Is Quran man-made?
- Thread starter Sam Sai
- Start date
Many of his questions are irrelevent.
The first one is- Why did Allah need 23 years to reveal Quran while he could create the whole Universe in 6 days??
Second- If Muhammed was illitereate(Ummi) how could he verify and authenticate the compilation of Quran by his Sahabas??
Third- He quotes 17:1. and questioned about the existance of Masjid Aqsa at the time of Prophet.
Forth- Why was the prophethood of Muhammed was confirmed by Waraqqa, a christian preacher and the couson of Kathija, not by Jibril who brought the first revelation?
Fifth- According to 96:1-5, Allah claimed that he created human from the blood clot which is not true. The embryo was fromed from zygote.
And Aristotle and Galan have already explained that the human embryo must have formed from the blood clot. For this reason, Quran is NOT divine but the copied from the past scholars/intellectuals.
The first one is- Why did Allah need 23 years to reveal Quran while he could create the whole Universe in 6 days??
Second- If Muhammed was illitereate(Ummi) how could he verify and authenticate the compilation of Quran by his Sahabas??
Third- He quotes 17:1. and questioned about the existance of Masjid Aqsa at the time of Prophet.
Forth- Why was the prophethood of Muhammed was confirmed by Waraqqa, a christian preacher and the couson of Kathija, not by Jibril who brought the first revelation?
Fifth- According to 96:1-5, Allah claimed that he created human from the blood clot which is not true. The embryo was fromed from zygote.
And Aristotle and Galan have already explained that the human embryo must have formed from the blood clot. For this reason, Quran is NOT divine but the copied from the past scholars/intellectuals.
Rez
Member
the strong have doubts because they think deeply. the weak cling to certainty because they fear the unknown. doubt isn't a weakness; it's a sign you're alive, you're thinking. the weak hide behind false confidence, but it's the strong who dare to question, to challenge, to grow. - unknown (not me!)
GodGuides4:175
Active member
If you look up clot in encyclopedia it does say mass formed of blood. Zygote is modern term in biology.
GodGuides4:175
Active member
In regards to #5
Can you please share the specific footnotes you found Gerrans addressed the blood clot/coagulum blood vs alternative rendering of alaq to be "clinging" instead of clot?
From my understanding that was a fairly common error in ancient embryology science and widely repeated by religious sages in ancient writings that the fetus grew from the women's menstrual blood.
Truly the mistake is reasonable...they used logic observation deductions that pregnant women stop bleeding/menstruating so they logically deduced menstruating blood forms the fetus. At least its not founded in superstitions and other ridiculous dogmas.
But Im curious does anyone have supporting ancient texts of Arabic word "alaq" being used for clinging instead of clot? Any ancient secondary sources outside Quran using the word as such? I think historically traditional scholars understood it to be clot of blood not clinging? (Im asking specifically their linguistic understanding and use of alaq)
And my other question is there no other alternative Arabic word suitable to use for "clinging" than the word alaq?
However on the positive... I do find it remarkable that the Quran did avoid most of the common outrageous teachings of ancient embryology by religious sages...such as in Talmudic texts superstitions of direction of sleeping (north to south) will control gender and physical temperature of semen controlling the temperaments of children and mother contributing skin, flesh, pupil and father giving bones, brain and sclera (white part eye). And it is also amazing the Quran avoided the common embryology "sciences" of the day and respected philosophy of the day abounding in errors and superstitions...
And on another positive note I can see in the divorce laws waiting periods in Quran clearly supported many months of gestation before able to confirm pregnancy whereas I think many ancients thought pregnancy to be short and that males develop faster than females and such superstitions traditions... So it is noteworthy the Quran avoided these things. (of what I have read so far of the Quran)
And I think its noteworthy Quran speaks of fetal development as a process. I think many ancients believed man was a fully formed miniature that just grew bigger in the womb...that is the seed concept that it is the men carry the offspring (i.e. references in Bible to offspring in "loins of Abraham" etc)
On that note I was wondering if anyone can site anywhere in Quran that would refute the false ancient teachings (such as found in Bible) of only men having "seed" and women are just the field/place for men to plant their seed?
Unfortunately I think Quranic text 2:223 makes this clear to be teaching women do not having a part in genetic contribution of offspring. Which such views I think had a considerable role in the devalue of women and the practice of infanticide of daughters. Which I did read Quran forbid and appealed beautifully to God is Provider of even girl offspring. (Which again is a beautiful testimony to Quran rising above culture) But is there any verse in Quran to suggest support of women having genetic reproductive value/contribution beyond a place for men to plant their seed as seems clearly taught in 2:223?
GodGuides4:175
Active member
And somewhat related to #5 embrology/reproduction science in Quran
I find 86:7 difficult to explain per our modern understanding of sexual reproduction.
Of which I found Sam's Gerrans footnotes for the Arabic word tarā’ib interesting and his citation of Muhammad Asad's position that it might be referring to female anatomy a point to consider....though not sure how substantiated that is...and I assume Sam is intentionally leaving open to vs.6 "gushing water" to maybe be amniotic birthing fluid instead of semen? Which seems to then allow for possible understanding that its speaking about female anatomy? Interesting to consider...
I recall reading a few months ago Islamic Traditionalists grasping at 86:7 referring to the development of the testicles and ovaries of the fetus start development higher up/abdomen area before migrating down to groin and the organs have blood flow coming to them from higher up to support the higher location that indicated in 86:7...and they conclude that actually a "proof" for Quran being divinely inspired to "know" this...but I think that is a stretch of the Quranic text that Im not willing to hold on to and especially not to use as an apologetic proof...
I had wondered if chapter 86 has some relation to some of ancient science from Galenus and philosophers about the soul and their ideas about multiple locations for the soul inside the body and flow of blood and the Ruach inside the body etc...? I don't know much in this area except there was a lot of various ideas and had wondered if perhaps this higher up location in 86:7 related to any of this...
I find 86:7 difficult to explain per our modern understanding of sexual reproduction.
Of which I found Sam's Gerrans footnotes for the Arabic word tarā’ib interesting and his citation of Muhammad Asad's position that it might be referring to female anatomy a point to consider....though not sure how substantiated that is...and I assume Sam is intentionally leaving open to vs.6 "gushing water" to maybe be amniotic birthing fluid instead of semen? Which seems to then allow for possible understanding that its speaking about female anatomy? Interesting to consider...
I recall reading a few months ago Islamic Traditionalists grasping at 86:7 referring to the development of the testicles and ovaries of the fetus start development higher up/abdomen area before migrating down to groin and the organs have blood flow coming to them from higher up to support the higher location that indicated in 86:7...and they conclude that actually a "proof" for Quran being divinely inspired to "know" this...but I think that is a stretch of the Quranic text that Im not willing to hold on to and especially not to use as an apologetic proof...
I had wondered if chapter 86 has some relation to some of ancient science from Galenus and philosophers about the soul and their ideas about multiple locations for the soul inside the body and flow of blood and the Ruach inside the body etc...? I don't know much in this area except there was a lot of various ideas and had wondered if perhaps this higher up location in 86:7 related to any of this...
Attachments
Rez
Member
I’ve suffered similarly, glad you found this share resonating and meaningful! Thank you for sharing that as well.
Uncovered Faith
Active member
Well,
Quran is not a science text book to explain every living or non living thing.
Quran just gives the hences about the nature and encourages followers to continue investigation.
Even if God explained the evolution of embryo or the evolution of the Universe, those 7th Century pagan Arabs who first received the Quran would not understand it. There is no point of explaining.
Its the duty of the Man to investigate if he wants to know.
There is no reason for God to create the intelligent Mankind if he would have to explain everything.
No doubt, the atheists are deep thinkers.
They are the true Muslims as there is no such thing as "Religion Islam"
They are just at war with the various religionists.
Not with me.
Quran is not a science text book to explain every living or non living thing.
Quran just gives the hences about the nature and encourages followers to continue investigation.
Even if God explained the evolution of embryo or the evolution of the Universe, those 7th Century pagan Arabs who first received the Quran would not understand it. There is no point of explaining.
Its the duty of the Man to investigate if he wants to know.
There is no reason for God to create the intelligent Mankind if he would have to explain everything.
No doubt, the atheists are deep thinkers.
They are the true Muslims as there is no such thing as "Religion Islam"
They are just at war with the various religionists.
Not with me.
GodGuides4:175
Active member
Agree the Quran is not a textbook about science. However, if our premise is that the Quran (or any spiritual book) is God's inerrant literal words than it is only reasonable to expect that when it does speak about scientific things in His creation it should not be lies and errors. That is the issue we are working through.
I do not expect to read anything about embryology in a divine book from God. The issue is that it does speak about these things and it seems to speak erroneous and upholding the common science errors of the day. That indeed is problematic for holding a position of inerrancy and that it is preserved as the literal words of God.
It could have remained silent about these things but it did not. And so now we have to reason through these things.
Uncovered Faith
Active member
86:6 He was created from a gushing water.
This verse is interesting in line with various beliefs about the start of life
The majority of foundational Jewish texts assert that a fetus does not attain the status of personhood until birth.
This verse is interesting in line with various beliefs about the start of life
The majority of foundational Jewish texts assert that a fetus does not attain the status of personhood until birth.
DinaricZoomer
Member
Peace,
To be fair, I don't think that 2:226 implies that women do not have eggs. Isn't "sowing seeds" just a figure of speech? I think the logic is that the male seed infiltrates the female body, thus "implanting" a seed. After that, the woman's body produces the "fruit". It could just be that a figure of speech was used to better demonstrate this relationship and process. One could also draw a conclusion that women are to be taken care of like a farmer cares for his land and makes sure it is watered, fertilized, etc. This last part might be a strech but the Quranic context doesn't contradict it in my opinion.
GodGuides4:175
Active member
Peace to you! Thank you for taking time to respond. I appreciate your perspective and you grant me another way to try to look at things.
I can see how it is veiled speech for obvious modesty reason and so I can see your point that its just figure of speech. (Though it definitely has a ring of common science errors of the day) And I like the secondary application of ethics you brought out how one could draw from the illustration to men's roles of nurturing and providing for women...interesting and good to think upon.
Uncovered Faith
Active member
Do you not think it is a good thing to be curious and to seek understanding? I believe The Quran encourages people to think and ask questions.
From my own personal experience most Muslims I’ve met on social media don’t ask questions, they just accept what has been passed down to them by their parents and their parents before them. They blindly follow the Hadiths, how ridiculous some of them are.
Most Christians are the same. They are happy to stay the way they are and never think for themselves. They seldom question the narrative.
This verse may very well be deliberately obscure and perhaps we are wasting our time overthinking it! But part of the process for me as a spiritually inquisitive person is to stop and ask questions. It is why I am here today. I asked too many questions
So be thou not in doubt concerning what these serve: they serve only as their fathers served before; and We will pay them in full their portion without reduction.
(11:109)
Hast thou seen him who has taken as his god his vain desire? Wouldst thou then be a guardian over him?
(25:43)
If thou thinkest that most of them hear or reason — they are only as the cattle; nay, they are further astray in the path.
(25:44)
(11:109)
Hast thou seen him who has taken as his god his vain desire? Wouldst thou then be a guardian over him?
(25:43)
If thou thinkest that most of them hear or reason — they are only as the cattle; nay, they are further astray in the path.
(25:44)