Addressing the second first, I don't think that is accurate embryology. I don't think a blood clot is a valid stage of embryo development.
BUT both Hippocrates and Aristotle have the same prenatal development, 1000 years before Quran. (I can produce some material if you so desire)
Secondly, regarding the first one. Apparently that is only clear in whatever English translation you picked on.
Doing a little bit of reading (not heaps) there are two questions to raise.
Does the Arabic word translated 'heaven' refer to the whole of the universe, or the sky/atmosphere?
Secondly, different translations render the word 'expansion' differently? (Some obviously opted for the scientific reading), does it more refer to God's ability and power to be able to create.(which would make sense from the next verse)
Therefore, was that interpretation was picked for apologetic reasons. (aka. importing meaning into the text)?
Thirdly, if mountains 'float', why do Quran say they are fixed? (S. 16:15, 31:10, 79:32-33).
The Arabic word in the non-translated verse is “alaqah” which has three meanings: 1. Leech 2. A suspended thing and 3. Blood clot
It is possible to compare a leech’s shape to the initial stage of the embryo. The embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, just like a leech which feeds on the blood of others.
“Blood from the mother passes through the placenta, filtering oxygen, glucose and other nutrients to your baby via the umbilical cord”
https://www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au/what-is-the-placenta
Now the second meaning is “suspended thing”. The embryo is in fact suspended to the mother’s womb via the umbilical cord.
Third, blood clot. The physical appearance of the embryo can be likened to a blood clot. You are taking the translation, “clot” as an actual clot. Think of it as a simile. At this stage, the blood of the embryo does not circulate until the third week.
I am completely aware that Aristotle and other great thinkers have understood such. However, what I am merely trying to present is that past thinkers have in no way demonstrated scientific knowledge to the
same extent the Quran, a single book that has remained unchanged has.
This is where Sylvia’s question comes in. This question did not surprise me.
It is plainly unscientific and irrational to believe in islam on the basis of the the Quran. Also, don;t you find it bizarre that the scientific breakthroughs that supposedly validate the claims made in the Quran were made almost exclusively by Christians? If these scientific facts were truly available to muslims for 1400 years, it seems like they should have been the ones making these discoveries.
Muslim scientists cannot be held accountable for such scientific discoveries simply because
they did not discover anything. They cannot claim what they believe to be the word of God as something that they have discovered. They did not carry the experiments the Christian scientists who started from scratch e.g quantum stuff
Firstly, thanks for fixing up the 51:47. Now in terms of the translation of this verse. We must know that the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, a highly complex and vast language compared to English.
Thus arises a lot of ambiguity when it comes to translating these into another language, one of which you have outlined with 51:47.
The Arabic word used in this is “samaa”. This can either mean 1. Sky or 2. Heaven. So how would one know which is the directed meaning, without taking a scientific interpretation?
As long as the meanings are derived from the possible meanings set in the original Arabic, then our understanding will not be wrong. The Quran matches the observable facts of the universe. It takes to the limit of people’s knowledge through its word usage, to match the people that understood it 1400 years ago and to also match the observations of future generations. This is evident through the “clot” scenario too.
Lastly, about the mountains being “fixed”. Many verses of the Qur’an state that the function of the mountains is to prevent shocks in the earth. mountains play a similar role to a nail or a peg firmly holding down a tent. For example, the Mount Everest, the summit of which stands approximately 9 km above the surface of the earth, has a root deeper than 125 km inside the earth.
78:6-7
“Have we not smoothed out the earth ˹like a bed˺ and ˹made˺ the mountains as ˹its˺ pegs”
The Qur’an in the above verse implies to make something rooted; to anchor; or, to fix something firmly not allowing that to move freely in which it has been fixed. The earth has different layers and by fixing the earth’s crust they prevent any sliding over the magma layer or amongst the layers themselves. In short, the mountains can be compared to the nails holding various strips of wood together. The earth revolves quickly around its own axis, were it not for the fixing effect of the mountains, these plaques would shift and shock the earth. In such an event, the life would be impossible.
Mountains “float” on the denser mantle but they are “fixed” in the sense of isostasy.
“high mountains have low-density roots that extend deep into the underlying mantle”
Isostasy, ideal theoretical balance of all large portions of Earth’s lithosphere as though they were floating on the denser underlying layer, the asthenosphere, a section of the upper mantle composed of weak, plastic rock that is about 110 km (70 miles) below the surface. Isostasy controls the
www.britannica.com
Finally, I just wanted to make it clear that all the purpose of me writing on this thread is not to “convert” anyone. It does not bother me whether you choose to believe in god or not. If you have noticed, the only reason I contribute to this thread is when I see a misconception of Islam being spread. I do not try and find fault in any other religion, and when i do question atheism it is never in a disrespectful manner. Because all I want to do is highlight how while you may not agree with something, other people (e.g me) do find reason in it and this difference is no excuse for spreading irrational fear and hatred.
This is my last response on this thread.
