Scientific errors in the Quran: the myth of Embryology!
There are too many scientific and mathematical errors in the Quran to mention. Due to time constrains I will only investigate and discuss the so-called embryologic-verses in details for now, since it happens to be the most popular ‘scientific miracle’ used to prove the stunning scientific accuracy of the Quran. Islamist Scholars love to claim that this scientific truth on embryology which was revealed to Mohamed over 14 centuries ago was only uncovered recently by scientists with the aid of technological advancement of the 20th & 21st century. They move on to say, those scientific facts could not have been known at Mohammed’s time, and hence this proves the Quran is the words of god.
hmm it’s a really impressing and touching story, so many Muslims have accepted it blindly as they have accepted their faith in Islam, why would they doubt it, its quite incredible to see the religion that you were brought up with is in agreement with science, it gives people a confidence boost that you’re following a true religion..
Scientist who discovered the embryologic verses:
The first person to reveal those ‘embryological information’ in the Quran is Keith L. Moore (Scientist in anatomy & embryology, and a professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto), -yup that same busted scientist who turned out to be an overpayed agent for Suadi. Nevertheless, let’s dismiss this for now, since many Muslims are still unaware of this fact and still refer to his work.
Two questions MUST be asked:
- Is the Qur’an the first source to reveal such information on embryology?
- Are those information scientifically accurate?
Short answer: Yes, the same information on embryology found in the Quran was already known, and it was known centuries before the Quran, it is mentioned numerous times by many famous ancient scientist such as Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen. Most of the descriptions given by those scientists were proven wrong by modern science, so not only did Mohammed plagerized the work of others, he also copied inaccurate scientific information.
Essay-form answer: In what follows, I will present a list of arguments provided by the Islamic scholars , including the obvious errors in their scientific mythology, and the flaws in their reasoning.
a) Lets Quote Professor Moore:
“Statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur’an. It is only recently that the scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully. . . .”He makes you in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness.”This statement is from Sura 39, doctors in the 7th century A.D. likely knew that the human embryo developed in the uterus. It is unlikely that they knew that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle described the stages of development of the chick-embryo in the 4th century B.C. The realization that the human-embryo develops in stages was not discussed and illustrated until the 15th century.” (K.Moore).
b) The Islamist Scholars go on present a vague timeline to support this argument:
- Quran : came out in the 7th century
- Vesalius (1543) : the founder of modern human anatomy., and author of one of the most influential books on human anatomy-‘On the Workings of the Human Body’, which came out in the 15th century.
Initial Conclusion: there is a time span of EIGHT centuries; Mohammed could not have known such information in the 7th century, which proves the divine origin of the Quran.
Hmmm it’s quite convincing at the first glance, let think again, it really doesn’t hurt.
Are they trying to convince us that it wasn’t until 1543s when scientist realized that we develop in stages! People back then used to observe things in their surroundings to have a better understanding about their life, universe, nature laws and principles…etc. Its obvious that living things develops in stages. They can simply observe the gradual development during the 9 month of Pregnancy. It’s natural for even the most ignorant primitive man to realize that everything develops in stages; it doesn’t happen all at once. Its not like the Quran stated something out of ordinary.
The timeline used by those scientists are quite misleading, it seems like they have chosen to start from the 7th century and completely ignored the work of others who lived prior to that age.
We are supposed to believe that the idea of the embryo developing through stages is a modern one, and that the Qur’an is prophesying modern embryology by depicting differing stages?!? Yet, we have seen that Indian and greek medicine have all discussed stages of embryological development in great details during the 1000 years before the Qur’an.
Lets adjust that timeline:
- Sushruta: Father of surgery, he is an Indian surgeon and teacher of Ayurveda (ancient Indian medicine system) during the 6th century BCE. Susruta is the author of the Susrutasamhita, the work known after his name, and one of the most brilliant gems in Indian medical literature.
- Hippocrates: Father of Medicine, he is Greek physician (ca. 460 BC – ca. 370 BC), he made important contributions, to Embryology in fifth century B.C.
- Aristotle: Father of Embryology, he is a Greek philosopher & physician (384 BC – 322 BC), who wrote a treatise on Embryology in fourth century B.C.
- Charaka: Father of Anatomy, an indian doctor born c. 300 BC, he is one of the principal contributors to the ancient art and science of Ayurveda, a system of medicine and lifestyle developed in Ancient India.
- Galen: Greek physician, surgeon & philosopher (AD 129-216) b), he wrote a book entitled “On the Formation of the Foetus” in first century A.D. His theories dominated and influenced western medical science for nearly two millennia.
- Quran: the stages described in the Quran matches Galen’s work
- Scientists of the 21st century:modern science and technology were able to solve the mystery of the human anatomy, their findings does not perfectly match the work of any ancient scientist before and after the 7th century, however they will be always looked upon as great thinkers of their time but not gods.
Modified Conclusion: People were aware that the human-embryo develops in stages centuries before Islam, doctors and scientists of the ancient eras had even stated more complex details than the Quran! Even if we assumed the Quran was the first to state such information, how can you explain away the obvious scientific errors in those verses??
(2) Three layers of darkness:
The Quran often includes vague descriptions of natural phenomena, which are then alleged to be perfectly in concord with modern science, such as:”He makes you in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness.” (Sura 39)
Is that a way for god to convince his creation that he’s their creator? The word darkness alone blows the whole myth out, simple because back then scientific observations was based solely on what they can see with their naked eyes. So they assumed its dark inside the body.
Moore says: “The three veils of darkness” may refer to: (1) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane
Here is another possible interruption: the three layers could be referring to the skin being the first barrier to the inside of the body, and then followed by bones and finally the womb. Or another possible interruption would be: the darkness of the belly, the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta
All those stages could be observed by the naked eye, it’s a simple conclusion that can be deduced by any men in any time unassisted with technological advancement. What is more, the verse, is quite vague and simple, it just plainly states 3 layers of darkness, it didn’t deliver any new or superior knowledge that weren’t already known in the 7th century.
(3) Quranic verses on embryology:
(Sura 23: 12-14): “Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; Then placed him as a ‘nutfa’ in a safe lodging; then We made the Nutfa into a Alaqa; then of that Alaqa We made a Mudga; then we made out of that Mudga bones and clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators”
Contradiction in the Quran regarding the first creation (Adam):
The Qur’an ambiguously asserts many common sensually meaningless statements. For examples sometimes it tells us that Man is the product of wet earth (23:12), or that we are created from from earth (11:61), sometimes it claims from dry clay (15:26,28,33, 17:61, 32:7), sometimes “from nothing” (19:67), sometimes “NOT from nothing” (52:35), sometimes from wet earth (23:12), or from mire (38:71), sometimes from water (25:54, 21:30, 24:45), sometimes from dust ( 3:59, 30:20, 35:11) or even sometimes from dead (30:19, 39:6). So which one is true? Those contradictory ambiguous statements actually do not reveal any scientific facts regarding either how we created or what exactly we are made of.
In my investigation, I will dismiss verse 12 from sura 23 (we created man from wet earth) because Muslim scholars say that god created the first man (Adam) from many different things such as clay, however, humans are created from nutfas, so according to them the first stage of human development is a Nutfa.
The stages of prenatal development according to the Quran:
- A ‘nutfa’ is placed in asafe lodging
- Nutfa turns into an alqa
- Alaqa turn into a mudga
- Out of mudga bones are made
- Dressing the bones with muscles (flesh)
There are other verses in the Quran that describes ‘certain’ stages of the fetes development, however the verses from Sura 23 (The believers) is the only clear passage which describes ALL the stages from conception till birth, therefore in what follows I’ll explain each stage mentioned in this passage, and I’ll also refer to other verses in the Quran relevant to certain stages.
(4) Meaning of the word “Nut’fah”-confusing definitions!
K.Moores translates & explains the first verse of this passage as follows:…”Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest.” -This statement is from Sura 23:13. The drop or nutfa has been interpreted as the sperm”…
Nop actually, in arabic the word nutfah means seman, which is an observable fluid to the unaided eye. Scientists such as Keith Moore and doctors such as Dr.Marurice Buchaille and Dr. Zakir Naik have all assumed that the word Nutfah in the Quran means sperm, and even though none of them is an linguistic or an expert in the Arabic language, they all have emphasized that the word ‘nutfah’ should be interrupted as one individual microscopic sperm!
“In fact the description the Qur’an gives of nutfah, namely that it consists of drops of fluid, proves that it is not referring to a single sperm at all, but to semen, which is clearly an observable fluid. It would be far more remarkable if the Qur’an had actually described an individual sperm” or even described it in a different way other than ‘fluid’, its ridiculous to assume that a ‘drop of fluid’ can be accurately translated as one sperm…. Lactantius)
Ibn Adam (a famous Islamist missionary) quotes Osama Abdallah stating:
“I looked very carefully at each Noble Verse, and I found out that all of them use the Arabic word “Nut’fah” which was wrongly translated as sperm. The Arabic word for sperm is is “Haywan-Manawee.” The Arabic word “Nut’fah” means the actual combination of multiples of “Haywan-Manawee ” i.e. semen.
There are other verses in the Quran which also suppurts & proves that the description the Quran gives to ‘nutfah’ demonstrates that it is only thinking of a fluid (semen) and not an individual sperm…. Few examples:
- “Let man think from what he is created. He is created from Al Maa-ad Dafiq.” (86:5-6)
- Does man think that he will be left uncontrolled (withoutpurpose)? Was he not once a fluid-drop of ejected semen? (75:36-37)
- “He It is Who created all things in the best way and began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid (Sulalah) ” (32: 7-8)
The 1st verse says we were created from ‘Al Maa-ad-Dafiq’, which refers to a gushing, or self emitting fluid, i.e. it refers to the discharged fluid (semen). While the 2nd & 3rd veses are quite clear and striaght-forward: the 2nd verse informs us againthat man is made from a drop of ejaculated semen, wheras the 3rd confirms that man was created from an ‘extract of fluid’ …. Soo we cant really theorize any further than that, and assume a drop of fluid actually means ‘one microscopic sperm’.
‘Seed’ verses ‘fluid’ –does it really make any difference?
Due to the controversy caused by the correct definition of Nutfah being a drop of the male fluid (seman), many Islamist translators have changed the phrase ‘drop of fluid’ to ‘drop of seed’ or ‘drop of sperm’ and some even translated to ‘seed’ alone, currently this is the most accepted definition by Muslims worldwide:
YUSUFALI: Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;
PICKTHAL: Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging;
SHAKIR: Then We made him a small seed in a firm resting-place,
Lets ignore for a moment that the word Nutfah has nothing to do with any sort of seeds, does this new interruption make it any more sensible? Nah, since “this is because most primitive peoples including Arabs thought that the whole child was in the “seed” of the man. The woman was considered simply as the oven or incubator that fully contained in the father’s seed….This was also Catholic Church doctrine for hundreds of years. Not “spilling one’s seed on the ground” is an admonition against masturbation because it was believed that one’s children would be eliminated. It can be pointed out from Islamic culture that the Shah of Iran divorced her wife Soraya (Soraya Esfandiari Bakhtiari) because of no children. In rural areas of Bangladesh, in similar fashion, many women gets divorced each year because they are wrongly blamed for not being capable of producing male child”. –(Avijit Roy)
‘Since the beginning of time man has been quite aware of the “seed” that is released from the penis during sexual intercourse. The old Hindu scriptures and Bible, which are much older than the Qur’an, also have such indication. Aristotle clearly described about formation of a child inside the womb early 1,000 years before the Qur’an was written. No body claimed any miracles for it.’ (Avjit roy)
Where is the ovum-female eggs?
Even if we accepted the two definition suggested by Islamist scientists and translators being: ‘sperm’ and ‘seed’., this leads us to another scientific error, there is no mention for the female contribution, the verse clearly says ‘“We made the Nutfainto a Alaqa”, this matches the primitive medical thought of that era, were it was widely believed that the whole child was contained in the man’s seed. At that time no one was able to figure out the existence of the female eggs.
How did K.Moore cover it up?
“Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest.” -This statement is from Sura 23:13. The drop or nutfa has been interpreted as the sperm [but a better interpretation is] the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus (“a place of rest”). This interpretation is supported by another verse in the Qur’an which states that “a human being is created from a mixed drop.” The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum (“The mixed drop”).
Here Moore makes two claims: first he says the word ‘Nufah’ means a sperm, but anyone who have studied basic biology knows that we are formed out of zygote (sperm & egg united), but never mind Moore covers it up nicely!.. It sounds like he is indirectly saying that it doesn’t matter if this verse is scientifically inaccurate, it must be unnoticed error by god which can be ignored because there is another verse which corrects this mistake.
All verses on embryology mentions ‘nutfa’ solely except for one verse from Sura Al-Insan (The man), which is the verse Moore is referring to, it says: “We created man from a mingled Nutfa” (76:02)
As explained earlier the word Nutfa is accurately translated to mean ‘semen fluid’, however if you wish you can use the other suggested definitions being ‘sperm’ or ‘seed’ it still won’t fix the obvious scientific error in the verse. It seems like Mohammed was the one who corrected himself after having more access to advanced Greek and Indian medicine arriving to Arabia and its surrounding regions. The concept of mingled fluids was advocated by Indian and Greek physicians.
This Quranic verse matches the famous Hippocratic view on human development- namely that men and women both produce fluids and the child is formed from a mixture of the two secretions. Hippocrates had no knowledge about individual sperm or eggs, he specifically said it’s the ‘mixture’ of the male fluid (semen) & female fluid (menstrual blood), both fluids are secreted and can be observed by the unaided naked eye. Similarly the Quran uses the same description, it plainly said mingled Nutfas. It would probably more accurate if the Quran described the ‘fusion’ of an individual egg with an individual sperm rather than the ‘mixture’ of fluids.
Aristotle agreed with Hippocrates, in his book On the Generation of Animals :“It follows that what the female would contribute to the semen of the male would be material for the semen to work upon.” In other words the semen clots the menstrual blood, which is absolutely an incorrect assumption.
India medics also had the idea that the child was formed from the male semen and the female menstrual blood. The opinion of Charaka (123 AD) and Susruta is that both the male and female contributed seed. The “secretion” of the male is called the sukra (semen) The “secretion” of the woman is called artava or sonita (blood).
However, Galen’s work (1131 AD) is the most accurate science of all if compared to modern science. In his book De Semine (p.50)- Galen says: “The substance from which the fetus is formed is not merely menstrual blood, as Aristotle maintained, but menstrual blood plus the two semens.” Similarly the Quran used the word Nutfa, which is seman, it didn’t mention any egg or at least if there is any difference between the male and female nutfa/seman/seed.
(5) Man Created from a clotted blood!
‘Alaqa’ (singular form) is mentioned 6 times in 5 verses in the Quran, while ‘alaq’ (prural form) is meantioned only once. The word Alaqa in Arabic means a ‘clot of blood’. Any reader who has studied human reproduction will realize, ‘there is no stage as a clot during the formation of a fetus, so this is a very major scientific problem’.
- “We made the Nutfa into a Alaqa; then of that Alaqa We made a Mudga; then we made out of that Mudga bones and clothed the bones with flesh” (23:14)
- “Created man, out of a mere Alaq” (96:2)
- “Was he (man) not nutfa a drop of sperm ejaculated? Then he became a ‘alaqa’ and God shaped and formed and made of him a pair, the male and the female.” (75:37-30)
- “He it is Who created you from dust, then from a nutfa, then from a ‘alaqa’, then brings you forth as a child, … that perhaps you may understand.” (40:67)
- “O mankind! if you have doubt about the resurrection (consider) that We have created you from dust, then from a nutfa, then from a clot ‘alaqa’, then from a little lump of flesh, shapely and shapeless” 22:5
The idea that humans are made from ‘clotted blood’ is taken from Greek sources, Aristotle and others believed that life initiates from a clot of blood. Nevertheless, there are serious scientific problems here. A blood clot cannot grow into anything, because blood clot is a pure dead mass, how could the creator-of-all fall into the same mistake as one of his creation.
‘Qurans assertion on Clot (alaqa) is completely wrong about human development, since there is absolutely no stage during which the embryo consists of a clot. The only situation in which an embryo might appear like a clot is during a miscarriage, in which case the clotted blood that is seen to emerge (much of which comes from mother) is solidified and by definition no longer alive. Therefore, if ever an embryo appeared to look like a clot it would never develop any further into a human; it would be a dead mass of bloody miscarriages.’- (Syed Kamran Mirza)
As the miraculous three stages argument -this ‘clot of blood’ assumption was also concluded by observation of miscarriages and abortions.
(6) Alaqa- a unique word with multiple different definitions
Historically Alaqa was used by physicians to refer to a clotted blood, and its still a common word used specially in the Arabized countries of north Africa. When people read the Quran throughout all those centuries, they interrupted this word as a clot of blood. Its definition has never been changed or edited.
Islamist missionary do confirm that the word ‘alaqa” means “clotted blood”. Nonetheless, according to them this is just the most common definition known and used, it actually has four definitions:
Abdullah ibn Adam said: meaning of the word “‘alaqa” :
(a) A leech like structure
(b) Something which clings
(c) A clot of blood
(d) Suspended thing
Apparently all those definitions are collectively used to interrupt the Quranic verse and to prove its validity.
Time, language and technology betrayed Allah:
Before the advances in embryology, Muslims had no problem accepting this verse or the definition of the word alaqa because it did match what people thought were scientific truths. Later on, after severe errors were found in the Quran, Muslim scholars lead by Dr. Maurice Bucaille introduced multiple new definitions for the word alaqa, all those definitions were collectively used to interrupt the Quranic verse and to prove its validity. The “motive” behind changing and alerting the definition of this word exposes their true intentions.
If the word alaqa had a totally different meaning than a clotted blood, maybe it will be far easier to accept the new definitions. Is it a mere coincidence that Greek scientist who lived centuries before Mohamed also thought that life initiates from a colt of blood?? And Mohammed used the exact same word to describe an embryo at its earliest stages –A clot?
If god is addressing his creation, proving the wonder of his creation, why would he use a word that has such a confusing meanings? That same god who describe his words as clear and perfect (Kitab Al-mubeen)! The claim that the Qur’an is using highly precise scientific language collapses since the more meanings are attached to a word, the more ambiguous the word becomes.
(7) The thing that clings!
- Quranic verse: “We made the ‘Nutfa’ into a Alaqa”
- The old translation:“We made a drop of ‘seman’ into a clot of blood”
- Keith Moore: “We made the drop of ‘sperm’ into a thing that clings”
Apparently Moore disagrees with the old translations available for ‘alaqa’. So lets look at the several translation available for the controversial verse 14 in Sura 23. The following is list of translations provided by Muslims and non-Muslims translators divided into three categories as follows (note: the list is not complete, there are loads of other translators):
a) Translators who used the word ‘clot’-being the general accepted term since the 7th century:
- Yusuf Ali: Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood
- Edward Henry Palmer: then we created the clot congealed blood
- Pickthal: Then fashioned We the drop a clot
- SHAKIR: Then We made the seed a clot
- Arthur Arberry: then We created of the drop a clot
- Aisha Bewley: then formed the drop into a clot
- Abdul-Majid Daryabadi : Thereafter We created the sperm a clot
- Umm Muhammed:Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot
b) Translators who added modern scientific terms along with the original definition :
- Muhammad Ghali : Thereafter We created the sperm-drop into a clot, (Or: embryo)
- Shabbir Ahmed: Then We fashioned the gametes into zygote, a clot
c) Translators who ignored the word ‘clot’ and replaced with a modern scientific term:
- Al-Muntakhab: Then We made the Notfa develop into a clinging organism
- Rashed Khalifa:Then we developed the drop into a hanging (embryo)
- Muhammaed Asad: and then We create out of the drop of sperm a germ-cell
Soo which form is correct?
“The great problem with these new definitions for words like ‘alaqa’ is that NO confirming examples of such a usage have been provided from the Arabic used in the centuries surrounding the Hejira.….The only way to establish the meaning of a word is by usage. The only way to establish whether the singular form “‘alaqa” can mean a 3 mm embryo or “the thing that clings” is to bring sentences demonstrating this usage from the literature of the Arabs of Mecca and Medina close to the time of Muhammad–especially from the language of the Quraish. This will not be an easy task because much work has already been done on that “clear Arabic” of the Quraish, and has only shown “clot” & “leech” as valid meanings for ‘alaqa. The early Muslims understood intuitively the need to know exactly what the Quranic words mean, and for this reason they made comprehensive studies of their language and poetry.” Dr, Cambel.
Evidently, if you look up the word ‘alaqa’ in any Arabic dictionary, you’ll find only two definitions: Clot and leach. For example in the dictionaries of Wehr and Abdel-Nour the only meanings given for ‘alaqa in this feminine singular form are “clot” and “leech“. In modern days in North Africa both of these meanings are still used, while in the rest Arabic countries, Alaqa is only used to refer to ‘leach’, other modern scientific terms are used for clotted blood.
Therefore we cannot accept new terms such as ‘leach-like-structure’ or ‘the thing that clings’, nor can we accept modern scientific names to replace the word nutfa such as ‘embryo’ or ‘zygote’ or ‘germ-cell’.
What if you wish to accept Moor’s definition does it make any difference?
Moore and few other translates have completely ignored the word clot and replaced it with the word ‘thing’ and then re-changed it to ‘structure’ so it will sound more scientifically accurate.
Alaq a= A thing that clings = A leach-like structure!
Lets try check if the suggested new definition makes any sense:
Moore: “Then from the sperm-drop We created (or fashioned) the thing which clings, and from the thing which clings We created (or fashioned) Mudga”. …[Leech] is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that the leech clings to the skin.
Three facts that can not be ignored:
- This edit still doesn’t explain how an embryo (leach-like structure) has developed from seaman/sperm-drop alone. The verse doesn’t mention ovum or at least a female contribution to the nutfa.
- “the thing which clings” doesn’t stop its clinging to become Mudga. It keeps on being “the thing which clings”–which is attached by the placenta–for 8 1/2 months until birth.
- When it comes to the ;clinging-part’ the Quran hasn’t stated any superior knowledge that was not already known during the 7th century.
Old medicine & anatomy was based on observing the outcomes of miscarriages, abortion and dissection of female mammals such as goats, pigs & cats:
Even if we accepted the new definition, simply the Quran (7th century) hasn’t stated something out of ordinary. Those scientific facs were well known since ancient times, great ancient and Indian scientists had already described the clinging-process centuries before Islam.
It was well-known that the fetes is not loose in the womb, it is connected to the mother via an umbilical cord. So obviously it’s attached – it has clinged onto the mother. Moreover, while the embryo is developing to form blastocyst it also simultaneously develops a placenta and an umbilical cord. The Placenta is a disk like structure, with many finger-like projections called placental villi, this structure suites its function i.e it helps it to attach/implant itself on the uterus wall…. After child birth & after miscarriages, the placenta is discharged, thats how physicians were able to study embryology.
Ancicent Embryology (such as those plagiarised in the quran) were common conclusions easily observed by the unaided eye, scientists simply observed the differences between the discharged stuff after birth, miscarriages and abortions. They noticed how the placenta & the embryo varies in size and shape depending on the stage when the discharge took place. During early stages the embryo appears as a dead mass of blood, that’s why they thought life initiates from a clotted blood. …They also noticed how this clot(embryo) is attached to the placenta which is attached to the uterus-wall (mother), and also the
fetus at later stages is still attached to the mother via the umbilical cord. Hence, they were able to deduce that during the earlier stages a clot of blood (embryo) implants itself in the uterus and then it continues to develop in stages throughout the 9 months of pregnancy.
All those were simple conclusions mentioned by greek and Indian doctors centuries before the Quran. Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) has even described the function of the umbilical cord as being the exchange medium of blood and nutrients between the child and the mother, a fact the Quran haven’t mentioned, showing that earlier philosophers were aware of such things mentioned by Muhammad and more.
Whereas, in about the 2nd century A.D., Galen described the function of placenta, embryo and fetal membranes in great details, he also explained the stages in which the embryo gradually develops into a fully formed child.
Examine the following pictures of miscarriages and abortions, you can conclude the same thing depending soley on observation, you don’t need the intervention of a god or advanced technology of the 21st century to figure it out:
(8) A historical background on the word alaqa:
Dr.Cambell: -“BothDr. Bucaille and Dr. Moore wishes to say that all of these older translators are wrong; that to correctly translate the Qur’an one must have a very good scientific education. How good? These translators would have all had modern high school biology telling about the sperm and the ovum, something the Quran hasn’t mentioned. All these translators who translated ‘alaqa’ to ‘clotted blood’ are scientists in their field of words, and they have not found any valid linguistic facts which will allow them to change the meaning of the words in these verses. They have been honest translators, not ignorant of science.”
Over the last 100 plus years this word ‘alaqa has been translated as follows:
- French, un grumeau de sang (a small lump of blood) – Kasimirski, 1948 (last Ed. during life of author was 1887)
- a leech-like clot – Yusuf Ali, (translation of 1938) 1946
- a clot – Pickthall, (translation of 1940) 1977
- a clot – Maulana Muhammad Ali, 1951
- a clot – Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, 1971
- French, de caillot de sang (clot of blood) – Hamidullah, 1981
- French, un caillot de sang – Masson, 1967
- a clot of blood – N. J. Dawood, 1980 Approved by the Supreme Sunni and Shii Councils of the Republic of Lebanon
- Indonesian, segumpal darah (lump of or clot of blood) – Indonesian Department of Religious Affairs, 1984
- Farsi (Persian/Irani), khoon basteh (a clot of blood) – Mehdi Elahi Ghomshehi
- Chinese, xue kuai (blood clot)
- Malay, darah beku (blood clot)
Alaq verse Aliqa:
Alaq (prural form of alaq) happen to be title of the first sura and first verses which came to Muhammad in Mecca being 96th Sura in the Quran called ‘Alaq (Clots?): “Proclaim! in the name of your Lord Who created–created man from ‘alaq. (96:1-2)….Here the word is in the collective plural. This word form can have other meanings because ‘alaq’ is a derived verbal noun of the verb ‘aliqa’
Maulana Muhammad Ali explains why in Note 2770 on this verse. He says: “Alaq signifies a clot of blood as well as attachment and love. The former significance is the one generally adopted, because of the mention of ‘alaqa’ in the process of the creation of man in other places in the Holy Qur’an, and it indicates the insignificance of man’s origin.”
Blood verses Clot:
In Arabic blood is ‘damm’, while clotted blood is ‘alaqa’. One would wonder why would ancient Arabs use such a confusing word which is not related to ‘damm’ to mean a clot of blood??
Two questions arise here:
- Is the verbal noun ‘alaqa’ not related to ‘aliqa’-the verb it’s derived from??
- How come ‘alaqa’ could have two different meanings –‘clot’ and ‘leech’??
This comes as no surprise, given that Arabic words are derived from triliteral verb roots and thus many meanings can come from the same root consonants-however they are all related in definition, and can be understood by going back to the root verb it was derived from.
Hence the answer to those two questions is quite simple, both clot and leach are verbal nouns derived from the verb root ‘aliqa’. Aliqa means “to hang, be suspended, dangle, to stick, cling, cleave, adhere, and to be attached”, similarly a ‘leach’ cling on things, while blood cling and stick together forming a solidified clot. It is the process of clotting or coagulating which brings the idea of clinging (aliqa-the verb). When blood coagulates the material is primarily known to be sticky which explains the use of ‘alaqa’ (the verbal noun) for this material. In conclusion, its far more accurate to use the term ‘aliqa’ to describe a clotted blood, instead of just plain ‘damm’. Moreover, ‘alaqa’ is not used to refer to any clotted blood, but specifically to clots that sticks or cling on surfaces of human tissues, such as the throat or the uterus.
For these reasons all linguistics have collectively agreed that ‘alaqa’ means ‘clot of blood’, not only is this term accurate but it was also used since ancient times. Some well-known translators have even given more detailed definitions for alaqa. Linguistics such as Yusuf Ali ,George Sale, and Edward Hennery Palmer have defined the word ‘alaqa’ as a ‘clot of congealed blood’ i.e. alaqa is blood which has undergone a coagulation process; changed from a liquid (damm/blood) into a thickened mass (alaqa/clot).
(9) Leach is a ‘thing that clings’ argument:
Those who are aware of the two possible definitions for the word alaqa tried to suggest that since the noun (Alaqa) is derived from the verb (Aliqa)-which means to attach to something or to hang on/stick on/ cling on something, then a leach can be defined as ‘something that clings’. During the ancient times the ‘leech was the only ‘living thing’ known to cling on other living things, however modern science has confirmed the ‘embryo’ is also a ‘thing that clings’ on a living thing (mother), therefore the word alaqa could be interrupted as ‘anything that clings’ not only leach. Hmm this reasoning is quite convincing huh?
Being a native Arabic speaker myself, I think the most creditable definitions for ‘alqa’ is ‘clot’ and ‘leach’ since both are accepted and have been USED since ancient times, unlike the new suggestion that alaqa could mean ‘a thing that clings’. All secular translators follow the correct honest mythology, and they have all translated the word ‘alaqa’ to mean ‘clotted blood’ which clings-on/sticks-on human tissues.
Even though there is loads of new modern words that have been derived from old verbal roots, translators have to rely on the definitions and interruptions used during the time of Mohammed to translate the Quran accurately, since not only is the Quran’s language is written in ‘old standard Arabic’ which is no longer spoken today, but it’s also written specifically using Quraysh’s colloquial (Mohamed’s tribe language). So its not really logical to exclude only few words of the Quran which happen to be controversial and then translate it using the same mythology used for ‘modern standard Arabic’.
Modern example –New nouns derived from old verb roots:
‘The Arabic language depends on deriving new words from a certain root of a word – for instance the “Mahmoolمحمول ” that we use nowadays to describe the “Mobile phone”, it is derived from the root “Hamlحَمل = to carry”, therefore, the word “Mahmool” refers to that we carry the mobile with us wherever we go”- Athier Al-Ana
Frankly since the ‘classical Arabic’ (fusha) is quite complicated, I cannot ignore the new suggested definition or even completely dismiss it, because it does make sense to me if we tried to link the noun ‘alaqa’ to the verb ‘aliqa’. Linguistics would argue, we shouldn’t judge based on our own attraction to certain definitions or explanations more than others. ..True, however, since we don’t work in that field, we’re not really required to stick to any mythology, I can accept a definition if it suites my senses, I have no problem accepting the new suggestion for alaqa.
Soo we can hypothesize or assume that alaqa could also mean a ‘thing that clinges’ (even though this definition does not fit the mythology used to interrupt the ‘old standard Arabic’, were a word is defined according to its usage).
(10) Investigating the new hypothesis:
Hypothesis: Alaqa = A THING that clings!
This hypothesis is based on the assumption that ‘alaqa’ is derived from the verb ‘aliqa’ and hence it can have many other meaning beside clot or leach. So let’s investigate further to see if the there are other words derived from the verb ‘aliqa’ BESIDE ‘alaqa’ and what do they mean, because we know as a fact all Arabic words are derived from triliteral verb roots and they’re all related in meaning!
‘The truth is that Arabs already used the verb “Alaqa” (to cling) to describe a woman to become pregnant, so when Muhammad has said it, he added nothing from his side, the miracle should accordingly belong to paganism as Arabs were pagan at that time’ –Athier Al-Ana
Here are some quotations from Arabic lexicons:
1. Lisan Alarab لسان العرب (The tongue of Arabs) under the word “Alaq”:
وعلِقت المرأَة بالولد وكل أنثى عُلُوقًا حبلت
A woman alaqa’t with the child and any female who is ‘Alooq’ becomes pregnant
t : is used in Arabic for the verb whose subject is feminine
Alooq: is an adjective used to describe a pregnant female i.e. a female who has an alaqa clanged to her.
It is easy to see that Arabs have used the word alaqa to describe the early stage of pregnancy. So clearly the terms ‘alaq’ and ‘alaqa’ mentioned in the Quran has been derived from a root which resembles the state of the embryo at a relevant stage.
2. Taj Al-Uroos تاج العروس (The crown of a bride):
وعلِقَت المرْأةُ علَقاً، أي: حبِلَتْ
The woman alaqa“ t alaqan = to become pregnant
alaqan: is an assertion to the verb “alaqa”
Alaqa, Alaqat, Alooq, Alaqan are ALL derived from the verb ‘Aliqa and they’re all related in definition. This proves that Arabs (including Mohammed) have used the noun “Alaqa علقة” to describe the first stage of pregnancy as the verb “alaqaT” (female-t) means “to become pregnant”.
Evidently this interruption perfectly matches with the definition provided by the translators listed above, who say that alaqa is a congealed clot of blood that cling on human tissues, and it is also historically this term was used to indicate pregnancy. So in short we cannot say ‘alaqa’ is a ‘thing that clings’ or ‘anything that clings’, it is specifically a ‘blood clot that clings’, this is the most accurate definition of all.
We could have simply relayed on the definition given by all those creditable translators, however since some people have wild imagination I had to present all the arguments circulating on the word alaqa. In short in whatever angle you choose to look at or using whatever mythology you wish to follow, eventually you will arrive at the same conclusion.
(11) ‘Leach-like appearance’ verses ‘leach-like structure’:
Okay, as explained throughout the previous parts, we know that ancient doctors from many parts of the world have already described the role of embryo and how it attaches or cling onto the mother (uterus wall). We also know that Arabs have used a specific word to describe an embryo which is ‘alaqa’. This word have two meanings ‘clot’ and ‘leech’, which are derived from the same root verb. In fact both definitions can be used to describe an embryo:
a) Clot (actual definition): ancient medics thought the embryo is a congealed clot of blood which clings onto human tissues
b) Leach (metaphoric definition): a leach is a parasite creature, which lives on blood it sucks out of the body of, it’s host. This is a similar process to what happens to an embryo in the earliest stages, it clings onto the mother and feeds from it.
So the Quran haven’t really stated something different nor has it offered any superior knowledge which was not known at that time. Nevertheless Islamist scholars even went further to say that a leech remarkably looks like the earliest stages of the embryo. Like they thought an embryo looks like a clotted blood in the beginning, it is ‘possible’ that they assumed an embryo looks like a leech in further stages –both are based on factual observations-nothing goldy in this assumption.
Moore: ‘Just as the leech derives blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24 days resembles a leech. As there [was no microscopy] in the 7th century, doctors would not have known [about] this leech-like appearance’.
We need to distinguish between the function of an embryo and its appearance when comparing to a leech, as explained earlier the embryo does act as a leach in the way it clings onto the uterus and feeds from the mother. However, no one has ever described the ‘appearance’ of an embryo as a ‘leach’, this is a ridiculous modern description used by Islamists and bribed scientists who are desperately trying to prove the Quran is true.
Here is the silly pic from K.Moore book:
Anyways, since some of us might still have wild imaginations, lets compare some MORE decent pics of embryos and leeches than the cartoonish version provided by K.Moore. You can argue that an embryo ‘somehow’ looks like a leech from distance, this could be a simple factual observation of an ignorant layman.
Aristotle wrote over 400 books on many different branches of learning. His main embryological compendium was that entitled On the Generation of Animals. Aristotle dissected and examined many different types of animal embryos, mammalian and cold blooded. It is also possible that he dissected an aborted human embryo (Ogle, W. Aristotle on the Parts of Animals, Kegan Paul, London, 1882). Aristotle have compared both the human and chick embryos, in both cases it kinda have the structure of a leech.
Which term came first –leach or clot?
In my opinion, I think ancient Arabs first used the word ‘alaqa’ to mean only clot, later on leach was given the same definition because it was considered to be a metaphoric representation for an embryo and it also happens to cling onto surfaces. Moreover, since many Arabic words are derived from root verbs, the only possible derived noun from the verb aliqa would be alaqa, that’s why it was given the same term, both are things that clings. So the definition used to describe a clot(as in embryo) influenced the definition used for leech and not the other way round.
The reason for this hypothesis or assumption is simply because its unlikely for Arabs in the 7th century living in the unforgiving hear of the Arabian deserts to know what a leach is. Leeches do not exits in waterlss Arabia, leeches live in fresh or salty water, and few species live in temperate or tropical climiates. However, after other regions became arabized under the rise of Islam such as the southern regions and north Africa, new words were added to the Arabic dictionary, since they had to define many plants and creatures living in different environments, which the original arabs of Arabia weren’t aware it exits before. Probably one way to test this hypothesis is to try to find out the oldest definition available for the word alaqa, also to try to find when leech is first mentioned in Arabic literature, scripts or in any other records.
(12) Mudga-the chewed on substance!
“We made the Nutfa into a Alaqa; then of that Alaqa We made a Mudga; then we made out of that Mudga bones and clothed the bones with flesh” (23:14)
Lets move on to the 3rd word in this verse. Mudga means something that is chewed, this term is used to describe a ‘small chunk of meat’. Hmm is that an accurate scientific description? Is this a reasonable way for god to explain to his creation how he created them – A chewed on substance?!?
So why Mohammed and other people preceding him did think that one stage of the human development involves a chewed on-subtance??
Simply due to factual observations!
This is a diagram from K.Moore’s book, he expresses his amazement at how an embryo remarkebly looks like a Mudga! ….Why don’t you experiment yourself, chew on agum and lets see if it looks like an embryo, lol
Does an embryo kinda -sorta looks like a Mudga (chewed on substance)?
‘Mudga’ is a very poor description. Embryos do not resemble something chewed, nor do somites resemble toothmarks, nor does the process of development in any way resemble what they are implying.
Clearly there is no scientific miracle in that verse, the term ‘mudga’ is a vauge expression which shows shortage and ignorance of the coiners of the word not from Muhammad who has merely used it as he has heard and known.
Why did the author of the Quran (Allah/Mohammed) choose the term Mudga?
Unlike what those scietistis claim, mudga doesnt refer to anything that is chewed or looks like a chewed susbtance, in Arabic mudga is used to refer to gum, . Its still a common word used till this date….Arabs were famous for ‘Gum Arabic’, in fact it was one of the main ingredients that Arabs from the Arabian Pensuinsla used to trade with other neighboring countries.
Gum arabic, also known as gum acacia, chaar gund, char goond or meska, is a natural gum made of hardened sap taken from two species of the acacia tree.
In that relevant stage the embryo is not a chewed lump of flesh, it has a specific structure, obviously that is the observation of men ignorant of science, they didn’t use scientific names or at least they didn’t try to name it, they simply described the embryo at that stage by comparing it to things they know-like gums!
Simply medics bduring mohammed’s time noticed that when miscarriages occurs at an early stage, the discharged substance looks like a clot of blood, when the miscarriages occurs at later stages, it looks like a chewed on substance (Mudga/Gum).
(13) Creation of bones & the clothing of bones with flesh:
“We made the Nutfa into a Alaqa; then of that Alaqa We made a Mudga; then we made out of that Mudga bones and clothed the bones with flesh” (23:14)
Keith Moore translation &explanation:
“Then we made out of the chewed lump bones, and clothed the bones in flesh.” This continuation of Sura 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them[.]
First of all a cartilage tissue is not a calcified bone. According to modern embryologists the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle (flesh) develops. Thus bone and muscles begin to develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially (as the Quran is telling us). Moreover, most of the muscle tissue that we humans have is laid down before birth, but bones continue to develop and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into ones teenage years. So it would be more accurate if the Quran had said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only scientifically completely wrong/false, but its also similar to the ancient Greek doctor Galen’s hypothesis. (N.Cambell)
Another interesting fact, is the idea of saying: “made into bones and clothed the bones with muscle”, which is an ancient assumption concluded by observation. People were able to observe the process of death, in which the flesh is digested first then the bones. So they assumed that the process of life (birth) happens the other way around, first the bones is formed then its covered with flesh.
This same idea is also supported by the technique of making animal statues (Moorthy) by a sculptor out of rod and cement or mud. Sculptor usually makes the skeleton (out of rod or stick) first and, then covers it up with cement or mud. This is scarcely a scientific description of embryonic development. It is rather a description of a layman.
Simply there is nothing goldy in this Quranic verse, its quite simple and straight-forward, it plainly states that first bones are made then it’s clothed with flesh.
(14) Man created out of ribs and lions:
The Qur’an contains also erroneous ancient theories developed by Roman and Greek philosophers about human development . Let us consider the following verse referring to sperm:
He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs: (sura At-Tariq (86:6-7)
Clearly this verse is incorrect, and clearly it has origins in earlier theories. First of all, for sperm to originate between the back and the ribs would mean that it comes from the kidneys! Greek physician Hippocrates theorized this wrong idea long before Muhammad that sperm passed through the kidneys into the penis. For centuries this was an accepted (and incorrect) belief of the origins of sperm. Aristotle though correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, also amusingly believed that sperm testicles functioned as weights to keep the seminal passages open during sexual intercourse –(Avijit Roy).
(15) Galen Stages & Quran’s stages =perfect match –Coincidence?
Galen was born in 131 AD in Pergamum (modern Bergama in Turkey). Our knowledge of his book, De Semine, depends on two Greek manuscripts of the 15th and 16th century and two Arabic copies from the 12th and 13th century of the same translation made in about 840 AD, i.e. 700 years after Galen lived. Galen’s work was considered so important that copies were still being made in 1500 AD.
Galen – On Semen
Galen says, “The substance from which the fetus is formed is not merely menstrual blood, as Aristotle maintained, but menstrual blood plus the two semens.” p 50. The Qur’an agrees with Galen here when it says in Sura 76:2, “We created man from a drop of mingled sperm.”
Concerning Embryological development, Galen also taught that the embryo developed in stages. He wrote, “the first is that in which … the form of the semen prevails. At this time Hippocrates too, the all marvelous, still calls it semen (geniture).” The next stage is “when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver are (still) unarticulated and unshaped … this is the period … that Hippocrates (called) foetus.”
(The Quranic Sura 22:5 reflects this when it says, “Then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed “),”And now the third period of gestation has come … Thus it (nature) caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones.” We can see that the Qur’an agrees with this in Sura 23:14 where it says, “And we clothed the bones (with) meat.”
“The fourth and final period (puer or child – verse 9) is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated.”
Modern science tells us that the formation of human embryo is a seamless continuation from conception to birth; hence there are no hard-and-fast boundaries of stages as the Quran described. The Quran described 4 stages which match exactly with Galenic description of the development of the human embryo (which was proved wrong by modern science).
Thus we see that Galen also has stages. He divides them differently, but the sequence is the same.
“Galen’s account is considerably longer than the account in sura 23:13-14.
-Early Muslim commentators, including Ibn-Qayyim and at-Tabari noticed the close similarity between Galen’s account and the Qur’an. The first stage, semen is identical, the second describes a blood-filled embryo, which is one of the meanings of alaqa. In the fourth stage bones are covered with flesh, and only the third stage differs – Galen describes it as a silhouette with brain, heart and liver, whilst the Qur’an describes it as a morsel of flesh (which is still pretty close to Galen).
(16)Was Galen’s work available to Arabs?
Galen was so important in medicine that just about the time of the Hejira, four leading medical men in Alexandria, Egypt decided to form a medical school using 16 books of Galen as the basis of the studies. This continued up to and including the 13th century.
(1) Arabs living in Mecca and Medina in 600 AD had political and economic relations with people from Ethiopia, Yemen, Persia, and Byzantium, i.e. present day Turkey.
(2) A cousin of Muhammad knew Persian well enough to do his musical studies in it.
(3) The Ghassan tribe, which ruled the Syrian desert over to the gates of Medina, used Syriac–one of the main languages used to teach medicine at Jundi-Shapur–as their official language.
(4) An ill king of Yemen came to Ta’if to consult the physician Harith ben Kalada who had been trained at Jundi-Shapur–the best medical school in that world–and to whom Muhammad sometimes sent patients.
(5) During Muhammad’s life time a new medical school was established in Alexandria using the XVI books of Galen as their texts.
This all shows that there was ample opportunity for Muhammad and the people around him to have heard of the embryological theories of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen when they went to seek treatment from Harith ben Kalada and other local doctors.
Further Details:: http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s4c2b.html
(17)Were Arabs aware of the similarities between the Quran & Greek sources?
a) Avicenna (Ibn Sina) 980-1037 AD wrote,
679. The human being takes its origin from two things—(1) the male sperm, which plays the part of “factor”; (2) the female sperm [first part of the menstrual blood], which provides the matter … These give the coagulum (“He created man from a clot”—Q. 96,2) a certain hardiness or firmness.
Thus we see that “Ibn Sina gave the female semen exactly the same role that Aristotle had assigned to the menstrual blood … It is difficult to overstate the importance of Ibn Sina as a scientific and philosophical authority for the pre-modern Europeans.
b) Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (1291-1351)
Ibn Qayyim took full advantage of the agreement between Quranic revelation and Greek medicine-their agreement in error. He wrote books on human development, referencing the work of Greek scientist and Quranic verses.
In 1983 Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concluded, “The stages of development which the Qur’an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen’s scientific account….There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur’an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur’anic terms to describe the Galenic stages” (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54)
(18) Mohammed had his SINS (alaqa) removed?
Sirat Rassul’llah by Ibn Ishaq- I
There is a tradition that when Muhammad was a little child (two to three years old), Halima his foster mother, was informed by Muhammad that :
“Two men in white raiments came to him with a gold basin full of snow, who opened up his belly, extracted his heart and split it; then they extracted a leech/clot (Alaqa) from it and threw it away; then they washed his heart and belly with that snow until they had thoroughly cleaned them”
What the story actually relates is that the surgery removed Muhammad’s SINS at the age of 2/3. This proves again that ‘Alaqa’ does mean a clot of blood that clings to human tissues. In Mohammed own words, this Alaqa was clanged to his heart (like a leech).
This story is a famous Islamic tradition, and its also confirmed by two other hadiths:
Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 4.770 – Narrated bySharik bin Abdullah bin Abi Namr
Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 4.429 -Narrated byMalik bin Sasaa
Conscience- heart or brain?
Not only does these haiths confirm that Mohammad has used the word alaq to mean clot of blood, but this also shows another significant scientific error. In the Arabian traditions, it is the HEART which contains the human consciousness and NOT the BRAIN.
Even though this story could be considered as a metaphor in the way it describes sins as an alaqa, but Muslims actually believe Mohammed was immune of any wrong doings because of this incident that supposedly took place during his childhood.
(19) Mohammed -the prophet- made major scientific errors!
After the coming of the Qur’an, the account of the different stages as described by the Qur’an, was carried on in the teachings of the Hadiths, Avicenna and Ibn Qayyim, and is essentially the same as that taught by Galen and those preceding him.
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Mus’ud:
“Allah’s Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, “(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period.”
Abu Tufail reported:
I visited Abu Sariha Hudhaifa b. Usaid al-Ghifari who said: I listened with these two ears of mine Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The semen stays in the womb for forty nights, then the angel, gives it a shape. Zubair said: I think that he said: One who fashions that and decides whether he would be male or female. Then he (the angel) says: Would his limbs be full or imperfect? And then the Lord makes them full and perfect or otherwise as He desires. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood, and his death and what about his disposition? And then the Lord decides about his misfortune and fortune.
These same details are also given in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 549. Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 77, Number 593, Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 546 etc. The key information gained from all these above mentioned hadiths are that the three phases (nutfah, alaqah and madghah) takes 40 days each, for a total period 120 days from conception to the point at which the embryo becomes a fetus. After that the blood clot was turned to bone and then God “clothed the bones with flesh” (Qur’an 23:13-14). And finally the gender of the child is assigned by an angel.
The whole idea is completely erroneous in many ways. First of all, the human embryo becomes a fetus around week 9, i.e, roughly half the time “Islamic embryology” suggests. Again, there are no developmental milestones which can be mapped to the thrice forty day period, even though they are suggested in several authoritative hadiths with full support from Qur’an. Also, from medical science we know in human development process living tissue forms first, and then bones grow at a later time, and it continues to gain strength for many years after birth. But by expressing “blood clot was turned to bone” Qur’an in fact reveals its one of many scientific inaccuracies. Morroever, the gender of the child is determined right from the star by the sex chromose, depending on wether the x or y chromosome was passed on from the male, the hadith claims the gender is assigned by god after the fetus has developed. All in all the hadith is a major scientific error.
-Its quite applaing to see that today (the age of reason), people still accept myths . Frankly anyone who accept or rather ‘believes’ the ridiculous statement made by Professor Moore, Dr.Marurice Buchaille and Dr. Zakir Naik in the same way as they blindly accept their religion are foolish sheeple….It amazes me how they rely on subjective sources and even refuse to read other sources on the matter, and even worse they didn’t find anything senseless in the explanations given by those bribed doctors.
K.Moore silly argument: “The interpretation of the verses in the Qur’an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. Undoubtedly there are other verses in the Qur’an related to human development that will be understood in the future as our knowledge increases.”
Lol, nah you don’t need any godly intervention or advanced technology of the 21st century to understand the process of human development. When it comes to embryology the Qur’an merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered centuries before Isalm.
When compared with the modern science of our 20th century,
Hippocrates is in error,
Aristotle is in error,
Galen is in error,
The Qur’an is in error.
They are all in serious error.
‘The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is
reason, I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.’