Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses (OP)
I've spent some time now checking and rechecking references in the Qu'ran for the various propositions about the nature or the state of life, our world, and the universe.
From the supposed embryology references to the water cycle, everything stated seems to have been discovered already, in so far as the Qu'ran makes the references, by philosophers and naturalists from previous centuries.
That's not an issue for me. Okay sure, maybe it's a book of signs and not science and as to what could be revealed to a largely illiterate population in the middle east, that's as far as god went in describing the world.
Why is it that these "signs" are used as confirmation of god's divine revelation when there's nothing new in it or that the vague description, when interpreted, could be applied to our understandings today and to those of the Greeks without any conflicts.
Is it an acceptance of science as a means to validate a holy book? If so, why not accept all scientific understandings of this day, since the process by which human knowledge and societies progress in any scientific field is that same as the one that confirmed your beliefs.
Or is it that as a Muslim you cannot have any doubt, and that whatever science discovers (good or bad) is of no concern since the truth (the one and only) is already known?
So, is it really just a marketing ploy to recruit more members, or has anyone actually put more thought into it than say the lovely Zakir Naik (who on one hand credits science for it's discoveries and on the other rejects evolution on the basis that we're just rebelling against a church for the past 200 years).
The Quran in the above and other verses speaks the term 'amshag' which I have gone quite extensively over, to denote 'intermingled/mixed fluid' as in fertalized egg. A safe lodging place to denote the uterus. Semen 'prevailing' was indeed common belief at the time, but not in the Quran or sunna.. Again, I fail to see the similarity..
Semen prevailing is not the point, the 'form of semen' is, which is what the text actually says.
A single sperm & egg would be too small to be observed directly, and both the Quran and Galen assume that the first stage is a small amount of fluid.
If we're going to be pedantic, we all know that it is not actually fluid, but the single cell result of two gametes. Galen wasn't able to see this and assumed the fluid state, an error which the Quran repeats.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
not sure how I can assimilate that to blood, heart, brain and liver articulated.. does anyone else?
Well you don't have to, you changed the word 'unarticulated' to 'articulated' to suit your purposes.
The third stage illustrates that Galen actually knew and had seen what a month old foetus looks like, exact wording is not that important since I'm not claiming the Quranic author raided a Greek library beforehand.
I tried the link you pasted but for whatever reason it is inaccessible to me at this time.
If you're interested (though I know you do hate google so) my quotes are from the same Philip de Lacy translation of Galen's work that you pasted from earlier, available to read (well the relevant parts are available anyway) at Google Books, Galen: On Semen
Quran translation from Islamicity.com, Asad version.
I'm assuming you will continue to deny that 500 years prior to the 'revelation', people of the Roman, Greek and, more than likely, Egyptian empires had witnessed and documented the stages of embryonic growth, and that in those intervening 500 years there is no possible way that information could have been passed by word of mouth between physicians and to expecting parents and other interested parties.
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
Semen prevailing is not the point, the 'form of semen' is, which is what the text actually says.
A single sperm & egg would be too small to be observed directly, and both the Quran and Galen assume that the first stage is a small amount of fluid.
What is your point here? Galen likens the fetus to plant growth and states it is semen that prevails, and that is actually the point..
You have just learned about all of this two days ago and already you are an expert with what is or isn't the point? I have already shown you, that the term 'amshaj' is used in the Quran to denote 'mixture' as in sperm and egg.. semen prevailing isn't an Islamic concept but a Greek one.
Where is the plagiarism and where is the similarity? Why would the Prophet who was shunned for the most part by his people, meet with some Greek guy and a translator given he was illitrate, to incorporate some obscure terms that have nothing to do with Galen's thoughts on embryology and poetically in the Quran and in Arabic to get people to worship God...
Do you think before you write?
If we're going to be pedantic, we all know that it is not actually fluid, but the single cell result of two gametes. Galen wasn't able to see this and assumed the fluid state, an error which the Quran repeats.
Where in the Quran does it repeat it?.. You have failed to read, you have failed to assimilate, and you have failed to make a point. Again!
Well you don't have to, you changed the word 'unarticulated' to 'articulated' to suit your purposes.
Whether articulated or not you end up comparing apples to oranges!
The third stage illustrates that Galen actually knew and had seen what a month old foetus looks like, exact wording is not that important since I'm not claiming the Quranic author raided a Greek library beforehand.
well what are you claiming? You have failed to answer paragraph one on any of the levels I have raised!
similarity in content. Which is really the big one
similarity in textual style
a purpose
a person
a translator
and a record for it all
I tried the link you pasted but for whatever reason it is inaccessible to me at this time.
If you're interested (though I know you do hate google so) my quotes are from the same Philip de Lacy translation of Galen's work that you pasted from earlier, available to read (well the relevant parts are available anyway) at Google Books, Galen: On Semen
Quran translation from Islamicity.com, Asad version.
You mean 'your words' are a plagiarism of someone else's work as I have shown in the link above where 'your words' are one and the same with someone else's where you have failed to give credit! using google which sorts out the world for you in seconds, but still can't verifiy to us without an obsecure diagonal that the works are in fact at all related on any level. Yet have the audacity to sit here and claim that the Quran was plagiarized without connecting pieces of evidence to us on any level.. not the same terms, same concept, same language, failed to give us references or characters, or translations or even a library for such an exchange to have taken place.. I am sorry.. you would like to make a case on which grounds? Because you are 'Azy' and you have said so?
I'm assuming you will continue to deny that 500 years prior to the 'revelation', people of the Roman, Greek and, more than likely, Egyptian empires had witnessed and documented the stages of embryonic growth, and that in those intervening 500 years there is no possible way that information could have been passed by word of mouth between physicians and to expecting parents and other interested parties.
This is a nonsequitur to the topic, and just really works to tie the noose around your neck when flustered and at a loss, just throw everything out there for the reader to decipher what s/he may.
You want to assert or deny make a point.. first do your homework.. I am not going sit here and do it for you.
You have something of substance to impart, bring it forth.. let's see it!
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
it gives YOU no insight to the dz, condition or symptom that is true, but run it by any doctor and they'll know exactly what it is... same with religion.. it takes study and reflection-- if you want to learn, you are welcome to, if you wish to remain ignorant, it is your prerogative.. as is always the case!
I hope that's not your best argument, I may be mistaken but you seem to have contradicted yourself.
The Quran addresses every state of mind, every back ground, and every level of education. My religion knows no color or nationality.. as anyone can tell, Islam is embraced by all east and west, Texas to the china sea!
The fact that you refuse it, speaks volumes of you, not the religion itself!
Every level of education... interesting point.
The problem is that once you have a text that is open to interpretation, based upon your own knowledge and expertise, you begin to infer upon it any meanings and intentions that you wish to use in order validate your own perspective of life. I have no issues with Dr. Israr Ahmad, he can accept Freud's work and he can accept Darwin's work, and I'm willing to bet that he would accept any scientific work that followed if it were conducted in a rational and methodical manner. On the other hand you have the Ahmed Deedat, Sheik Ibn Baaz, and to a different extent Zakir Naik. Resolute in their beliefs, which is admirable, but to a point where they are blind deaf and dumb when it comes to any matter of scientific understanding. Rote memorizations of every verse in a single book does not make one an expert on anything else.
You seem to be fortunate enough to work in a scientific field and don't see a clash between the two, but to say there are no problems at all speaks volumes of you, not the religion. It is possible that you may be the one who is mistaken.
I don't know, you seem to know more about his than me. a Sheikh doesn't represent Islam or the Muslim umma, we have no reverence for shyookh, like christians do for the pope.. I am not going to speak, nor apologize for one ignorant man!
The supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia. I'm not asking for you to speak or apologize for anyone. There's just a follow up question, was his interpretation of the Qu'ran wrong?
I obviously can't answer that question for you. But if you don't mind, how many Islamic scholars are out there, popularizing their religion, with a degree or high level education in a field of theoretical science? How many of them would you yourself admire or agree with on issues concerning religion and science? How many of them are active in their fields?
I don't know of any. Credible Islamic scholars are rare enough.
I have in fact heard of him, and have quite a few pieces of lit by him.. however, I am not sure, what this has to do with the topic, I am sure you can pull other things out of your hat.. Muslims have corrected many a mathematical formula, that were originally started by the Greeks, if you dig a little more, You'll learn of them, there was quite a grand lecture in Columbia recently on just that topic.. the question however still remains.. why the circuitous route-- why was Europe so retarded in the dark ages, when they have all their roots supposedly in this very enriching past of the Greeks and Romans?
You brought it up, in any case you're asking the questions but you don't want the answers. I can point to a dozen books and you'll refuse to read them because their written by agnostics, or worse yet atheists. Somehow you seem to believe that our refusal to accept dogma in the absence of evidence colours our political or social views one way or another.
You will either fall into two camps, depending on how much research you've done. Either you believe what was written by Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or you'll believe that Christianity and the churches had no power over the people and their vile, inhuman, and godless ways of life.
Muslims have no more ownership over algebra than Christians have over optics or physics, or Mayans on agriculture. Grow up, the Muslim world hasn't translated as many non-Arabic books since 1200AD as, for example, Spain in any given decade over the past century. I'm sure you can find some excuse for that too. Your best chance came in the 9th and 10th centuries when the faylasufs attempted to reconcile Greek philosophy with Islam. Islamic states no more wanted to accept Greek philosophy than any other religious state. Any attempt to reconstruct Islam as a natural religion failed miserably, faylasufs were deemed heretics for their attempts to use natural philosophy to explain Islam in rational terms, and so ended their quest within 4 centuries of revelation.
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
I hope that's not your best argument, I may be mistaken but you seem to have contradicted yourself.
Really how so? Nutmeg liver to a doctor means chronic passive congestion with a gamut of reasons as to why.. to you a lay person it is a pathological state.. a liver wouldn't have a nutmeg prefix unless it is meant to denote something.. I don't think you need much an education for that.. if you were a complete retard, then you wouldn't be held accountable anyway.. that goes for religion as well 'layes 3la almareed haraj'
Every level of education... interesting point.
indeed!
The problem is that once you have a text that is open to interpretation, based upon your own knowledge and expertise, you begin to infer upon it any meanings and intentions that you wish to use in order validate your own perspective of life. I have no issues with Dr. Israr Ahmad, he can accept Freud's work and he can accept Darwin's work, and I'm willing to bet that he would accept any scientific work that followed if it were conducted in a rational and methodical manner. On the other hand you have the Ahmed Deedat, Sheik Ibn Baaz, and to a different extent Zakir Naik. Resolute in their beliefs, which is admirable, but to a point where they are blind deaf and dumb when it comes to any matter of scientific understanding. Rote memorizations of every verse in a single book does not make one an expert on anything else.
We are asked to reach for knowledge from ahel al'3ilm, if it seems arguably outlandish, you are under no obligation to accept or believe what they say, as is noted in chapter 74 in the noble Quran, each soul is held accountable for its own deeds.. it is not a community effort!
As for the level of education of Dr. Deedat, or Dr Naik, or Dr. so and so, they have their doctorate, what do you have to speak with such authority on their expertise?
You seem to be fortunate enough to work in a scientific field and don't see a clash between the two, but to say there are no problems at all speaks volumes of you, not the religion. It is possible that you may be the one who is mistaken.
Show me the clash between the two and then we'll discuss it!
as for theories, well frankly I could theorize as well as the next person. if you don't have an effectual way to substantiate your account to to explain a specific set of phenomena then your effort is as good as the next.. frankly even scientists don't agree on theories, and I have well demonstrated that before with an every day example citing Dr. Sampson theory, you may use the search engine, third from your anatomical right to look for it.
The supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia. I'm not asking for you to speak or apologize for anyone. There's just a follow up question, was his interpretation of the Qu'ran wrong?
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and not a body of scholars to consult with as is in the shura system of an Islamic state. And of course his explanation was incorrect! Do you speak Arabic, have you read the Quran in its entirety, do you know what the word de'7'ha means??
I obviously can't answer that question for you. But if you don't mind, how many Islamic scholars are out there, popularizing their religion, with a degree or high level education in a field of theoretical science? How many of them would you yourself admire or agree with on issues concerning religion and science? How many of them are active in their fields?
I have a few favorites, Dr Sala7 Ar'rashid is one.. Dr rashid Ar'rashid is another, Dr. Ahmed Deedat of course, and sheikh el-sha3rawi, although his work was never that popular considering he only spoke Arabic. If you have a problem with their work, you can always not purchase the DVD's or buy their books, they are not exactly best seller on borders!
I don't know of any. Credible Islamic scholars are rare enough.
I wouldn't expect you to know of any!
You brought it up, in any case you're asking the questions but you don't want the answers. I can point to a dozen books and you'll refuse to read them because their written by agnostics, or worse yet atheists. Somehow you seem to believe that our refusal to accept dogma in the absence of evidence colours our political or social views one way or another.
You don't know what sort of books I read, the sort of books interest me, or what sort of books were imposed as a part of my curriculum to state categorically what it is I refuse to read. I have summed it up really well for you just a couple of paragraphs ago.. Anyone with a doctorate can theorize, and set up a study to prove their point.. .. People who are set out to prove something is right, will find a way to make it so-- a hawthorne effect!
You will either fall into two camps, depending on how much research you've done. Either you believe what was written by Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or you'll believe that Christianity and the churches had no power over the people and their vile, inhuman, and godless ways of life.
History is always written by victors!
Muslims have no more ownership over algebra than Christians have over optics or physics, or Mayans on agriculture. Grow up, the Muslim world hasn't translated as many non-Arabic books since 1200AD as, for example, Spain in any given decade over the past century. I'm sure you can find some excuse for that too. Your best chance came in the 9th and 10th centuries when the faylasufs attempted to reconcile Greek philosophy with Islam. Islamic states no more wanted to accept Greek philosophy than any other religious state. Any attempt to reconstruct Islam as a natural religion failed miserably, faylasufs were deemed heretics for their attempts to use natural philosophy to explain Islam in rational terms, and so ended their quest within 4 centuries of revelation.
But, you knew that already.
if you are Muslim and are a scientist under an Islamic state, then you are a Muslim scholar/scientest and such was recorded by history, a little pugilistic atheist isn't going to change recorded history, even if he doesn't wish to open a book and read it proper. If you are a Muslim and abroad you'll be deemed by nationality under your passport or birth certifcate.. American, Czech or whatever.. I hope that was simple enough for you to understand?
All the best wishes,
Faysal
blah blah blah..
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Galen: as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails.
The Quran in the above and other verses speaks the term 'amshag' which I have gone quite extensively over, to denote 'intermingled/mixed fluid' as in fertalized egg. A safe lodging place to denote the uterus. Semen 'prevailing' was indeed common belief at the time, but not in the Quran or sunna.. Again, I fail to see the similarity..
Where in that verse (23:13) do you see the word amshag or amshaj? I'm not sure if our friend here reads arabic, but i could not, for the life of me, find amshaj in that entire surah. I suggest you read that surah again.
You may be referring to Surah 76:2, can you find any other verse that mentions the mingling of this drop of semen or sperm?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
What is your point here? Galen likens the fetus to plant growth and states it is semen that prevails, and that is actually the point..
You have just learned about all of this two days ago and already you are an expert with what is or isn't the point? I have already shown you, that the term 'amshaj' is used in the Quran to denote 'mixture' as in sperm and egg.. semen prevailing isn't an Islamic concept but a Greek one.
Where is the plagiarism and where is the similarity? Why would the Prophet who was shunned for the most part by his people, meet with some Greek guy and a translator given he was illitrate, to incorporate some obscure terms that have nothing to do with Galen's thoughts on embryology and poetically in the Quran and in Arabic to get people to worship God...
Do you think before you write?
Where in the Quran does it repeat it?.. You have failed to read, you have failed to assimilate, and you have failed to make a point. Again!
I believe the word you are looking for is Sulalah, which you may have forgotten to mention thus far, as you possibly forgot to mention amshaj before Galen was quoted.
Whether articulated or not you end up comparing apples to oranges!
So how will you go about distinguishing nutfatin as a non-fluid "drop" of spernm
well what are you claiming? You have failed to answer paragraph one on any of the levels I have raised!
similarity in content. Which is really the big one
I hope that helped
similarity in textual style
a purpose
a person
a translator
and a record for it all
Useless, as this was never the claim and you choose to construct strawmen whenever faced with a serious argument.
This is a nonsequitur to the topic, and just really works to tie the noose around your neck when flustered and at a loss, just throw everything out there for the reader to decipher what s/he may.
You want to assert or deny make a point.. first do your homework.. I am not going sit here and do it for you.
You have something of substance to impart, bring it forth.. let's see it!
I did it for you, but you'll probably want to check it before it's graded.
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
Where in that verse (23:13) do you see the word amshag or amshaj? I'm not sure if our friend here reads arabic, but i could not, for the life of me, find amshaj in that entire surah. I suggest you read that surah again.
I never claimed it was in that surah.. we are talking of embryology all throughout the Quran.. just like the end chapters describe end of world events over several suras, so too is the creation of man.
We created man from a drop of mingled fluid (nutfah amshaj)” ( Surah Al-Insan , 76: ayah 2)
"Not from all the fluid is the offspring created".
(Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Nekah, Bab Al-Azl)
iv) Al-Nutfah Al-Amhsaj
In Arabic Amshaj means mixture and Al-Nutfah AI-Amshaj means a mixture of male and female germinal fluids or cells (Ref: 1A, 29/126-7: 2A, 2/195: 6A, 19/121: 7A, 6/418: 8A, 8/393; 9A, 2/454: 4D, 2/367). All Islamic scholars unanimously agree on deriving this meaning from the above expression. This is evidently clear from the following quotation:
You may be referring to Surah 76:2, can you find any other verse that mentions the mingling of this drop of semen or sperm?
see above!
I believe the word you are looking for is Sulalah, which you may have forgotten to mention thus far, as you possibly forgot to mention amshaj before Galen was quoted.
So how will you go about distinguishing nutfatin as a non-fluid "drop" of spernm
What is your point? indeed the male and female sex are determined by the sperm.. a brush up on modern embryo will clear that for you.. a female ova is an X, where as a sperm is either an X or a Y, hence the sex of a child is determined by the sperm.. It can't be more clear =)
I hope that helped
I hope it helped you.. sheesh how unenviable for you to put yourself in such a corner
Useless, as this was never the claim and you choose to construct strawmen whenever faced with a serious argument.
Perhaps you can point that strawman out for me again, and in the process manage not to highlight your ignorance of fifth grade biology!
I did it for you, but you'll probably want to check it before it's graded.
lol how adorable.. tell you what.. make a new thread where you can be boss for a day.. I think you owe it to yourself to feel good about your accomplishment so far!
All the best wishes,
Faysal
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and not a body of scholars to consult with as is in the shura system of an Islamic state. And of course his explanation was incorrect! Do you speak Arabic, have you read the Quran in its entirety, do you know what the word de'7'ha means??
"Duhaha", yes. Once again, those were not my claims. What you gain by pointing this out, I have no idea.
[quote]
I have a few favorites, Dr Sala7 Ar'rashid is one.. Dr rashid Ar'rashid is another, Dr. Ahmed Deedat of course, and sheikh el-sha3rawi, although his work was never that popular considering he only spoke Arabic. If you have a problem with their work, you can always not purchase the DVD's or buy their books, they are not exactly best seller on borders![quote]
Thank you, and in which field did they earn their doctorate?
I wouldn't expect you to know of any!
That would make sense, now if you could only refrain from ad hominem fallacies...
You don't know what sort of books I read, the sort of books interest me, or what sort of books were imposed as a part of my curriculum to state categorically what it is I refuse to read. I have summed it up really well for you just a couple of paragraphs ago.. Anyone with a doctorate can theorize, and set up a study to prove their point.. .. People who are set out to prove something is right, will find a way to make it so-- a hawthorne effect!
That's not even what the Hawthorne effect is, I suggest you look it up.
if you are Muslim and are a scientist under an Islamic state, then you are a Muslim scholar/scientest and such was recorded by history, a little pugilistic atheist isn't going to change recorded history, even if he doesn't wish to open a book and read it proper. If you are a Muslim and abroad you'll be deemed by nationality under your passport or birth certifcate.. American, Czech or whatever.. I hope that was simple enough for you to understand?
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
Addendu:
I wanted to keep this separate, since I like to take the opportunity to foster learning Arabic
here is the word سُلَالَةٍ sulalah
in Arabic:
سلالة : نتيجة البحث عن
ancestry line of ancestors; the members of your family who lived a long time ago
children plural of child
descendant descendant
descendants progenyffspring: posterity
descent ancestry
family group of persons or nations united by political or religious ties
line connected series of persons following one another in time
lineage lineal descent; ancestry
offspring child or children of a particular person or couple, or young of an animal
progeny offspring
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
'Duhaha", yes. Once again, those were not my claims. What you gain by pointing this out, I have no idea.
You asked me if the sheikh were wrong 'speaking of a flat earth' and I stated, indeed he was, asked you if you knew what 'de'7aha' duha with a dhadh, is different de7aha with a dhal.. but I am sure you already knew that, in your vast knowledge of exegesis.. but d'eh7aha , meant the rounding or egg shaping of it!
We have many dumb scholars even who graduate al-azhar, I am not sure what your point was.. did you have one?
[QUOTE]I have a few favorites, Dr Sala7 Ar'rashid is one.. Dr rashid Ar'rashid is another, Dr. Ahmed Deedat of course, and sheikh el-sha3rawi, although his work was never that popular considering he only spoke Arabic. If you have a problem with their work, you can always not purchase the DVD's or buy their books, they are not exactly best seller on borders!
Thank you, and in which field did they earn their doctorate?
One is a doctor of medicine, another has his doctorate in biochem and the third in psychology.. does it matter? Again, I ask you what are your qualifications?
That would make sense, now if you could only refrain from ad hominem fallacies...
I would but you are so bloody indolent, that I just can't help myself..
That's not even what the Hawthorne effect is, I suggest you look it up.
Hawthorne was an experiment where scientists wanted to see what would double the effort of workers by change in lighting, every time they increased or decreased the light the work was up and up.. people didn't want to disappoint.. there are many kinds of biases in studies.. I wouldn't put something down for folks to read, lest I knew what it meant.. unlike most atheist google scholars we have here
What is your point?
All the best wishes,
Faysal
Take a hint clever guy-- I bore fast-- I suggest you sit down with yourself and question what it is you hope to gain by this? will you be Muslim by the end of the day? will we be atheists? frankly I can answer the latter for you.. You are not skilled enough to convince me of anything, and I am a bit jetlagged, I just got home to NY and between laundry/ cleaning and putting away my clothes and averaging in a few hrs sleep, I still don't find you cohesive on any of your points
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
What does sulalah mean to you?
An extract, or condensed form
What is your point? indeed the male and female sex are determined by the sperm.. a brush up on modern embryo will clear that for you.. a female ova is an X, where as a sperm is either an X or a Y, hence the sex of a child is determined by the sperm.. It can't be more clear =)
So as in 32:8 and 77:20 and the others I have pointed out the reference is for a fluid, I granted you the benefit of the doubt that you would point to the word sulalah implying that it is not all of the fluid that is used but an extract.
Can you read Arabic or will you make me explain the verses for you as well?
Perhaps you can point that strawman out for me again, and in the process manage not to highlight your ignorance of fifth grade biology!
I need only to point you to all of my previous posts in this thread. Whether you have an ability to read and comprehend them is not something I can change, I presume you can. Where have I "highlighted my ignorance of fifth grade biology"?
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Addendu:
I wanted to keep this separate, since I like to take the opportunity to foster learning Arabic
here is the word سُلَالَةٍ sulalah
in Arabic:
سلالة : نتيجة البحث عن
ancestry line of ancestors; the members of your family who lived a long time ago
children plural of child
descendant descendant
descendants progenyffspring: posterity
descent ancestry
family group of persons or nations united by political or religious ties
line connected series of persons following one another in time
lineage lineal descent; ancestry
offspring child or children of a particular person or couple, or young of an animal
progeny offspring
There you have it folks, the word of the day courtesy of our resident atheist, who I am sure will tie it for us nicely to denote something else
Indeed I did. Try using your definition where the word sulalatin was used and see if 32:8 makes sense and sounds beautiful or whatever else you want to call it.
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
An extract, or condensed form
Nope.. I have already put the clear definition of sulalah..
So as in 32:8 and 77:20 and the others I have pointed out the reference is for a fluid, I granted you the benefit of the doubt that you would point to the word sulalah implying that it is not all of the fluid that is used but an extract.
You should follow the verses through, and I believe you have in just one of them.. from that which is emitted, both male and female are made.. I am not seeing a problem with it.. It actually is our modern understanding of the role of a sperm!
Can you read Arabic or will you make me explain the verses for you as well?
ana at7adath al3arbya be'labaqa, walkan'ak insan zhaleel wo ghabbi.
Does that answer your Q?
I need only to point you to all of my previous posts in this thread. Whether you have an ability to read and comprehend them is not something I can change, I presume you can. Where have I "highlighted my ignorance of fifth grade biology"?
I can't make sense of confabulation.. like your athy friend, you have the ability to cut and paste from various sites although I'll give it to you, you are not as overt as he in your approach, but still unable to reconcile what you read with what you are trying to evince.
Fifth grade bio should teach you, that it is the sperm that produces either sexes of male or female!
as the verse denotes in suret al-qyama and many others!
All the best wishes,
Faysal
aha
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
Indeed I did. Try using your definition where the word sulalatin was used and see if 32:8 makes sense and sounds beautiful or whatever else you want to call it.
I'm not here for you amusement.
All the best wishes,
Faysal
That is most disconsolate indeed.. I wish you were remotely amusing or remotely accurate.. but you are neither..
I have already quoted the definition for the word sulalah from an Arabic dictionary.. it isn't my own definition but the accepted definition!
I am sorry I can't translate things to resound to your desired meaning..
are we done?
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
Quran 23:13 Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging
Galen: as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Galen: as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails. The Quran in the above and other verses speaks the term 'amshag' which I have gone quite extensively over, to denote 'intermingled/mixed fluid' as in fertalized egg. A safe lodging place to denote the uterus. Semen 'prevailing' was indeed common belief at the time, but not in the Quran or sunna.. Again, I fail to see the similarity..
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I never claimed it was in that surah.. we are talking of embryology all throughout the Quran.. just like the end chapters describe end of world events over several suras, so too is the creation of man.
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
It read like a claim to me.
I believe the operative terms here are other verses.. aside from that, the current verse still dioesn't reconcile with your friend's allegation of plagiarism.
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
That is most disconsolate indeed.. I wish you were remotely amusing or remotely accurate.. but you are neither..
I have already quoted the definition for the word sulalah from an Arabic dictionary.. it isn't my own definition but the accepted definition!
I am sorry I can't translate things to resound to your desired meaning..
are we done?
cheers
Would you care to translate all of 32:8 then?
032.008 ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِنْ سُلالَةٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ مَهِينٍ
032.008 Thumma jaAAala naslahu min sul[a]latin min m[a]-in maheen(in)
032.008 And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I believe the operative terms here are other verses.. aside from that, the current verse still dioesn't reconcile with your friend's allegation of plagiarism.
cheers
So, you're saying "the above and" was merely a typo, did it slip your mind while editing?
Very well, then, I suppose you do make mistakes.
All the best wishes,
Faysal
PS: As far as I can recall, there was never an allegation of plagiarism.
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
Would you care to translate all of 32:8 then?
032.008 ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِنْ سُلالَةٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ مَهِينٍ
032.008 Thumma jaAAala naslahu min sul[a]latin min m[a]-in maheen(in)
032.008 And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:
Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910 (I give credit where it's due)
If you don't mind, what does naslahu mean?
All the best wishes,
Faysal
Why you don't you make up your mind what you desire to learn, nasal am sulalah? to spare us both the agony.. here is a translation of the entire verse!
32:8 then He causes him to be begotten out of the essence of a humble fluid!
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Why you don't you make up your mind what you desire to learn, nasal am sulalah? to spare us both the agony.. here is a translation of the entire verse!
32:8 then He causes him to be begotten out of the essence of a humble fluid!
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
So, you're saying "the above and" was merely a typo, did it slip your mind while editing?
Very well, then, I suppose you do make mistakes.
All the best wishes,
Faysal
PS: As far as I can recall, there was never an allegation of plagiarism.
Perhaps you should read your friend's allegtions then before jumping to his defense? Or better yet.. do all your homework comparing all literary work on the subject matter before starting a thread on redundance?
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
lol how adorable.. tell you what.. make a new thread where you can be boss for a day.. I think you owe it to yourself to feel good about your accomplishment so far!
ffspring: posterity 
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks