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.
The leech comparison is inaccurate. The second meeting is only a relatively recent one adopted (although it is probably the best reading) but the embryo is not always suspended. The third reading, if it is a simile, then it does not convince me of the miraculous.
This is putting aside that muscles actually begin developing before bones, and that an female ovum is not a secretion.
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.
I am going to be frank, you have not demonstrated that at all. The Quran does not demonstrate a greater extent of scientific knowledge for its day or when compared to the Greeks. I find its observations rudimentary, perhaps accurate for the science of its time (700s), but hardly miraculous.
There is evidence that Mohammed and his companions were influenced in this area by Galen, Aristotle and Hippocrates (the first name I was not familiar with until I did some more reading)
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.
Nope, because you have to read a verse in context and true to the intent of the text first, before you take some alternate reading.
Plus perhaps the scientific interpretations are a bit oversold, that you may actually miss what the text is saying. You can also look at how the word is used in other passages where the context is similar.
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.
It is not hard to believe the Quran would match the science available at 700AD and perhaps a bit beyond (with some exegetical leaps).
The bold is not accurate.
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...
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.
Pegs and roots are not the same. One is the result of natural process, the other man made objects. Secondly mountains are caused by tectonic plates which also generate earthquakes (in fact earthquakes often occur near mountain ranges). Tectonic plates not mountains are what also prevent earthquakes as well.; nor do mountains prevent tectonic movements.
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.
Respect is good and part of that is recognising that sound criticism or engagement with arguments does not mean misconception or that is driven by an irrational fear or hatred. (I don't even agree with all Christian/theist arguments, and even my arguments earlier in this very thread I would disagree with or change).
