he
takes words, interprets them, then interprets the interpretations, and
then offers it as what the Qur'an might actually be saying. Does Dr.
Saifullaah actually have anything regarding embryology in the Qur'an
that might allow us to answer the question heading this thread the
affirmative? Or does he want to continue to focus instead on
Aristotle's methodology and Panditji's errors?

Nadir Ahmed

unread,

May 13, 2003, 3:26:02 PM5/13/03

>figure 3 does not offer the resemblance to
>a leech

sure it does :) anyways, we will leave that
the the viewer to decide..

>The shape
>of an object is observable, correct?

no this is not, if I am wrong, then show me
that at 24 days the embryo is visible to the human eye

> the first question I have
>for Nadir is, in the comparison offered in figure 1, what are the
>similarities between the leech and the embryo?

naw, its kinda obvious, so Im going to leave this topic of embryology
as I have made my point, the alaqa stage is not visable to the Human
eye, and at this stage the embryo does indeed have a leech like
appearance.

Denis Giron

unread,

May 15, 2003, 12:39:26 AM5/15/03

nadirw...@hotmail.com (Nadir Ahmed) wrote in message news:<dd10d076.03051...@posting.google.com>...

> >figure 3 does not offer the resemblance to
> >a leech
>
> sure it does :) anyways, we will leave that
> the the viewer to decide..

I think you should take another look at figure three at the following
site which you called to witness...

...as it is of the embryo at 15 days, and then reconsider Moore's
textbook. At 15 days the embryo is nothing more than a spherical mass
with a primitive streak. There is no resemblance to the leech found in
figure one of the same site (which is the image at 24 days). There are
some drastic morphological differences that develop over this 9 day
period. It seems rather inappropriate to have a single word in the
Qur'an describing these two rather different stages, which brings me
to a similar point...

Interestingly, I find it ironic that the "alaqa stage" is made to fit
widely across a stretch from possibly earlier than 15 days, to maybe
as late as 26 days. Moore's more serious textbook (i.e. the sixth
edition, without "Islamic additions") does not treat this time period
as a single stage, but rather a number of different stages; at 15 days
the embryo is in a "sixth stage," and is in the "tenth stage" by the
24th day. This may seem like a minor point, but it is worth noting
that Dr. Moore doesn't actually consider this timeframe to be a single
stage.

> >The shape
> >of an object is observable, correct?
>
> no this is not, if I am wrong, then show me
> that at 24 days the embryo is visible to the human eye

Do you have Moore's textbook or not? If you do, consider pages 5, or
545 (or wherever the chart is that gives the actual sizes).

> > the first question I have
> >for Nadir is, in the comparison offered in figure 1, what are the
> >similarities between the leech and the embryo?
>
> naw, its kinda obvious, so Im going to leave this topic of embryology
> as I have made my point, the alaqa stage is not visable to the Human
> eye, and at this stage the embryo does indeed have a leech like
> appearance.

Let's be honest here; you have not really given anything regarding
embryology in the Qur'an that would allow us to answer the question
(posed by you) heading this thread in the affirmative. The question
regarding similarities above was simply meant to explore your
position, but if you do not want to go that route, fine. There is
another point to be made...

I would like to offer an analogy similar to one I recently offered in
a response to Dr. Saifullaah elsewhere in this thread, only here it
will be shortened to only focus solely on "alaqa". Suppose we have a
certain Arab who believes that after forty days, the embryo is nothing
more than a blood clot. In his writings, he thus uses the word "alaqa"
(blood clot) to describe the embryo at an early stage in development,
but neglects to give a precise date. So in this hypothetical writing,
we don't know exactly what this postulated Arab author meant save for
the fact that he believed that at an early stage in embryonic
development, the embryo is an "alaqa."

Wouldn't Nadir's exegesis fit just as well to this hypothetical
writing? I mean, would it not take a man who believed the embryo was a
blood clot at forty days, and turn him into a man who believed the
embryo visibly resembled a leech at 24 days? This exposes an irony in
Nadir's chosen exegesis. He has never given us any real reason to
believe that when the Qur'an employs the word "alaqa" (without
mentioning any date!), it actually means the embryo resembles a leech
at 24 days (or something different at some prior time).

If this sounds too absurd, let me again quote a source I cited in this
thread back on March 19th:

"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for
believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account. In De
Semine, for example, Galen spoke of four periods in the formation of
the embryo: (1) as seminal matter; (2) as a bloody form (still without
flesh, in which the primitive heart, liver, and brain are
ill-defined); (3) the foetus acquires flesh and solidity (the heart,
liver, and brain are well-defined, and the limbs begin formation); and
finally (4) all the organs attain their full perfection and the foetus
is quickened. There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this
agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed
the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages: (as in Ibn
Sina's account of Galen): nutfa for the first, 'alaqa for the second,
"unformed" mudgha for the third, and "formed" mudgha for the fourth."

[Basim F. Musallam, "Sex and Society in Islam," (Cambridge, 1983), p.
54]

This is ironic, because it means that if we were looking at early
Arabic translations of Galen (or, for the sake of analogy,
hypothetical texts that loosely repeat what these Arabic translations
of Galen say), these texts would also be making reference to an embryo
at 24 days under Nadir's exegesis. This creates a bit of a problem for
the chosen hermeneutic style Nadir is employing.

In short, we don't know what date or period was meant or what precise
meaning of "alaqa" was intended in the Qur'an, but Nadir (and other
proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach to Qur'anic
embryology) wants to arbitrarily pick the interpretation that can fit
best, and then interpret that interpretation (thus resulting in a
meta-interpretation)! This is something that, as I have noted
previously in this thread, Imran Aijaz touched on in his criticism of
the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'anic embryology back on
December 25,
2001:

"Certain words and phrases in the Qur'an are open to multiple

interpretation[s] and exegeses. What the proponents of the scientific

miracles type polemic are trying to do is to selectively pick out the
exegesis which supports their claims of scientific accuracy. This, I
find to be very arbitrary, why not select the one which would conflict
with science? The main reason is very simple. Because you already have
a presupposition that the Qur'an cannot be wrong. But this is
precisely what is being attempted at a demonstration, so the argument
begs the question on what correct exegesis is."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0bkok%24nfl%241%40samba.rahul.net

As was stated above, Nadir's exegesis of embryological statements in
the Qur'an fails to give us any good reason to answer the question
heading this thread in the affirmative.

ghali

unread,

May 18, 2003, 11:44:07 PM5/18/03

> Let me offer an analogy that will demonstrate the ultimate irony in
> Dr. Saifullaah's exegesis. Suppose there is a seventh century Arab
> (who is *NOT* Muhammad, and *NOT* an author of the Qur'an), who is
> *NOT* divinely inspired; rather he is just an ordinary man. Suppose
> this man believes that God first creates semen (just semen, not a
> zygote, or some ball of chromosones), and then in the womb forms the
> semen into a blood clot (just a blood clot, not a 24 day old embryo),
> and then forms the blood clot into a morsel (just bite-sized lump of
> material, not a 28 day old embryo with somites), and then forms the
> morsels into bones, and clothes the bones with flesh.
>
> In such an instance, the stages of development in this hypothetical
> Arab's mind would be:
>
> semen --> blood clot --> morsel --> bones --> clothing of bones
>
> Now, if he were writing this in Arabic, the word for "semen" could be
> nutfa, the word for "blood clot" could be alaqa, the word for "morsel"
> could be mudhgha, the word for "bones" could be izham, and when this
> hypothetical Arab wants to have God say "then we clothed the bones
> with flesh," he could write fakasawnaa al-'izhama lahman.

Most of dajjals arguments come down to the basic equivocal fallacy of
logic. From a premise which could have multiple interpetations we
reach a conclusion which is base on on only one possible view. This
would be ad hoc and therefore false. I guess that is a rough way to
look at it. So Denis, I think this is what you are saying. Their is no
way to differentiate between the "classical" muslim chain and yours
above ie semen to blood clot to morsel and so on.

I remember hinting to Imran about the very simple way we can
differentiate, of which you continued to suspect my sleigh of hand
with occam's razor. Like I once used it before. It just did not seem
right. That is all I got last time. Let us hope this argument does not
go the same way.

With regards to the blood clot, I remember saying that the Arabs had
used it as a DERIVED meaning from the original verbal noun, which
meant a "clinging object". It ws derived becasue they thought, not
surprisingly that a clot does cling. So why is the owness on you and
Imran to provide the proof that our prophet took it as a blood clot.

1- This is how we apply occam's razor yet again. My term means
"clinging object". Yours means a clinging object AND a blood clot. We
in principle stick to the general set as it is more SIMPLER. That is
why it is a general rule in Usul al Fiqh ( you can see Irshaad Al
fuhul by Shokanni for this) that we in principle stick to the
primitive meaning until there is an external indication to do
otherwise. So Saiffullah is very safe in taking alaqah to mean a
clinging object, for that is what it is.

2- If Muhammmad (pbuh) did really take it literally to mean a blood
clot, then we would have some laughable suggestions. I am sure you
know about the blood money that a women gets if her foetus is aborted
by some forceful incident. It would mean that every time in battle a
man or women gets cut an embryo is formed! This would be aborted once
the clot goes onto form some granulation tissue. Do you think our
prophet has any history in any of the battle in providing blood money
for the formation of clots! I think not! You may reply that this is a
Different blood clot. Then that is all that I need. For nowhere does
the term allow you this. You have to take it LITERALLY as a blood
clot!

Alot more can be said, but let us start here.

Ghali

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

May 21, 2003, 2:49:53 PM5/21/03

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> development, et cetera). Now regarding this aspect of human

> development, either he observed this directly, or God told him so. But
> Dr. Saifullaah says that it is more likely that there are third and
> fourth options: Aristotled observed it in animal dissections, and
> assumed via induction that the same was the case with those viviparous
> producers which he did not observe; or maybe he inferred such via an
> appeal to his own notions of common sense. Fine, and Dr. Saifullaah
> has, again, blown away the false dichotomy between direct observation
> and divine guidance. One can actually have an opinion about man, with
> neither direct observation on an embryo nor divine guidance.

Firstly, instead of telling us long-winding stories about Aristotle and
his classification scheme, why do not you come to point and show some
evidence for your claim that Aristotle's position was "basically that
human embryology is the same as roughly all other viviparous producers"?
What is getting very obvious is that you do not have an evidence to back
up your claim from Aristotle's work. Instead you show us Aristotle's
clasification of animals. A red herring! The reason is not very difficult
to understand. It is doubtful if Aristotle observed a human embryo just
like he observed the animals. You yourself are not sure about it and we do
not expect you to convince us.

Secondly, it is not "according to Dr. Saifullaah" that "Aristotle
observed it in animal dissections" and used induction methodologies. It is
according to Aristotle that he had used dissections extensively and
reasoned in line of what he has seen, whether correct or incorrect. So,
let us have things in proper perspective.

Thirdly, we can see that your favourite hobby horse called "dichotomy" has
finally been laid to rest. So much for the noise that was made about the
"false dichotomy"!

> mesenchyme" et cetera. Dr. Saifullaah can talk of "correlation" all he
> wants, but the statements I have made above are true. Dr. Saifullaah
> takes a vague statement, then gives a long discourse on embryological
> development, and then claims the statement is a reference to what he
> noted in his discourse. In such instances, it is more than fair to
> note that which is being imported by Dr. Saifullaah. It is absurd to
> go into a long discussion on what the Qur'an says regarding somites
> when the Qur'an actually never mentions somites. Think about how much
> Dr. Saifullaah drew from the simple statement "chewed lump" (which
> could also mean simply morsel, bite-sized bit, et cetera).

I did not call it "correlation". It is Moore, Persaud and other who did
the studies on the Qur'an and hadith addressed their studies not
surprisingly as "correlation studies". Basically what it shows is that you
do not even know the nature of research done in past by Moore et al. and
your ignorance about the fundamental issues is rather glaring. Futhermore,
you did not even show that the words like "somites", "mesenchyme" etc.
existed in 7th century to represent the features in the embryo. Since we
know for sure that you do not have an evidence to show such a thing, why
do *you* expect the Qur'an to use words that are synonyms of "somites",
"mesenchyme" etc.? Clearly, you can't show what you do not have! And the
result of it is again, not surprisingly, a set of platitudes that are
repeated again and again. So we go for a big snip as we do not want to
waste time on your repetitions that are already been discussed in detailed
in our earlier post.

> Qur'an's position. This does not mean the Qur'an is in error. However,
> in such an instance, the vast majority of exegesis that Dr. Saifullaah
> applied to the Qur'an would be applicable to the writings of this

Again to remind you, it is not our exegesis. We are simply using the work
done by Moore, Persaud, Zindaani et al. and we have already provided you
copious references. These people are experts in their field of study and
not us. So, I use them as a reference and you use me as a reference. How
silly!

> Dr. Saifullaah has criticized me for calling these interpretations
> "modern". Let me drive this home. Moore, Persaud, and Zindaanee were
> born in the 20th century. Dr. Saifullaah above calls only them to
> witness. That's what we call a modern interpretation. I may be wrong,
> but I recall that the term "ovum" is a very late/recent (if not
> "modern") one; if I am correct, this to is a modern interpretation. So
> yes, some portions of Dr. Saifullaah's interpretations are quite
> modern after all.

LOL. Why do not you check what exactly "correlation studies" mean and
where are they applied before you start showing your ignorance. I have
never seen Moore, Persaud, Zindaani et al. using "modern interpretations"
in their studies. What they have used consistently is "correlation
studies". Correlation bridges the gap of understanding of the past and the

understanding of the present. It also bridges the gap between individuals
of two different knowledge levels, whether contemporary or whether living

in different ages. In fact the "modern interpretation" is your invention.
When we asked you to show that the meanings of the words mentioned in the
Qur'an were "modern" and when confronted you were "willing" to
"drop" it. Is that not interesting!

What we will also do, as we have done in the earlier post, is to snip
these statements loaded with attitude especially the ones that deal with
the issue of the Qur'an not mentioning "chromosomes", "mesenchyme" etc.
The issue of the nature of studies conducted by Moore et al. has already
been discussed and interested people can refer to the original sources.

> The dictionaries I have looked in have "nutfah" means "semen." Sorry,
> but making a reference to the semen of the male and the "semen" of the
> female does not count as a reference to the ovum. The Talmud aludes to

Which unnamed dictionaries are these and how old are they? Do they use the
original meaning or the derived meaning? Kindly enlighten everybody on
this newsgroup.

> drip, dribble, trickle, ooze. A drop can be round, but which Arabic
> dictionary did Dr. Saifullaah consult to get the word nutfa to
> actually mean any explicit reference to roundness? It seems to me that

We have been talking about correlation studies and this guy is talking
about dictionary. A nutfah is a drop and a drop is round in shape. Semen

comes out as drops and ovum is also resembles a drop, i.e., it is

round-shaped. The drop-like shape of ovum and the "mixed drop" can be

verified by looking at some of the beautiful images in L. Nillson's book
"A Child Is Born", 1993, Dell Publishing, pp. 46-47 for ovum and pp. 56,
58-63 for "mixed-drop".

> Huh? Did Dr. Saifullaah give us any reason to assume it is a reference

> to chromosomes? Which word hinted at chromosomes? What's wrong with
> just mixed/mingled semen? Am I the only one who sees the major leaps
> that Dr. Saifullaah makes with his exegesis? And, to refute my silly
> claim that these interpretations are "modern," maybe Dr. Saifullaah
> can't properly quoteand cite the medieval Arabic dictionary that
> notes chromosomes in relation to "nutfah amshaaj"?

When in trouble attack is the best form of defence. But this attack is
rather weak. The discussion is about the understanding of nutfah-amshaaj
by the previous scholars because of the peculiarity of the language.
However, this peculiarity of the language can be explained, since we know

now that the zygote remains singular as a nutfah, like a drop, while
internally the chromosomes and other contributions from the sperm and ovum

form a plural mixture described as amshaaj. When this explanation is put
forword, Dajjal gets into frenzy by saying "which word hinted at
chromosomes" as if we said some word hinted in chromosome! What is
discussed is the peculiarity of "nutfah" being a singular noun while
"amshaj" being a plural modifying adjective and this is explained by
Moore and Zindaani by correlating it with modern emrbyology. This again
shows ignorance about the source material. Again without understanding the
basic issue here Dajjal says "what's wrong with just mixed/mingled semen?"
Of course, he would not say anything about "amshaaj" being a plural
adjective connected to s singular "nutfah".

> There is a difference between a blood clot and a leech. Which is it?

Ghali has already educated you on this issue.

> Or does Dr. Saifullaah feel that it is convenient to have it mean one
> when he can make it fit, and the other when he can make that fit?

Definitely not. Not like your claim of the meanings of the words used to
describe the embryological statements in the Qur'an and hadith being
modern and when confronted willing to drop it!

> Furthermore, take the point when the embryo resembles a leech (24
> days), how do we know the Qur'an is claiming it is a leech at that
> specific time?

The Qur'an does not mention the time and this issue is in the realm of
correlation studies.

> on it? Furthermore, to refute my audacious and ridiculous claim that
> this interpretation is "modern," could Dr. Saifullaah quote and cite a
> specific medieval dictionary that states that "mudhgha" is a reference
> to somites?

Can you show us any medieval dictionary that refers to the word somites in
the embryo? The glaring fact is that you will not show it. How do you
expect an Arabic medieval dictionary to deal with such a word? This
refutes your audacious and ridiculous statement. Hence in the future do
not come up with such nonsense.

> > Izam stage is correlated to the bone stage. The cartilage models first
> > appears and then they also start to ossify.
>
> Once again we see the leaps that Dr. Saifullaah makes. The Qur'an
> makes no reference to "cartilage models," rather it only mentions
> "bone". Does Dr. Saifullaah know that there is a difference between
> izham (bones) and ghudhroof (cartilage)? If cartilage turns into bone,
> then cartilage is something different from bone (simple logic), and
> the Qur'an only mentions bones.

When the cartilage starts to ossify, it turns into bones. Obviously you do
not know what ossification of cartilage means. As already stating in an
earlier post, the hyaline cartilage models appear first and then they
start to ossify and start to become bones. Around this time the muscles
also start to appear.

> > And the muscles start to envelope around the bones.
>
> And Galen said something similar... does Dr. Saifullaah consider the
> bones being clothed with flesh to be something no man could have
> known? How does the Qur'an differ from Galen with regard to the bones
> being clothed with flesh in Dr. Saifullaah's opinion?

Now to Galen who claimed that substance from which the fetus is formed is
menstrual blood plus the two semens: the male semen and the female semen.
You did not tell us what Galen observe to reach the conclusion that bones
being clothed with flesh. Why is that? Do you have something to hide? Just
like what you had done for Aristotle and Garbha Upnishad? Galen starts off
his classification by saying:

"But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the

animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide
the creation of the fetus overall into four periods of time. The first is
that in which as is seen both in abortions and in dissection..." [De
Semine, pp. 93]

So, what has Galen observed is what is clearly SEEN in both abortions and
dissections in the animals. The muscles clothing bones is mentioned in the
third period, when the animal ais already pretty large.

As for the Qur'anic statement of bones being clothed by muscles, it occurs
in the seventh 7th week as suggested by the Moore et al. The embryo
around this time is between 0.8 to 1.1 cm long. Now you show us any
picture acquired using an unaided eye showing the development of muscles
around the bones. You would have then made your point. Let us see your
evidence first before we go any further.

> divinely inspired. However, with Aristotle and the Garbha Upanishad,
> suddenly Dr. Saifullaah wants to say there are other options:
> inferring something from the dissection of a non-human animal,
> guessing, et cetera. Thus he has himself demolished the bifurcation.

Perhaps you meant I demolished your claim of false bifurcation. That is
perfectly fine with me. You claimed that Aristotle saw something which
could not be seen and it was shown to you that indeed your claim is false.
As for your beloved Panditji, since you are not yet finished with him, let
us see what you have to say now.

> Yes, and he made a number of other errors, as was shown by Dr.
> Saifullaah. Nonetheless, "Panditji" (as Dr. Saifullaah lovingly calls
> the author of the relevant portion of the Garbha Upanishad) said that
> at 14 days, the embryo is spherical. Note that the Qur'an *NEVER*
> gives a date, but this Upanishad does. Why is this relevant? Well, if
> one observes a cross-section of the embryo at 14 days, it is indeed
> spherical. It is irrelevant if everything else Panditji wrote was an
> error; what is relevant is the fact that he correctly said the embryo
> is spherical at 14 days. So, under the original false dichotomy,
> either Panditji observed this directly (not bloody likely!), or
> received his information from Allaah. Which was it? If Dr. Saifullaah

Well, your beloved Panditji also gives a lot of interesting that that you
conveniently forgot to look at. Your beloved Panditji says that the the
node or "embryo" (if you correlate!) is spherical in 14 days. But you
forgot to mention that this "embryo" is a free-floating object for a month
before it attaches to the uterus. So, this means that Panditji thinks that
the objects remains like a ball from the 14th day till at least a month.
As far as the "cross-section the embryo" is concerned, it has to do with
a human embryo that is ATTACHED not a free floating one like the ones of
fishes and frogs. Dajjal wants us to focus on only one issue 14 day embryo
like a ball. For him rest everything else is irrelevent, useless. Using
the argument of irrelevency he goes for his defunct argument of false
dichotomy.

> dares to pick a third option, he has admitted that the bifurcation
> between divine guidance and direct observation is foolhardy, which is
> my position. Does Dr. Saifullaah admit that it is possible to make an
> accurate statement with neither divine guidance nor direct
> observation?

Why do not you tell us first if a human embryo at 14 days is free-floating
and spherical? We will then answer you why you sound so ridiculous by
arguing at the expense of your own intelligence.

> > 1. You could not prove the claim that Moore and others were "paid" to say
> > whatever they said about the Qur'an and hadith.
>
> The Wall Street Journal article said they were given thousand dollar
> honorariums, and Moore listed other benefactors. You said this is
> perfectly common, so I dropped it ("like a hot potato" if you prefer).

You dropped it like a hot potato when you were confronted with the issue
of Moore being paid to say certain things. The Wall Street Journal did not
produce any evidence of the allegation and as expected neither did you aka
HMV, His Master's Voice. What I have said is that anybody who is invited
to deliver a talk or to do research in another lab is paid according to
what is agreed between the two parties. Gifts are common as anybody who
has attended a conference would confirm.

> > 2. You represented Aristotle as if he was observing humans,
>
> Right, because he either observed them, or Allaah gave him the
> information. Oh but wait, you now want to no longer work under such a
> silly dichotomy. If that's the case, then I'm willing to retract any
> claim that Aristotle observed humans directly. :)

Apart from silly smiles and even sillier argument, you do not have much to
show. I was never for such a false dichotomy. It was you who raised it and
beat the drum louder and louder until you were thoroughly refuted. Not
surprisingly, we see a rather sheepish smile to hide the shame.

> In what sense? What does this mean? When the mudhgha turns into bone
> it takes on characteristics of bone? Elucidate please! Think about
> Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14. The logical structure "khalaqnaa X,Y"
> appears three times in that single verse:

Already elucidated in the earlier post. It was said in the earlier post:

"The answer is right in front of you and you say that we are trying to
"desperately" avoid. Or is it that you getting too desparate that you
can't even comprehend what has been said. I said that the origin of one
phase from another is in the sense of characteristics of the embryo. The
round drop-like structure of embryo changes to a leech-like structure and
this leech-like structure changes to a chewed-liked structure. These show
the change the morphology of the embryo. This is the way Moore et al. have
correlated the early stages of embryology. "A New System For Classifying
Human Development" which is an abstract of the paper presented by Moore
and Zindaani (8th Saudi Medical Conference, 1983) has been reproduced in
the Islamic Additions version of Moore's book [see pp. 446f-446g]. This
discusses the characteristics of embryo as mentioned in the Qur'an and
correlates it with its morphological structure. The correlation is also
carried out by tying it with some of the characteristics of the embryo at
each stage."

> What's the point of this? Does this mean nutfa does not mean semen? Of

> course not, so this is a pointless comment. Again, nutfa means semen
> according to Wehr and others.

And they are what? Modern dictionaries! I thought you wanted to drop the
"modern" interpretations. What happened now? Going back to it once again?

Wassalam
Saifullah

Denis Giron

unread,

May 21, 2003, 8:36:59 PM5/21/03

ghal...@yahoo.co.uk (ghali) wrote in message news:<485b20d3.03051...@posting.google.com>...

> Most of dajjals arguments come down to the basic equivocal fallacy of
> logic. From a premise which could have multiple interpetations we
> reach a conclusion which is base on on only one possible view.

Huh? You lost me. Where exactly is the fallacy that I committed? I
don't understand what exactly that it is that you're saying above. Are
you saying that *I* moved from the premise of multiple interpretations
to the conclusion that only one in particular is possible?

> So Denis, I think this is what you are saying. Their is no
> way to differentiate between the "classical" muslim chain and yours
> above ie semen to blood clot to morsel and so on.

Sort of... My point is that I personally know of no way to determine
which was the absolute intended meaning, and I certainly don't believe
Dr. Saifullaah has demonstrated that his chosen exegesis represents
the intended meaning. This is, I think, a bit different from saying
that there is no way to differentiate...

> With regards to the blood clot, I remember saying that the Arabs had
> used it as a DERIVED meaning from the original verbal noun, which
> meant a "clinging object". It ws derived becasue they thought, not
> surprisingly that a clot does cling. So why is the owness on you and
> Imran to provide the proof that our prophet took it as a blood clot.

Woah! First of all, I didn't mean to make any positive claims
regarding the Prophet, but rather only raise points about about the
exegesis being applied to the Qur'an (I take a position of agnosticism
with regard to the Prophet's relationship with the Qur'an we have
access to, as I have no idea what that relationship was). Furthermore,
I am not claiming that the author(s) of the Qur'an specifically
intended the word "alaqa" in Soorat al-Moominoon to mean "blood clot,"
as that could send me in the direction of arguing that the Qur'an is
in error in this instance (which I have tried to not to argue in this
thread).

My position is different: it has not been demonstrated that "alaqa" in
Soorat al-Moominoon actually means a 24-day-old embryo (or a embryo
developing from days 15-26, or some other stretch of time) rather than
say, a blood clot, or some congealed blood. There is no onus on me to
prove the actual intended meaning, as I have not made any positive
assertions regarding the intended meaning.

To set an analogy of my own, the word 'ulaiq (ayn-lam-yaa-qaf) stems
from the same verbal noun, and I believe it can be used to describe a
rasberry or rasberry bush. If I am standing next to a rasberry bush,
and write in my journal simply that I stood next to an "'ulaiq," it
would seem strange for later exegetes to rule out the possibility that
I was referring to a rasberry bush on the grounds that "clinging
thing/shrub" is far more simple than "clinging thing/shrub that
happens to be a rasberry bush."

> 1- This is how we apply occam's razor yet again. My term means
> "clinging object". Yours means a clinging object AND a blood clot. We
> in principle stick to the general set as it is more SIMPLER.

The issue here is what the author intended. Your rules regarding Usul
al Fiqh are duly noted, but I don't see how this negates the very real
possibility that the author could have had a blood clot (or some
congealed blood) in mind. If it is possible that the author meant
blood clot, then this, already, delivers a heavy blow to the claim
that this is knowledge that no human could have known. This does not
mean the Qur'anic usaged actually means blood clot, but the irony I
originally spoke of still stands: all your exegesis would apply just
the same to a non-divinely-inspired text that simply intended the word
to mean blood clot.

> 2- If Muhammmad (pbuh) did really take it literally to mean a blood
> clot, then we would have some laughable suggestions. I am sure you
> know about the blood money that a women gets if her foetus is aborted
> by some forceful incident. It would mean that every time in battle a
> man or women gets cut an embryo is formed! This would be aborted once
> the clot goes onto form some granulation tissue. Do you think our
> prophet has any history in any of the battle in providing blood money
> for the formation of clots! I think not!

Again, I take a position of agnosticism regarding Muhammad's
relationship with the verse under consideration in Soorat
al-Moominoon. As for blood money given to a woman if her fetus is
aborted, I have heard of that, but I don't know the precise rules
regarding that (e.g. if dates or timeframes effect judgement, et
cetera), thus I think you'd have to elaborate some more before I can
make any judgements regarding your analogy.

On a side note, to possibly use something akin to your own analogy,
if a woman is bludgeoned in battle, and a blood clot forms on her
brain (or maybe somewhere else in her body), could I use the word
"alaqa" to describe this clot? If so, if a text simply says that "the
doctor removed the alaqa from sister Simira," could we just as safely
assume that he performed an abortion as we could assume that he
removed a blood clot?

-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

May 22, 2003, 3:54:11 PM5/22/03

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> Sort of... My point is that I personally know of no way to determine
> which was the absolute intended meaning, and I certainly don't believe
> Dr. Saifullaah has demonstrated that his chosen exegesis represents
> the intended meaning. This is, I think, a bit different from saying
> that there is no way to differentiate...

You do not seem to get the stuff that I say, do you? I have never used my
exegesis. What I have used is what has alaready been discussed and agreed
upon by scholars like Moore, Persaud, Zindaani et al. Please do not give
this false impression that I have put on my own exegesis to show such and
such thing; and in reality I have not!

> My position is different: it has not been demonstrated that "alaqa" in
> Soorat al-Moominoon actually means a 24-day-old embryo (or a embryo
> developing from days 15-26, or some other stretch of time) rather than
> say, a blood clot, or some congealed blood. There is no onus on me to
> prove the actual intended meaning, as I have not made any positive
> assertions regarding the intended meaning.

Well, Moore, Persaud and Zindaani have said and demonstrated that `alaqah
represents an early stage of an embryo. For example see:

In fact, Moore, Persaud and Zindaani (and also Mustafa Ahmed and al-Bar)
have discussed the three meanings of `alaqah (basic + derived) in detail
in the references that I have in my house. Moore's book with Islamic
additions is a good one to start with.

They are experts in the field and you are a polemicist. Certainly, the
onus can't be on a polemicist to prove the "actual intended meaning". We
do not expect it from you and we are quite realistic about it. And why
not? When we asked you to produce an image of an early embryo acquired
without microscopic aids, what did you do? Nothing! Need we say more?

> al Fiqh are duly noted, but I don't see how this negates the very real
> possibility that the author could have had a blood clot (or some
> congealed blood) in mind. If it is possible that the author meant
> blood clot, then this, already, delivers a heavy blow to the claim
> that this is knowledge that no human could have known. This does not

Well, how does the meaning "blood clot" deal a heavy blow to the claim
that this knowledge that no human could have known? Let us see how heavy
the blow is? Do not forget to provide us references. We would like to
again cross-check as we have done it before to see if you are making up
stories as you have done in the case of Aristotle and your beloved
Panditji's Garbha Upanishad.

> if a woman is bludgeoned in battle, and a blood clot forms on her
> brain (or maybe somewhere else in her body), could I use the word
> "alaqa" to describe this clot? If so, if a text simply says that "the

That is interesting! You said that the use of "blood clot" delivers a
heavy blow and now you are asking Ghali whether a clot in the brain can be
called "`alaqah". I thought you were flaunting your expertise in Arabic,
history of embryology as well as embryology here.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.HPX.4.33L.0305102225370.11982-100000%40club.eng.cam.ac.uk

Denis Giron

unread,

May 24, 2003, 12:42:13 AM5/24/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03051...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
> ...

This is a response to Dr. Saifullaah's post from May 21, which has

been archived by Google here:

The discussion, as the title of this post and this thread alludes to,
is on whether or not the Qur'an contains statements that would lead
one to believe it is of a higher power (i.e. a divine origin). At this
moment, the discussion is specifically on the issue of embryological
statements in the Qur'an, and whether or not a human being could reach
such conclusions (allegedly about early development) without the aid
of a microscope or divine guidance. This post will be broken up into
four sections:

(1) Aristotle's stance on the developing human.
(2) The relevance of "correlation studies".
(3) If such exegesis is modern or not.
(4) The actual exegesis brought as evidence.

It seems the issue of Aristotle should be dealt with first...

> Firstly, instead of telling us long-winding stories about Aristotle and
> his classification scheme, why do not you come to point and show some
> evidence for your claim that Aristotle's position was "basically that
> human embryology is the same as roughly all other viviparous producers"?

When Aristotle is discussing viviparous production, unless he is
citing an exception to the general norm (e.g. "in bulls it is like
this, but not in dogs"), then he means humans. Of course, he means all
other viviparous producers as well, but he means humans nonetheless.
If Aristotle's position is that XYZ happens in viviparous production,
then he means that happens with humans. That was the point of noting
his classification scheme.

Of course, let me drive this point home with relation to what
specifically it was that I brought up regarding Aristotle. I noted
that Aristotle believed the heart forms before the lungs and liver,
and also believed that the umbilicus consists of blood vessels
originally attached to the heart with a skin integument around them.
Dr. Saifullaah doubted that this is a reference to man, even though
this is clearly within the scope of discussion on general viviparous
production.

Fine, consider Generatione Animalium, Book II, 740a15-35. It is there
that Aristotle says the heart is the first to form in all Sanguinea
("blooded animals"; he repeats this again at 741b15, and a few other
spots), and it is within this discussion that he mentions the
umbilical blood vessels attached to the heart. This is in *ALL
SANGUINEA*, thus this includes Aristotle's position on man. So,
Aristotle's position is that in man, the heart forms before the liver
and lungs, and the umbilical vessels are originally attached to the
heart. This belief is correct, and he (it is safe to assume) acquired
this belief with neither direct observation nor divine guidance. This
is, it must be again noted, a true belief regarding early development.
What this does is demolish the false dichotomy supported by those who
remark that no microscopes existed at the time the Qur'an was written.

Now we can move on to the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the
Qur'an, which I have recently learned, consists of "correlation
studies":

> It is Moore, Persaud and other who did the studies on the Qur'an
> and hadith addressed their studies not surprisingly as
> "correlation studies".

Dr. Saifullaah's cries of "correlation studies" do not escape the
problems with the exegesis that he brought to the table (regardless of
whether this exegesis is originally his own or not). In case Dr.
Saifullaah forgot, the discussion is summed up in the question posed
in the title of this thread. None of Dr. Saifullaah's citing of
certain "correlation studies" allows us to answer that question in the
affirmative.

For example, let us compare the Qur'anic use of the word "mudhgha"
with the description of development in the Bible, in Job 10:8-9. In
verse 8, Job says that God made him with His hands (the word "yad" -
hand - appears in the Hebrew), and in the next verse it says this
making/creating/molding was as if with clay (literally "ki-chomer" -
"like clay"). Well, I took out a piece of clay recently, and in almost
a single deft move, I was able to grab the clay with my hand in a
tight embrace and then release it. When I looked at what I had did
with my hand, where my finger imprints were on the clay corresponded
to the somites on a 28 day old embryo.

The appearance of somites change continuously just as finger imprints
change in clay with each act of grabbing/squeezing/molding. The embryo
changes its overall shape but the structure derived from somites
remains. Since new tissue masses appear in the embryo, the embryo also

turns its position to adjust the centre of gravity with respect to its

new mass. This is similar to the turning of the clay during
molding/grabbing/squeezing.

So if Dr. Saifullaah's sources can correlate the word "mudgha" with
the period from the fourth week onwards (and hence organogenesis),
then so too I can correlate Job 10:8-9 with the same period. However,
despite this "correlation study," does this actually prove that this
is what the authors of the Qur'an and Job had in mind? No, it does
not, which is why all of the long text on "correlation studies" fails
to help us answer the question posed in the title of this thread.

With that, we can now move on to the issue of whether or not Dr.
Saifullaah's post employed modern interpretations:

> Futhermore, you did not even show that the words like "somites",
> "mesenchyme" etc. existed in 7th century to represent the features
> in the embryo.

To recap, I originally called these interpretations of the Qur'an
"modern," and Dr. Saifullaah seemed to become very upset with this
claim, thus I dropped it (I even stated that I was willing to drop it
back on April 10th). Of course, Dr. Saifullaah was not willing to drop
it, so I called him out - how can one interpret the Qur'an as making
some sort of reference to to somites, the ovum, et cetera, and not
claim this interpretation is modern? Dr. Saifullaah can argue all he
wants that these are correlation studies, but the point is that the
claim I was willing to drop is nonetheless still true: if you
interpret the Qur'an as being a reference to the ovum, et cetera, that
interpretation is undoubtedly modern.

Now, moving on, I would like to get back to my analogy, offered to
show an ironic aspect of the exegesis brought to the table. It was
shown that the exegesis Dr. Saifullaah called to witness would apply
just as well to a text that was not making reference to things his
sources correlate the relevant terms with. Dr. Saifullaah conveniently
ignored the analogy, and instead complained that I wrongly called it
*HIS* exegesis:

> Again to remind you, it is not our exegesis. We are simply using the work
> done by Moore, Persaud, Zindaani et al. and we have already provided you
> copious references. These people are experts in their field of study and
> not us. So, I use them as a reference and you use me as a reference.

The above is irrelevant; we are discussing the exegesis, regardless of
whether it originates with Keith Moore or Muhammad Saifullaah. So
again, I'm going to give the analogy (but I'm going to modify it a
bit): Suppose there is an Arab gentleman who notes the development of
the fetus at different stages by observing miscarriages, abortions,
and/or dissected animals. Suppose at an early stage (first couple
days), what he sees seems to only be semen (or mixed semen), something
which Galen (and Hippocrates) observed. At a later stage, what he sees
looks to him just like a bloody mess, maybe a clot in some blood
(again, Galen observed something like this as well). At a later stage,
he observes what looks to him like a lump of flesh.

So, our hypothetical Arab writes down what he observed, and what he
believes are the stages of embryonic development: first semen (or just
ooze), then blood, congealed blood, or a blood clot, and then a lump
of flesh. He uses the word nutfa for the semen/ooze, alaqa for the
blood/clot, and mudhgha for the lump. This does not mean I am arguing
that this is the Qur'an's position. Nonetheless, the irony is that the
exegesis cited by Dr. Saifullaah would apply just as well to this
hypothetical writing. Thus, if this exegesis can correlate a text with
topics it is not discussing (somites, the zygote, et cetera), there is
a real problem with the usefulness of this exegesis in telling us what
a text is really saying!

Ah, but Dr. Saifullaah seems to doubt that, for example, nutfa could
be a reference to semen (which, oddly enough, would render a number of
Qur'anic translations incorrect). Well, in that case, I would like to
again quote a passage from the writings of Basim F. Musallam that came
up previously a couple of times in this thread:

An essentially identical version of the text above appears in Basim
Musallam, "The Human Embryo in Arabic Scientific and Religious
Thought," in G.R. Dunstan (ed.), "The Human Embryo: Aristotle and the
Arabic and European Traditions," (University of Exeter, 1990), pp.
39-40. Musallam cited at least two sources originally written in the
11th century or ealier that employ the Qur'anic terminology (nutfa,
alaqa, mudhgha) to describe the Galenic stages: (1) Ibn Sina, "Kitaab
al Qanun fee al-Tibb," (Bulaq-Cairo, 1877), p. 558; (2) Ali Ibn Abbas
al-Majusi, "Kamil al-Sina'a al-Tibbiyya (Bulaq, Cairo, A.H. 1294),
vol. 1, pp. 119-120; (Musallam also gave the following two citations:
[a] Kazaroonee, "Mughni," p. 35; [b] Ikhwaan al-Safaa, "Rasaa'il,"
vol. 2, pp. 421-424, but I do not know the dates of their original
writing).

So, understanding the words nutfa, alaqa, and mudhgha as semen, blood
clot, and lump, respectively, can be traced at least back to the 10th
century. We know for a fact that having them be references to somites,
zygotes, et cetera, cannot be traced back that far. From here one has
to wonder if the Qur'an is really referring to what Dr. Saifullaah
insinuated it is referring to, why did no one realize such for over
thirteen centuries?

Now let's see some actual examples of the exegesis sanctioned by Dr.
Saifullaah:

> A nutfah is a drop and a drop is round in shape. Semen
> comes out as drops and ovum is also resembles a drop, i.e.,
> it is round-shaped.

Am I the only one who notices how strained this interpretation is? A
drop is round, an ovum is round, therefore a drop is an ovum? In Job
10:10 Job said he was poured out like "milk" - milk is produced only
by a female, the ovum is produced only by the female, thus this was a
reference to the ovum. It is amazing how these correlation studies
work! Seriously though for a second folks, with all due respect, this
is laughable to the point of tears (and I mean that literally, as this
ol' Dajjaal had to wipe a tear from his single eye after seeing this
one). Dr. Saifullaah doesn't prove that nutfa is a reference to the
ovum, rather he simply assumes such!

> The discussion is about the understanding of nutfah-amshaaj
> by the previous scholars because of the peculiarity of the language.
> However, this peculiarity of the language can be explained, since we know
> now that the zygote remains singular as a nutfah, like a drop, while
> internally the chromosomes and other contributions from the sperm and ovum
> form a plural mixture described as amshaaj.

Again, the exact same claim; rather than actually answer the questions
raised, he repeats the claim. The question still stands as to how Dr.
Saifullaah knows this is a reference to chromosomes. It is starting to
seem obvious that he assumes it is a reference to chromosomes because
such an assumption is convenient to his position (I'm sure he'll want
to say this is Moore and Zindaanee's assumption, not his, but that's
moot). The issue is proving the Qur'an is making reference to these
things, not assuming it is and then standing back amazed.

> > Furthermore, take the point when the embryo resembles a leech (24
> > days), how do we know the Qur'an is claiming it is a leech at that
> > specific time?
>
> The Qur'an does not mention the time and this issue is in the realm of
> correlation studies.

This I was well aware of, but it does not answer the question. The
question again is why those who support this mode of exegesis actually
believe it is a reference to the embryo at 24 days. What's the
indication? One should be able to find an indication in the text
itself, and not have to assume such to make it fit.

> > Furthermore, to refute my audacious and ridiculous claim that
> > this interpretation is "modern," could Dr. Saifullaah quote and cite a
> > specific medieval dictionary that states that "mudhgha" is a reference
> > to somites?
>
> Can you show us any medieval dictionary that refers to the word somites in
> the embryo? The glaring fact is that you will not show it. How do you
> expect an Arabic medieval dictionary to deal with such a word?

That was the point - this demonstrates that the interpretation is
indeed modern. As for how one might make a reference to somites, it is
here that I'd liked to introduce yet another pre-Islamic thinker,
Diocles of Carystus, who lived in the late-4th-to-early-3rd centuries
BCE. I was flipping through Needham's book, and found the following:

"Diocles has a certain importance in the history of embryology; for
Oribasius refers to him as the discoverer of the punctum saliens in
the mammalian embryo, "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." He thus showed that the early development of
chick and mammal was very alike. Plutarch also tells us that he
occupied himself with the question of sterility. He described the
human placenta, as well as embryos of twenty-seven and forty days, and
he held that both male and female contribute seed in generation."
[Joseph Needham, "A History of Emrbyology," (Abelard-Schuman, 1959),
pp. 61-62, emphasis mine]

Note that Diocles' description of development at 18 and 27 days are
pretty close to accurate, and that is essentially a reference to the
somites. Now, Dr. Saifullaah might complain that this is Diocles'
position on mammals, but I would respond that mammals include humans.
Furthermore, the description is true only for certain mammals (it
certainly isn't true of a mouse, which has a gestation period which is
less than 10% the length of the human gestation period, and it
certainly isn't true of a horse or elephant, which is longer than the
human gestation period). It is roughly accurate for humans (and who
knows, maybe for cows, which have a gestation period only about 10-30
days longer than humans).

> When the cartilage starts to ossify, it turns into bones. Obviously you do
> not know what ossification of cartilage means. As already stating in an
> earlier post, the hyaline cartilage models appear first and then they
> start to ossify and start to become bones.

Right, but that ignores the point I raised: there is a difference
between cartilage and bone, and the Qur'an only mentions bone. This
also shows the strained nature of the exegesis being employed when the
text says one thing, but it is assumed to mean something rather
different for the sake of convenience. Interestingly, like the Qur'an,
Galen mentions bones being clothed with flesh, so I asked Dr.
Saifullaah how the Qur'an differs from Galen with regard to this, and
he responded as follows:

> Now to Galen who claimed that substance from which the fetus is formed is
> menstrual blood plus the two semens: the male semen and the female semen.

As usual, Dr. Saifullaah slips in irrelevant material. I asked about
bones being clothed with flesh, and he talks about semen and menstrual
blood. Let's try to stay focused...

> You did not tell us what Galen observe to reach the conclusion that bones
> being clothed with flesh. Why is that? Do you have something to hide?

Nothing to hide here. The question was the difference between Galen's
statement and the Qur'an's statement regarding the bones being clothed
with flesh.

> Galen starts off his classification by saying:
>
> "But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the
> animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide
> the creation of the fetus overall into four periods of time. The first is
> that in which as is seen both in abortions and in dissection..." [De
> Semine, pp. 93]
>
> So, what has Galen observed is what is clearly SEEN in both abortions and
> dissections in the animals. The muscles clothing bones is mentioned in the
> third period, when the animal ais already pretty large.
>
> As for the Qur'anic statement of bones being clothed by muscles, it occurs
> in the seventh 7th week as suggested by the Moore et al. The embryo
> around this time is between 0.8 to 1.1 cm long.

I'm not sure, but is Dr. Saifullaah saying that the difference is that
the Qur'an puts this in one time frame, and Galen in another? Of
course, that would be unfounded, so I hope that is not what Dr.
Saifullaah is arguing. The reality is that neither source gives a
precise date (maybe Dr. Saifullaah would like to explain how Soorat
al-Moominoon points to the seventh week? I'll bet he can't; instead
he'll just say it was a "correlation" done by someone else, which
doesn't explain how the seventh week was arrived at). So Dr.
Saifullaah's answer regarding the differences between Galen and the
Qur'an on the issue of bones being clothed with flesh seems to be
two-fold:

(1) Galen observed dissections and/or abortions.
(2) Galen did not think this took place in week seven.

Assuming this is Dr. Saifullaah's answer, while both may be correct,
it is not explained how this is a difference. If Dr. Saifullaah is
saying these are the differences, then he would be positively
asserting that (a) the Qur'an is *NOT* based on dissections and/or
abortions, and (b) the Qur'an *DID* mean the seventh week, and we all
know how much Dr. Saifullaah hates to positively assert things! So,
are these the only "differences"? If so, what is Dr. Saifullaah's
evidence? Maybe Dr. Saifullaah can elaborate on his answer.

> Now you show us any picture acquired using an unaided eye
> showing the development of muscles around the bones.

Explain how this is relevant without being duplicitous.

Finally, I asked Dr. Saifullaah to elucidate on the precise meaning of
the logical structure "khalaqnaa X,Y," which appears three times in
Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14; this is an issue Dr. Saifullaah has tried
to dance around before. This time he repeats what he wrote last time:

> The answer is right in front of you and you say that we are trying to
> "desperately" avoid. Or is it that you getting too desparate that you
> can't even comprehend what has been said. I said that the origin of one
> phase from another is in the sense of characteristics of the embryo. The
> round drop-like structure of embryo changes to a leech-like structure and
> this leech-like structure changes to a chewed-liked structure. These show
> the change the morphology of the embryo. This is the way Moore et al. have
> correlated the early stages of embryology. "A New System For Classifying
> Human Development" which is an abstract of the paper presented by Moore
> and Zindaani (8th Saudi Medical Conference, 1983) has been reproduced in
> the Islamic Additions version of Moore's book [see pp. 446f-446g]. This
> discusses the characteristics of embryo as mentioned in the Qur'an and
> correlates it with its morphological structure. The correlation is also
> carried out by tying it with some of the characteristics of the embryo at
> each stage.

Okay, so then if I am to understand Dr. Saifullaah, the logical
structure "khalaqnaa X,Y" means that an X-like structure (but not an
actual X) changes to a Y-like structure (but not an actual Y). Is
that correct? If so, then does this mean that "fakhalaqnaa
al-mudhghata izhaaman" means that a chewed/lump-like structure turnes
into a bone-like structure? Furthermore, I assume "khalaqnaa
al-nutfata alaqatan" means the entire nutfa turns entirely into an
alaqa... if that is correct, then does the entire mudhgha turn into
bone? If it just means the bones form inside the mudhgha, does the
alaqa form inside the nutfa and the mudhgha inside the alaqa? It seems
the logical structure "khalaqnaa X,Y" is still not clear. Maybe Dr.
Saifullaah would like to elaborate based on these questions, so we can
know precisely what this phrase means.

In conclusion, we have seen that certain pre-Islamic thinkers said
things about early development that is either on par with or even more
descriptive than that which is found in the Qur'an. As for the text of
the Qur'an, the statements have a somewhat ambiguous nature to them
(in my opinion), thus Dr. Saifullaah's calling to witness of certain
"correlation studies" has to really strain meanings in order to get
the text to be a reference to the ovum, cartilage, chromosomes, et
cetera. While this does not prove the Qur'an is not divine, it is
certainly true that Dr. Saifullaah has, up to this point, proven
wholly incapable of demonstrating that the statements regarding
embryology in the Qur'an could only have come from a divine source.

-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm

Denis Giron

unread,

May 24, 2003, 12:42:15 AM5/24/03

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.33L.03052...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...

>
> You do not seem to get the stuff that I say, do you? I have never used my
> exegesis.

Point duly noted. I actually meant it in a loose sense, but in the
future I'll try to be more careful with my language and refer to it as
"the exegesis Dr. Saifullaah brought to the table." Regardless, in the
statement you responded to, just replace "Saifullaah" with "Moore."
The issue then is if Dr. [Moore]'s exegesis really reflects the
intended meaning.

> Well, Moore, Persaud and Zindaani have said and demonstrated that `alaqah
> represents an early stage of an embryo. For example see:
>
> http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm

There is no demonstration to be found there, rather just a bunch of
hidden assumptions. Alaqa means leech, thus it means the emrbyo looks
like a leech at 24 days? That doesn't seem to follow. If we were
pulling this sort of exegesis with any other text, I believe you
yourself would ask how the dates were arrived at. Alaqah means
"suspended thing," therefore it corresponds to the image in figure 2?
Does Aristotle's mentioning of the umbilicus being connected to the
uterus also correspond to figure 2? If not, why not? As for figure 3,
I notice that's of the embryo at 15 days, while figure 1 has the
embryo at 24 days... are these the same stage? Does Dr. Moore actually
treat this as a single stage in his more serious textbook (i.e. the
one without "Islamic additions")?

> In fact, Moore, Persaud and Zindaani (and also Mustafa Ahmed and al-Bar)
> have discussed the three meanings of `alaqah (basic + derived) in detail
> in the references that I have in my house.

That's fantastic. Do they bring any evidence that this is actually the
intended meaning in the Qur'an? Or do they simply assume such for
convenience? On a side note, I wonder if Moore actually believes such
things... but oh well, we, unfortunately, are not the one who know
what the heart conceals.

> They are experts in the field and you are a polemicist. Certainly, the
> onus can't be on a polemicist to prove the "actual intended meaning".

Who the onus is on isn't determined by whether one individual has a
degree or not, or is a polemicist or not. It is determined by who the
positive claimant is. I'm not making positive assertions about what
the Qur'an actually means, because (as I'm sure you know) I think
religious texts mean different things for different people, thus
intended meaning can be a shaky amorphous issue. My issue is simply
that it has not been demonstrated that the Qur'an is actually making
reference to the development of the embryo from the 15th to 26th
day...

> Well, how does the meaning "blood clot" deal a heavy blow to the claim
> that this knowledge that no human could have known?

Because if it is possible for a person to just mean blood clot when
they write "alaqa," they could such (in such a hypothetical situation)
without intending it to be a reference to any morphological
resemblance to a leech or how the embryo is connected to the uterus,
yet the exegesis found in the "correlation study" that you called to
witness would apply just the same. That exposes a problematic nature
regarding the value of such exegesis in terms of answering the

question posed in the title of this thread.

> That is interesting! You said that the use of "blood clot" delivers a

> heavy blow and now you are asking Ghali whether a clot in the brain can be
> called "`alaqah". I thought you were flaunting your expertise in Arabic,
> history of embryology as well as embryology here.

I never claimed to be an expert in Arabic or embryology. The question
was meant to be somewhat rhetorical. Keep in mind that you yourself
called to witness a site...

...that states rather clearly that alaqa can mean blood clot. Back on
April 17th, in this very thread you yourself wrote that "[a]nother
meaning of `alaqah is a blood clot." I certainly believe it can mean
blood clot, and I doubt you or your chosen web site dispute that alaqa
could mean blood clot. Thus we are faced with the irony exposed by the
analogy I brought to the table.

ghali

unread,

May 26, 2003, 9:11:52 AM5/26/03

> Huh? You lost me. Where exactly is the fallacy that I committed?

There are three possibilities we are talking about

1- Literally Muhammad meant blood clot

2- Literally Muhammad meant a clinging object

3- I just don't know which of the above is the correct interpretation

Your agnosticism leads to number 3. I do stand corrected as strictly
the fallacy would only follow if you adopted point 1, which as you
have clearly mentioned is a position you do not take.

Still I guess now thinking about it, your still in a mess. Why?
Because ALL the interpretations need an essential premise. That is
premise 2! They are all derived from this verbal noun, remember. So
really speaking you as an agnostic should hold onto premise 2. We all
have to agree that NECESSARLY, we are talking about a clinging embryo
but whether it is an actual clot or even leech (that is if you are
preposterous enough to suggest that this is another interpretation) is
another story. Premise 3 does not exist.

> ...... no way to determine. This is, I think, a bit different from saying

> that there is no way to differentiate...

Hmmm. I would love to see you differentiate between the two. So subtle
that there probably is no difference.

> would seem strange for later exegetes to rule out the possibility that
> I was referring to a rasberry bush on the grounds that "clinging
> thing/shrub" is far more simple than "clinging thing/shrub that
> happens to be a rasberry bush."

But here we would have context!. And there is a difference in
pronunciation of this derivation. With a blood clot there is no such
thing, therefore the analogy fails

> If it is possible that the author meant

> Blood clot, then this, already, delivers a heavy blow to the claim
> That this is knowledge that no human could have known.

Well what do you mean by possible? It is possible that Muhammad could
have been born in Damascus. He could have even spoken to Aliens. You
seem to think that just because something is possible, an inkling of
doubt should enter our hearts. But if you take the definition of
possible (using modal logic here) as something that exists in a
possible world of our imagination, as opposed to impossible which
would be a contradiction, then so what! It is possible but you would
need proof. We have proof that our prophet meant a clinging embryo, as
that would be a necessary interaction. You are an imaginative bloke!
LOL!

The issue of blood money can be found in any book of fiqh. That would
be easy enough for you to find Denis. But why is the analogy
incorrect? If it literally is a blood clot then every time I have a
cut an embryo is formed! Do you even think our prophet possibly meant
that. Yes, it is still possible, but incredible enough to only linger
in Alice's wonderland

Ghali

Denis Giron

unread,

May 29, 2003, 11:50:46 AM5/29/03

ghal...@yahoo.co.uk (ghali) wrote in message news:<485b20d3.03052...@posting.google.com>...
> ...

Greetings Ghali! Apologies for the delay in my response... What
follows below is discussion on methodology for understanding certain
Arabic words that appear in Soorat al-Moominoon and elswhere in the
Qur'an (the discussion is on alaqa specifically, but rough discussion
of the same model could be used, I think, for mudhgha and other key
Qur'anic terms under discussion in this thread).

> Still I guess now thinking about it, your still in a mess. Why?
> Because ALL the interpretations need an essential premise. That is
> premise 2! They are all derived from this verbal noun, remember. So
> really speaking you as an agnostic should hold onto premise 2.

I don't agree. It is true that if I take a position of agnosticism
regarding what the intended meaning of the author of the Qur'an is, I
can still concede that the root from which alaqa was derived means to
cling (interesting sidenote, I recently found out that in Syriac the
root means "to suck," also possibly working in Ghali's favor under the
right interpretation), and thus admit that premise two is a very real
possibility. Nonetheless, that does not mean I should then forego my
agnosticism in favor of taking a positive stance on premise two.

The justification of agnosticism is drawn out in my anaology on the
word ullayq (from the same root). Your response to that was the
following:

> But here we would have context!. And there is a difference in
> pronunciation of this derivation. With a blood clot there is no such
> thing, therefore the analogy fails

What is the context? For example, it is a fact that the largest spider
I ever saw, I saw when I was eleven while standing next to a [ullayq].
Now, I intend the meaning to be rasberry bush, but if I had not told
you that, what would be the context? It could also be a reference to a
blackberry bush, convolvulus arvensis (bindweed), or some other
creeping, clinging, twining type of shrub or weed. How would you know
which one I was referring to had I not told you? The word itself stems
from the ayn-lam-qaf root, and the word generally means clinging,
twining sort of shrub, thus it could be a reference to various types
of plant. Had I not told you, there would be no context, thus you
would be justified in taking a position of agnosticism. Furthermore,
my analogy still stands: it would be absurd to think I did not mean
rasberry bush because of some notion of etymological gluttony.

> [W]hy is the analogy incorrect? If it literally is a blood

> clot then every time I have a cut an embryo is formed! Do
> you even think our prophet possibly meant
> that. Yes, it is still possible, but incredible enough to only linger
> in Alice's wonderland

I don't understand why you think this battle-blood clot analogy works
in your favor. It would seem to me that if one can refer to a blood
clot formed from an injury (maybe in battle) as "alaqa," then
certainly alaqa does not always refer to an embryo! Thus as you so
eloquently put it, "every time I have a cut an embryo is formed!" That
is why I asked in my previous post: if we have a text that states
simply "the doctor removed the alaqa from sister Simira's body,"
should we automatically assume this is a reference to an abortion?
Could it be something else? I think your analogy works in my favor.

-Denis Giron

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

May 29, 2003, 12:18:24 PM5/29/03

On Sat, 24 May 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> Fine, consider Generatione Animalium, Book II, 740a15-35. It is there
> that Aristotle says the heart is the first to form in all Sanguinea
> ("blooded animals"; he repeats this again at 741b15, and a few other
> spots), and it is within this discussion that he mentions the
> umbilical blood vessels attached to the heart. This is in *ALL
> SANGUINEA*, thus this includes Aristotle's position on man. So,
> Aristotle's position is that in man, the heart forms before the liver
> and lungs, and the umbilical vessels are originally attached to the
> heart. This belief is correct, and he (it is safe to assume) acquired
> this belief with neither direct observation nor divine guidance. This
> is, it must be again noted, a true belief regarding early development.
> What this does is demolish the false dichotomy supported by those who
> remark that no microscopes existed at the time the Qur'an was written.

Let us again have a look at what Aristotle says about formation of heart
first in his "Generation of Animals" and how he came to this conclusion:

CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT IN THE RESEARCHES AND IN THE DISSECTIONS." [Aristotle

(Trans. A. L. Peck), "Generation of Animals", 1953, William Heinemann

Ltd.: London and Harvard University Press: Cambridge (MA), pp. 195-197]

This completely demolishes the claim of Dajjal that Aristotle acquired
"this belief with neither direct observation". Aristotle clearly provides
the reason of formation of heart first as seen clearly in his dissections
as opposed to Dajjal's false claim that Aristotle did not observe it
directly. And consequently, this reduces the "false dichotomy" argument of
Dajjal to rubble.

In another place Aristotle says that the formation of heart is first,
because it

"... is plain not only to senses (for after all it is the matter of fact)
but also to reason." [op cit., 740a, p. 193]

As far as "plain" to senses it concerned, we have already seen that

Aristotle say it is through his dissections. Concerning this passage
Needham says about Aristotle's observation:

"This is a good observation." [Joseph Needham, "A History of Embryology",
1959, Cambridge University Press, p. 64]

Needham did not say it was a good guess or reasoning through deduction. He
rather said that Aristotle's observation was good as everybody who has
read Aristotle's two books "Generation of Animals" and "History of
Animals" would say. Aristotle, certainly, was brilliant when it came to
accurately describing his dissections and used the reasoning whether
inductive or deductive, either correctly or incorrectly. As for the

"reason" for the formation of heart first, Aristotle says:

"As the source of the sensations is in the heart, the heart is the first
part of the whole animal to be formed;..." [op cit., 743b, p. 225]

So, the conclusion that the heart formed first was arrived through

dissections. Dajjal might now try his miserably failed hand by
suggesting that Aristotle could have dissected humans and he could have
seen the conceptus. What we have been asking this character called Dajjal
is to provide us an image to show that an early embryo can be recognized
without microscopical aids. So far, we have not seen any (not really
surprising!). This is also a proof of falsification that we had put
forward.

We have the answers ready just in case Dajjal projects as if Aristotle
dissected humans and was able to see conceptuses. Aristotle "never
apparently dissected a human body" and it is "extremely improbable
that Aristotle could have seen and recognized a human embryo of one
month, for the approximate size of such was established only recently" [A.
W. Meyer, "The Rise of Embryology", 1939, Stanford University Press, p.
280]. Voila!

> Now we can move on to the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the
> Qur'an, which I have recently learned, consists of "correlation
> studies":

So, Dajjal recently learnt that Moore, Persaud, Zindaani et al.
were using correlation studies to correlate the statements in the Qur'an
and hadith with the modern facts of embryology. This essentially means
that Dajjal was illiterate of the source material. If he was inconversant
with the source material why was he arguing from ignorance and making us
waste our time? This is ridiculuous. We know for sure that this guy has no
background in Arabic, embryology and history of embryology yet he exudes a
kind of confidence hoping that nobody would catch his preposterousness
when he wants to discuss the issue of embryology and history of
embryology.

This guy has just woken up to the fact that the studies were correlation
studies and goes on immediately to try his hand at correlation studies as

if he is an "expert". He says:

> > A nutfah is a drop and a drop is round in shape. Semen
> > comes out as drops and ovum is also resembles a drop, i.e.,
> > it is round-shaped.
>
> Am I the only one who notices how strained this interpretation is? A
> drop is round, an ovum is round, therefore a drop is an ovum? In Job
> 10:10 Job said he was poured out like "milk" - milk is produced only
> by a female, the ovum is produced only by the female, thus this was a
> reference to the ovum. It is amazing how these correlation studies
> work! Seriously though for a second folks, with all due respect, this
> is laughable to the point of tears (and I mean that literally, as this
> ol' Dajjaal had to wipe a tear from his single eye after seeing this
> one). Dr. Saifullaah doesn't prove that nutfa is a reference to the
> ovum, rather he simply assumes such!

It is equally amazing to see how a person ignorant about the history of
embryology would dare to enter into correlation studies, a field which is
left best to experts. Let us now take Dajjal's example of the verse in the
book of Job X.10 that says "Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and
curdled me like cheese?". According to Dajjal, since milk is produced only
by female and ovum is produced by female too, therefore ovum correlates to
milk. Perhaps we have to assume that there is no need to have the
contribution of male to produce the off-spring. Dajjal's illiteracy
in the aspects of history of embryology and correlation studies can be
clearly shown by examining what Aristotle had said about milk and rennet
analogy and how the scholars have directly connected (no need to
correlation here!) the verse Job X.10 with Aristotle's ideas. Aristotle
says:

"The action of the semen of the male in "setting" the female's secretion
in the uterus is similar to that of rennet upon milk. Rennet is milk which
contains cital heat, as semen does, and this integrates the homogeneous
substance and makes it set. As the nature of milk and the menstrual fluid
is one and the same, the action of the semen upon the substance of the
menstrual fluid is the same as that of rennet upon milk." [A. L. Peck
(trans.) "Generation of Animals", William Heinmann Ltd., Cambridge
(MA) and Harvard University Press, 739b, p. 191-193]

In the footnotes, the translator A. L. Peck says:

"This is a remarkable intuition of the essential role played by ferment
action in embryonic development. Cf. also Job x.10 "Hast thou not poured
me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin
and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews" [op cit. p. 191]

Comparing Aristotle's ideas about milk and rennet with Job X.10, Needham
says:

"During the period when the biological school of Alexandria was at its
height, that city became an important Jewish centre. Two centuries later
it was to produce Philo, but now the Alexandrian Jews were writing that
part of the modern Bible known as the Wisdom Literature. In books such as
the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Proverbs, etc. the typical Hellenic
exclusion of the action of gods in natural phenomena is clearly to be
seen. There are two passages of embryological importance. Firstly, in the
Book of Job (10:10), Job is made to say,

"Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast fashioned me as clay; and wilt
thou bring me into the dust again! Hast thou not poured me out as milk,
and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and
knit me together with bones and sinews."

This comparison of embryogeny with the making of cheese is interesting in
view of the fact that precisely the same comparison occurs in Aristotle's
book On the Generation of Animals, as we have already seen. Still more
extraordinary, the only other embryological reference in the Wisdom
Literature, which occurs in the Wisdom of Solomon (vii. 2), also copies an
Aristotelian theory, namely, that the embryo is formed from (menstrual)
blood. There the speaker says,

"In the womb of a mother was I moulded into flesh in the time of ten
months, being compacted with blood of the seed of man and the pleasure
that accompanieth sleep."" [Joseph Needham, A History of Embryology, 1959,
Cambridge University Press, p. 64]

Similarly Meyer says:

"Anyone unfamiliar with the original texts and the particular time
concerned must hesitate about interpretations of Holy Writ; but when Job
(475 BC) asks "Hast thou not poured me out as a milk, and curdled me like
cheese?" (10:10), he surely seems to have in mind the old idea in
embryology that coagulation is the first phenomenon in development. Franks
thought that Job here "describes according to the poet's physiology the
formation of the embryo"; but since this idea of the "poet's physiology"
was still extant in the days of Aristotle, it probably was not poetic but
scientific in origin. Moreover, the same thought is repeated in the Wisdom
of Solomon (150-50 BC), one of the Apocrypha, where (7:2, 3) we read: "And
in the womb of a mother was I molded into flesh in the time of ten months,
being compacted in blood of the seed of man and pleasure that came with
sleep."" [A. W. Meyer, "The Rise of Embryology", 1939, Stanford
University Press, p. 19]

Nota bene: Needham says that the comparison between the verse Job X.10 and
Aristotle's analogy is precise and so does Meyer alludes to it. In other
words, we do not need correlation here as the correspondence is
precise. Shall we also add that Dajjal's amateur attempts of correlation
are completely annihilated! Comparing the Aristotle's analogy and Job
X.10, the actual correlation would be semen to cheese and menstrual blood
to milk.

Needham concludes that both references in the Bible can be traced back to
Aristotle and even Hippocrates:

"Perhaps it is no coincidence that both these citations can be referred
back to Aristotle, and in the second case even to Hippocrates; perhaps the
Alexandrian Jews of the third century B.C. were studying Aristotle as
attentively as Philo Judaeus studied Plato a couple of hundred years
later." [op cit. p. 64]

That speaks for itself!

Dajjal's correlation stopped at Job being "poured out like milk"; perhaps
he found correlating "curdling like cheese" to be a rather blood-curdling
exercise full as big holes like the ones in Swiss cheese. The point here
is simple. Why should we listen to a ignorant like Dajjal when we have
scholars who can give better description of facts on embryology? So,
Dajjal now how is your laugh coming along? Kindly enlighten if we had the
last laugh on this issue? We are eager to hear.

But Dajjal's amateur attempts of "correlating studies" do not stop here.
Even more absurdities can be seen when we see him comparing mudgha in
the Qur'an with the description in the Bible.

> For example, let us compare the Qur'anic use of the word "mudhgha"
> with the description of development in the Bible, in Job 10:8-9. In
> verse 8, Job says that God made him with His hands (the word "yad" -
> hand - appears in the Hebrew), and in the next verse it says this
> making/creating/molding was as if with clay (literally "ki-chomer" -
> "like clay"). Well, I took out a piece of clay recently, and in almost
> a single deft move, I was able to grab the clay with my hand in a
> tight embrace and then release it. When I looked at what I had did
> with my hand, where my finger imprints were on the clay corresponded
> to the somites on a 28 day old embryo.

Dajjal's "correlation" story is excellent. But what he did not tell us is
how exactly somites look like. If one does not how somites look like, the
correlation is rather useless. He has good reasons to hide the information
about the somites and how they look like as we will soon see.

But first what are somites and how do they look like? Somites are blocks
of mesoderm that are located on each side of the developing neural tube.
They appear as paired segmented blocks or cuboidal bodies [Moore and
Persaud, "The Developing Human", 1998 (6th Edition), W. B. Saunders
Company, p. 72; T. W. Sadler, "Langman's Medical Embryology", 1985 (5th
Edition), Williams and Wilkins, pp. 64-65; W. J. Hamilton and H. W.

Mossman, "Hamilton, Boyd and Mossman's Human Embryology", 1972, W.

Heffer and Sons & Williams and Wilkins, p. 73]. In other words on either
side of the neural tube lies somites arranged like beads that are roughly
cuboidal in shape. A dramatic scanning electron microscope picture is in
L. Nillson's book "A Child Is Born", 1993, Dell Publishing, p. 80. It
clearly shows the outward structure of these somites. Also see Moore,
Persaud and Shiota, "Colour Atlas of Clinical Embryology", 1994, W. B.
Saunders Co., Figs. 2-10 and 2-11 on pp. 24 and 26, respectively, for
detailed side-views of somites in the embryo.

Now let us have a look at Dajjal's experiment. He says that he grabbed the
clay with his hand in a tight embrace and then release it. When he looked
at what he had did with his hand, where his finger imprints were on the
clay corresponded to the somites on a 28 day old embryo. Our first
question is "Did they?" The somites appear as paired blocks in an embryo.
In Dajjal's experiment his fingerprints would appear as a single row as
opposed to somites that appear paired. Moreover, a tight squeeze of the
clay in the fist would result in the clay filling up the crevices
between the finger. The resultant structure would be finger prints plus
a thin line of clay running perpendicular to the long direction. One
does not see that in mudgha! So, Dajjal's phoney "experiment" and his even
phonier "correlation" fell flat on its face.

One really wonders if he has ever seen a 28 day embryo! Let us go further
than this. A 28 day embryo is curved like an arch [Moore, Persaud and
Shiota, "Colour Atlas of Clinical Embryology", 1994, W. B. Saunders Co.,
Fig. 2-11, pp. 26]. But Dajjal's squeezing of the clay in hand would
straighten up the piece of clay. So, where is the arch? Nowhere!

It gets even funnier as we go down...

> The appearance of somites change continuously just as finger imprints
> change in clay with each act of grabbing/squeezing/molding. The embryo
> changes its overall shape but the structure derived from somites
> remains. Since new tissue masses appear in the embryo, the embryo also
> turns its position to adjust the centre of gravity with respect to its
> new mass. This is similar to the turning of the clay during
> molding/grabbing/squeezing.

As for your finger imprints being correlated to "somites" we have already
seen that such a correlation is completely false as it gives rise of only
one set of finger prints where as somites occur in pairs.

When a clay is squeezed, there is no addition of new mass unlike what is
seen in embryo. Where is this mysterious mass of your coming? E = mc^2?
You should patent this conversion of energy to mass and perhaps also wait
for Nobel Prize to be bestowed on you. Honestly, you have surpassed even
the brilliance of Einstein on this energy conversion! Further, when a
material like clay is under compressive stresses, the effect of gravity on
its actual shape is negligible because of its rheological characteristics
such as extremely high viscosity. As for your "correlation", it has
again been decimated.

Now let us turn our attention to the mudgha as mentioned in the Qur'an,
something that is chewed. The foremost thing to notice is that when
something is chewed a pair of teeth marks appear, one set coming from
those in the upper jaw and the other from the lower one. This amply
satisfies the condition for the correlation to somites that appear as
paired. Further the teeth are arranged as an arch inside the mouth and
hence any imprints would be arched too just like a 28 day old embryo.
Further, when a substance is chewed, it gets mixed with saliva emitting
from salivary glands that increases the weight of the substance as well
as making it less viscous thereby making its shape dependent upon gravity.
This makes the chewed substance orient its centre of mass just like an
embryo in the mudgha stage arrange its position due to increasing amount
of tissue developing in it, but the somites remain. So, Dajjal, the
sum total of this correlation discussion is that Moore, Persaud and
Zindaani are heroes and your "correlation" fantasies have turned out to be
a big zero. Correlation studies is a very specialized field that requires
expertise in embryology, history of embryology and when it comes to the
Qur'an, a thorough grounding in Arabic. It is clear that you have none of
these qualifications. But then you have this chronic problem of arguing
about something and then bragging about how greatly you have argued.

> Dr. Saifullaah's cries of "correlation studies" do not escape the
> problems with the exegesis that he brought to the table (regardless of
> whether this exegesis is originally his own or not). In case Dr.
> Saifullaah forgot, the discussion is summed up in the question posed
> in the title of this thread. None of Dr. Saifullaah's citing of
> certain "correlation studies" allows us to answer that question in the
> affirmative.

I have not forgotton anything. I have not forgotton that you have no
grounding in Arabic, embryology and history of embryology neither I have
forgotton that you are nothing but a polemicist. Now you tell
us whether we should go to a bunch of experts comprising of Moore,
Persaud, Johnson, Zindaani, al-Bar etc. or to a charlatan like you. So
far you have avoided this basic issue. And why not? If you said that
you are not qualified to speak on the issues of embryology, the case
is closed. This is a simple reality check for you and for us.

We have already provided ample evidence to back up whatever we have said.
And as for the title of the thread, the people who are experts in the
field of embryology had been questioned about the material in the Qur'an
and hadith. What they have said can be seen at:

And remember that you are no more than an average polemicist with no
qualifications to speak on the issue of embryology. What more can we
expect from a willfully blind polemicist? Feeble excuses!

> So if Dr. Saifullaah's sources can correlate the word "mudgha" with
> the period from the fourth week onwards (and hence organogenesis),
> then so too I can correlate Job 10:8-9 with the same period. However,
> despite this "correlation study," does this actually prove that this
> is what the authors of the Qur'an and Job had in mind? No, it does
> not, which is why all of the long text on "correlation studies" fails
> to help us answer the question posed in the title of this thread.

Saifullah's sources have those people who are competent enough to discuss
the correlation studies of embryology. And you? You are just a polemicist
who has neither any background in Arabic nor embryology. LOL.

> claim this interpretation is modern? Dr. Saifullaah can argue all he
> wants that these are correlation studies, but the point is that the
> claim I was willing to drop is nonetheless still true: if you
> interpret the Qur'an as being a reference to the ovum, et cetera, that
> interpretation is undoubtedly modern.

If you know what correlation studies are and how they are carried out you
will not be spending time here to tell us that the "interpretation" is
"modern". The purpose of correlation in mathematics, biology, chemistry
and physics is to tie two sets of data and then explain it. There is
nothing wrong in using a "modern" word like "ovum" to describe a
particular feature as much as there is nothing wrong in correlating the
data points on a graph to a zero order chemical reaction and then
explaining it.

> The above is irrelevant; we are discussing the exegesis, regardless of
> whether it originates with Keith Moore or Muhammad Saifullaah. So

The implication of this statement is that Moore and Saifullah are on the
same level of knowledge. I have consistently denied this fact. I am not an
expert in this field and I only have more of a bookish knowledge. I look
up to the experts to get myself informed and educated. Furthermore, this
is not my exegesis. If I claim it to be mine Dajjal would jump on us to
show that we are plagiarizing the material. And if we use somebody else's
material, he then clubs us with them as if we have the same level of
knowledge.

> "The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for
> believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account. In De
> Semine, for example, Galen spoke of four periods in the formation of
> the embryo: (1) as seminal matter; (2) as a bloody form (still without
> flesh, in which the primitive heart, liver, and brain are
> ill-defined); (3) the foetus acquires flesh and solidity (the heart,
> liver, and brain are well-defined, and the limbs begin formation); and
> finally (4) all the organs attain their full perfection and the foetus
> is quickened. There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this
> agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed
> the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages: (as in Ibn
> Sina's account of Galen): nutfa for the first, 'alaqa for the second,
> "unformed" mudgha for the third, and "formed" mudgha for the fourth."
> [Basim F. Musallam, "Sex and Society in Islam," (Cambridge, 1983), p.
> 54]

The problem with Dajjal is again is insufficient understanding of what
Galen had said about his four stages and why the medieval Muslims would
sometimes use scientific knowledge of their day when interpreting verses
from the Quran and Hadith. As for the former, Galen said that his four

stages are related to generation of animals not humans. Galen says:

"But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the
animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide

the creation of the fetus overall into four periods of time." [De Semine,
pp. 93]

If one has to compare, the comparison should be between apples and apples
not between apples and oranges. Galen describes the stages of generation
in animals and some medieval Muslims used it to describe the stages
of generation of man mentioned in the Qur'an and hadith. What are you
going to say now? Galen observations on animals can be transposed to man?
It is one of your favourite excuses. LOL. Furthermore, it is known that:

"Galen (AD 130-200), however, dissected animals and sometimes mistakenly
transferred the observations made upon them to man, thus misleading the
many who regarded him as an authority. Although he was devoted to
dissection and experimentation on animals, including the pregnant, there
is no record of his having studies incubating eggs or fetuses, and had he
done so he probably would not have held that the liver developed first.
He errorneously thought that the blood of the mother circulates in the
fetus..." [A. W. Meyer, "The Rise of Embryology", 1939, Stanford
University Press, p. 281]

As for the latter issue of why the medieval Muslim used the scientific
knowledge of their day when interpreting the verses of the Qur'an:

"In Islamic religious thought sexual generation was an important subject
if for no reason other than that the Quran and Hadith contained statements
in reproduction that believers considered binding. In interpreting these
statements, medieval Muslims relied directly on medicine and natural
philosophy. It was as difficult to explain the relevant passages of the
Quran and Hadith without reference to science, as it was to write a
medical or philosophical treatise free of their influence." [Basim

Musallam, "The Human Embryo in Arabic Scientific and Religious Thought",

in G.R. Dunstan (ed.), "The Human Embryo in Arabic Scientific and
Religious Thought", 1990, University of Exeter Press, p. 35]

Some of their works would try and cite any agreement between the Islamic
texts and science, no matter how remote; and Arabic science employed the
same Qur'anic terms to describe the formation of the embryo.

> An essentially identical version of the text above appears in Basim
> Musallam, "The Human Embryo in Arabic Scientific and Religious
> Thought," in G.R. Dunstan (ed.), "The Human Embryo: Aristotle and the
> Arabic and European Traditions," (University of Exeter, 1990), pp.

The version is not identical. It says:

"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for

believers agreed *substantially* with Galen's scientific account....
Medieval Muslims appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen,
and Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the
Galenic stages."

Musallam says that the believers agreed "*substantially* with Galen's
scientific account" in the recent paper whereas in the older one he said
that "believers agreed *perfectly* with Galen's scientific account". There
is a substantial different between "perfectly" and "substantially". Dajjal
can't even quote the books properly!

> So, understanding the words nutfa, alaqa, and mudhgha as semen, blood
> clot, and lump, respectively, can be traced at least back to the 10th
> century. We know for a fact that having them be references to somites,
> zygotes, et cetera, cannot be traced back that far. From here one has
> to wonder if the Qur'an is really referring to what Dr. Saifullaah
> insinuated it is referring to, why did no one realize such for over
> thirteen centuries?

As for the folly of using Galenic material, we have already shown that
Galen described the stages of genesis in an animal and the medieval
Muslims used this material to interpret that statements in the Qur'an and
Hadith as this was one of the materials available to them and correlate
with it whether correctly or incorrectly. They would not have used
somites, zygote etc. A closer examination between the Galenic stages and
the ones mentioned in the Qur'an and hadith show vast differences. Not
only the number of stages match but also each stage is different. We will
leave that for a later day, insha'allah.

> > The discussion is about the understanding of nutfah-amshaaj
> > by the previous scholars because of the peculiarity of the language.
> > However, this peculiarity of the language can be explained, since we know
> > now that the zygote remains singular as a nutfah, like a drop, while
> > internally the chromosomes and other contributions from the sperm and ovum
> > form a plural mixture described as amshaaj.
>
> Again, the exact same claim; rather than actually answer the questions
> raised, he repeats the claim. The question still stands as to how Dr.
> Saifullaah knows this is a reference to chromosomes. It is starting to
> seem obvious that he assumes it is a reference to chromosomes because
> such an assumption is convenient to his position (I'm sure he'll want
> to say this is Moore and Zindaanee's assumption, not his, but that's
> moot). The issue is proving the Qur'an is making reference to these
> things, not assuming it is and then standing back amazed.

Did we not tell you in the previous post that it was you who assumed that
we meant the reference is to chromosomes? On the other hand, it was said
that it was *explained* by Moore et al. that the best way to correlate
nutfah-amshaaj stage is right after the formation of zygote. The mixture
was correlated to contributions from sperm and ovum.

> This I was well aware of, but it does not answer the question. The
> question again is why those who support this mode of exegesis actually
> believe it is a reference to the embryo at 24 days. What's the
> indication? One should be able to find an indication in the text
> itself, and not have to assume such to make it fit.

What do you mean by what is the indication when the text itself says that
the early embryo goes from a drop to something that clings?

> > Can you show us any medieval dictionary that refers to the word somites in
> > the embryo? The glaring fact is that you will not show it. How do you
> > expect an Arabic medieval dictionary to deal with such a word?
>
> That was the point - this demonstrates that the interpretation is
> indeed modern. As for how one might make a reference to somites, it is

What it demonstrates is that the correlation has been done using 20th
century embryology. Nothing more than that.

> Note that Diocles' description of development at 18 and 27 days are
> pretty close to accurate, and that is essentially a reference to the
> somites. Now, Dr. Saifullaah might complain that this is Diocles'
> position on mammals, but I would respond that mammals include humans.
> Furthermore, the description is true only for certain mammals (it
> certainly isn't true of a mouse, which has a gestation period which is
> less than 10% the length of the human gestation period, and it
> certainly isn't true of a horse or elephant, which is longer than the
> human gestation period). It is roughly accurate for humans (and who
> knows, maybe for cows, which have a gestation period only about 10-30
> days longer than humans).

Why tell us these long, useless stories of transposing what Diocles
observed to humans? Why not tell us what he has observed on humans? That
would sort all the problem.

Before you get caught once again hiding the facts we would like to inform
you something important. The treatises ascribed to Diocles has come to us
only in fragments [see Max Wellman, "Die Fragmente der sykelischen Arzte
Akron, Philistion und des Diokles von Karytos (Fragmentsammlung der
griechischen Artze), Band I, Berlin 1901]. They say that he made animal
dissections, and that of mule in particular, and made descriptions of
them. Others such as Plutarch and Oribasius refer to his writings and what
he had done.

> Right, but that ignores the point I raised: there is a difference
> between cartilage and bone, and the Qur'an only mentions bone. This
> also shows the strained nature of the exegesis being employed when the
> text says one thing, but it is assumed to mean something rather
> different for the sake of convenience. Interestingly, like the Qur'an,

What was the "sake of convenience" by the way? Or it for your "sake of
convenience" to avoid getting into details?

> I'm not sure, but is Dr. Saifullaah saying that the difference is that
> the Qur'an puts this in one time frame, and Galen in another? Of

Well, can you show to us that Galen's four stages are applicable to
humans? Do not forget to quote the evidence. If and when you do then we
will proceed with your argument. Obviously the groundwork has to be done
before we can proceed. We can't put the cart before the horse.

> > Now you show us any picture acquired using an unaided eye
> > showing the development of muscles around the bones.
>
> Explain how this is relevant without being duplicitous.

Galen observed the formation of muscles around the bones in his
dissections on animals. So, you come to the point without being evasive.

> alaqa form inside the nutfa and the mudhgha inside the alaqa? It seems
> the logical structure "khalaqnaa X,Y" is still not clear. Maybe Dr.
> Saifullaah would like to elaborate based on these questions, so we can
> know precisely what this phrase means.

It has already been elaborated and if you want more information, it is
available in Moore's and Zindaani's book on embryology with Islamic
additions. Please read the source material. There is no point arguing from
ignorance.

> cetera. While this does not prove the Qur'an is not divine, it is
> certainly true that Dr. Saifullaah has, up to this point, proven
> wholly incapable of demonstrating that the statements regarding
> embryology in the Qur'an could only have come from a divine source.

Rather you have shown complete ignorance about embryology and history of
embryology. Gosh! you do not even know the basic source material.
Obviously, we do not expect an illiterate to understand the demonstration
that we have made. As for your "correlation" studies, the less we talk the
better.

We have been hearing about your bragging for a long time. It is similar to
what many of the notorious Christian missionaries used to do on this
newsgroup but in the end the fate finally caught up with them. As far as
you are concerned, we can see it already happening. It first started with
bragging about how much you know about the subject, trying the subject
hands on and then making oneself look asinine. Keep it up!

Wassalam
Saifullah

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

May 29, 2003, 12:18:25 PM5/29/03

On Sat, 24 May 2003, Denis Giron wrote:

> Point duly noted. I actually meant it in a loose sense, but in the

You required two posts to get into your head the difference between a
personal exegesis and the one taken from others.

> > Well, Moore, Persaud and Zindaani have said and demonstrated that `alaqah
> > represents an early stage of an embryo. For example see:
> >
> > http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm
>
> There is no demonstration to be found there, rather just a bunch of
> hidden assumptions. Alaqa means leech, thus it means the emrbyo looks
> like a leech at 24 days? That doesn't seem to follow. If we were

For you nothing would follow because you have not even followed through
the source material. What more can we expect from you? `Alaqah means
something that clings, or the derived meanings such as a leech.

> That's fantastic. Do they bring any evidence that this is actually the
> intended meaning in the Qur'an? Or do they simply assume such for
> convenience? On a side note, I wonder if Moore actually believes such
> things... but oh well, we, unfortunately, are not the one who know
> what the heart conceals.

They have discussed various possible means of `alaqah and some of it is
already being described in the above link and if one follows through the
references especially 3 and 4 there is substantial material in it.

On the other side, I met Shabbir Ally in 2000 and discussed about the
issue of embryology. He remarked that Persaud told him that "we stand by
whatever we have said". As for Moore, he has given a few talks
(available in both video and audio and I have couple of them with me) in
which he clearly states what he believes. His belief is in line with
what Persaud had said.

> Who the onus is on isn't determined by whether one individual has a
> degree or not, or is a polemicist or not. It is determined by who the
> positive claimant is. I'm not making positive assertions about what
> the Qur'an actually means, because (as I'm sure you know) I think
> religious texts mean different things for different people, thus
> intended meaning can be a shaky amorphous issue. My issue is simply
> that it has not been demonstrated that the Qur'an is actually making
> reference to the development of the embryo from the 15th to 26th
> day...

The issue is best sorted out if we go to the people who know the subject.
This would take care of the issue of language as well as science. We know
that you have no background in either embryology, history of embryology
or Arabic whereas the the bunch of scholars such as Moore, Persaud,
Johnson, Zindaani, al-Bar etc. comprise of people who are competent in
various fields ranging from embryology, history of embryology to
linguistics. Now you tell us who should we approach? People who are
qualified like them or an unqualified character like you?

If you are not making a "positive" assertion, then what exactly is your
point of whole discussion? Moore et al. were paid to say what they
said? Hiding behind the cloak that the religious texts means different to
different people? In our case, we have already shown that the correlation
studies used the older sources to get the meanings of the words and how
the verse is interpreted. As for you, you have been dancing around the
claim that the words in the Qur'an and hadith discussing embryology have
"modern" meanings and when confronted to you decided to drop it. This
actually proves that you really have a case which you can't defend except
to shift the position time to time.

> > Well, how does the meaning "blood clot" deal a heavy blow to the claim
> > that this knowledge that no human could have known?
>
> Because if it is possible for a person to just mean blood clot when
> they write "alaqa," they could such (in such a hypothetical situation)
> without intending it to be a reference to any morphological
> resemblance to a leech or how the embryo is connected to the uterus,
> yet the exegesis found in the "correlation study" that you called to
> witness would apply just the same. That exposes a problematic nature
> regarding the value of such exegesis in terms of answering the
> question posed in the title of this thread.

Your bragging about "heavy blow" is as hypothetical as your hypothetical
situation. It turned out to be a big gasconade. And guess what? You have
no qualifications to talk about "possibilities" of this or that. Why not
keep quite then? As for correlation studies, they have dealt with `alaqah
as a clinging object, a leech, and a blood clot.

Wassalam
Saifullah