Miracles of the Quran.com

[mansio]

I have decided to visit one the sites that you have submitted to me.
I have chosen "Miracles of the Quran.com".

1) Coming of the universe into existence:
Not only the Quran says heaven and earth come from God.

2) Expansion of the universe:
There are different ways to translate "mûsi3ûna". The word is derived from root W-S-3 which has the general meaning of vastness. Other meanings are expansion, ability to comprehend, power.
God is talking about heaven, not the universe, and says he extends it wide. When you look up at the sky you see its vastness. I don't see anything extraordinary in that verse.

3) The big crunch:
The idea that the universe can come to an end and start again is in Hinduism.
The folding of heaven is a beautiful poetic image.
I thought that in the End Times the world comes to an end.

4) Creation from hot smoke:
The Quran says "a smoke" and not "hot smoke". I have no explanation for that smoke and I am amazed that it can talk.

5) Splitting asunder:
The separation of elements at Creation is mentioned several times in the first chapter of the Bible. It is also found in the Babylonian poem Enuma Elish.
It has little to do with the Big Bang. At that moment there was no earth in a mass with the sky. Earth appeared much later after the Big Bang.

6) Creation of what lies between the heavens and the earth:
Three verses are cited. The first one says truth was used for creation. The second that all creation belongs to God. The third that creation was not a game.
I hope the writer of this site is not playing a game with me.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Mansio,
Personally, I don't mind if you don't accept these scientific interpretations of the Qur'anic verses, since it is a matter of interpretation. However, I will challenge you to provide an example of an error in the Qur'an. Let's discuss your allegations one at a time please.

As for your observations on the claims found on miraclesofthequran.com, these are my comments.

1) Coming of the universe into existence:
Not only the Quran says heaven and earth come from God.

True.

2) Expansion of the universe:
There are different ways to translate "mûsi3ûna". The word is derived from root W-S-3 which has the general meaning of vastness. Other meanings are expansion, ability to comprehend, power.

This has been examined in great detail in the following article:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/index.php/articles/does-musiun-means-expanding

God is talking about heaven, not the universe, and says he extends it wide.

For someone who is supposed to be familiar with the arabic language, I'm suprised that you would say such a thing. The arabic word is as-samâ, which denotes that which is above and beyond us, so it is not limited to the immediate atmosphere of the earth.

3) The big crunch:
The idea that the universe can come to an end and start again is in Hinduism.

It would be helpful if you could provide a quote to substantiate your claim.

4) Creation from hot smoke:
The Quran says "a smoke" and not "hot smoke". I have no explanation for that smoke

So you admit that you have no way to explain away the Qur'anic statement other than accepting the interpretation provided as an acceptable possibility.

and I am amazed that it can talk.

:?

5) Splitting asunder:
The separation of elements at Creation is mentioned several times in the first chapter of the Bible. It is also found in the Babylonian poem Enuma Elish.
It has little to do with the Big Bang. At that moment there was no earth in a mass with the sky. Earth appeared much later after the Big Bang.

The verse in question is actually described in much greater detail in the tafsir, and based on that, I have given a slightly different interpretaion here:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttals/Which_was_Created_first,_the_Heavens_or_the_Earth/

6) Creation of what lies between the heavens and the earth:
Three verses are cited. The first one says truth was used for creation. The second that all creation belongs to God. The third that creation was not a game.

I believe the author is referring to the part of the verses emphasized in italics.

Regards

 

[sumay28]

I have looked over that site as well and I will admit that some of the 'miracles' that they mention is a bit too general for me to classify as a miracle. However, most are significant. You decide to choose to answer only 6 of the many that the website lists. The benefit of honey, the importance of movement while sleeping, the stages of embryonic development, etc.

And it's God... GOD!! His capabilities are infinate. And you're surprised friggen smoke can talk!? Or that the earth can talk, when even science can tell you that the earth is a living organism.

 

[mansio]

Ansar al Adl

The word as-samaa heaven is what is above our head, that is above the earth. So it cannot mean the universe because the universe comprises everything, the earth included.

Besides believing also in the seven heavenly levels, Hinduism believes in the theory of kalpas or cosmic eras. Each kalpa begins with the creation of the world and ends with its destruction. A kalpa is said to correspond to a day of Brahman/God. Each kalpa lasts several billions years.

If you prefer that I begin a discussion with errors in the Quran here are a few:

-- The famous mistake that sperm issues from between the back or loins and the ribs.

---

 

[sumay28]

-- No serious scientist believes in the existence of Adam. He is not mentioned in school and university science books.

I've went to school and learned from many scientists who believe that Adam existed. Jack Cousto was a creationalist, who learned in the Quran, actually, about the barrier that seperates fresh and salt water.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The word as-samaa heaven is what is above our head, that is above the earth. So it cannot mean the universe because the universe comprises everything, the earth included.

Look up 'outer space' in the dictionary. In the Oxford American Dictionary it defines it as 'the physical universe beyond the earth'. This is exactly what as-samâ denotes.

Besides believing also in the seven heavenly levels,

Again, can you provide a reference for that?

Hinduism believes in the theory of kalpas or cosmic eras. Each kalpa begins with the creation of the world and ends with its destruction. A kalpa is said to correspond to a day of Brahman/God. Each kalpa lasts several billions years.

The Qur'anic model, however, is not oscillatory, and we do not believe that God dies at the end of the universe as the Hindus believe.

If you prefer that I begin a discussion with errors in the Quran here are a few:

We'll discuss them one at a time.

-- The famous mistake that sperm issues from between the back or loins and the ribs.

Done. This was refuted by myself in a previous thread as follows:

This is not a scientific error at all as there are many ways to explain this.

1. As Dr. Zakir Naik writes:

In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of the male and female, ie. the testicles and the ovaries, begin their development near the kidney exactly between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. Later they descend; the female gonads (ovaries) stop in the pelvis while the male gonads continue their decent before birth to reach the scrotum outside the body through the inguinal canal. Even after the embryonic stage after the decent of the reproductive organ, these organs receive their nerve supply and blood supply (from the Aorta) and lymphatic drainage which is in the area between the backbone (spinal column) and the ribs​

2. As Moiz Amjad writes:

although the male sperm is formed in the testes, yet the blood supply which, obviously, is integral to the making of the sperm comes from between the ribs and the back...the cells that form the sperm originate from between the ribs and the back. If this is true, then the words of the Qur'an are not scientifically incorrect, as the words "emanating from a place between the (lower) back and the (lower) ribs", do not necessarily imply "emanating in its final shape" only, but can also cover "initial emanation".​

3. He also gives a third response:

As shown in Figure 2, if we were to join the sulb (i.e. the back) and the taraayib (i.e. the ribs), by means of an external line, it would pass through our lower abdomen, to our hips, to the testes, to the sex organ on to our groin, and then join our ribs.
Figure 2

The line would roughly look like the red curve ABCD. Obviously, the ultimate point of emanation of the male sperm lies within the points A and D. This, in my opinion, is what the statement "Yakhrujo min bayen al-Sulb Wa al-Taraayib" (i.e. 'which emanates from a place between the back and the ribs') means. The meaning and the implication of the verse, as well as the message entailed in it, was as clear to the unlettered Arabs as it is for the scientists of the modern day. If seen in the light of this explanation, it would be clear that the verse does not refer to any scientific reality, but to an obvious physical reality. Thus, the very objection of a scientific error, in this case, is misplaced.

Nevertheless, a few questions may arise in one's mind regarding the above explanation.

Firstly, one may ask why has the Qur'an used the phrase 'between the back and the ribs' and, thereby, created confusion regarding the implication of the verse. The Qur'an, on the contrary, could have saved us from all confusion simply by naming the organ from which semen spurts out. Furthermore, one may also ask whether such usage of the phrase 'bayena shayin wa shayin' (i.e. 'between one thing and another') as it has been interpreted in the above explanation, is supported in the Arabic language or not.

As far as the first question is concerned, it is obvious that the Qur'an, as any decent and sober literature would do, has only avoided direct reference (in words) to the male sexual organ. Through the words that it has used, the Qur'an has made a complete euphemistic reference to the point of emanation of the sperm, while successfully avoiding naming it. Naming it would definitely have negatively affected the literary value of the Qur'an. As far as the objection that the euphemistic style of the Qur'an, in this case, has negatively affected the clarity of the message and has resulted in confusion regarding the implication of the verse is concerned, in my opinion, it seems quite out of place. The mere fact that the previous verse had referred to 'the fluid gushing forth' (semen), which is followed by the words 'which emanates from...', brings to mind the source of the 'gushing forth' of the fluid, without much difficulty. Furthermore, one should not forget that even if the male sperm was actually formed within the two stipulated points, the mention of this source of formation of the male sperm had absolutely no pertinence with the message of the Qur'an and the information would have been of absolutely no relevance to the Arabs of old - the direct addressees of the Qur'an. The mere realization of the point that the Qur'an does not refer to any such information, even if it is true, that has no relevance to its basic message, guides one to the simple physical (non-scientific and uncomplicated) interpretation of the verse under consideration.​

4. Muhammad Asad provides the fourth response in his translation of the verse:

issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].*
* The plural noun tara'ib, rendered by me as "pelvic arch", has also the meaning of "ribs" or "arch of bones"; according to most of the authorities who have specialized in the etymology of rare Quranic expressions this term relates specifically to female anatomy (Taj al-'Arus).​

Thus, your point can be totally refuted in four different ways.

When you admit that your first allegation has been refuted, we can move on to the next one. Posting pages of allegations is an easy cop-out of a focused debate.

Regards

 

[Abu Zakariya]

The famous mistake that sperm issues from between the back or loins and the ribs.

This is the arrogance I was talking about. He refers to this verse as "famous" and casually mentiones it as a mistake, when he in fact doesn't have a clue about the arabic language.
I don't mean to be a jerk, but come on. How would you feel if I started criticizing french litterature and pointing out mistakes in it, without speaking french. It is ridiculous.

If you could even the slightest of arabic, you would see that this isn't a mistake at all. Cant you see how silly it is for you to comment and analyze an arabic scripture when you don't know arabic? Again, I don't mean to be harsh or anything, but I can't stress this enough.

As for the verse.

The first mistake in the translation you used is that the word "ma dafiq" is translated to mean sperm, when it in fact refers to the fluid of both the man and the woman.
The words sulb (loins) and tara'ib (this is an ambigous term that can actually refer to any part of the female body, like the area of the ovaries or the uterus) don't refer to the same person.

So the verse here is in fact saying:

The fluid of men emitt from the loins and the fluid of women emitt from a female bodypart.

This is a very simple statement, obvious even. This is because these verses briefly mention the humble beginning of man, that became arrogant. We were wonce a drop of a fluid that people even don't want to touch and here we are, thinking we own the world. This is what the Qur'an is reminding us of.

As for the allegedly unscientific verse, probably the most confusing thing is the word "taraib". Here is a discussion on the word:

This word clearly has a very broad and diverse definition. It is so ambiguous a word that the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) could not give it a precise definition. Scholars of Qur’ânic commentary have consistently admitted to there being at least three different possible meanings for this word as it is used in the verse. This is an admission that they do not know for certain what the tarâ’ib are, except that they generally agree it refers to an area of the woman’s body. It can apply to any region nearing the ribcage. Therefore, the area of the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, or the uterus can easily fit into the general area that is being indicated by these verses.

So the verse isn't talking about where the sperm is produced, as some (non-arabic speakers) seem to think.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Br. Abu Zakariya,
The fatwâ you posted here is also a good reference I forgot to include in my post. It demonstrates that even scholars several centuries ago understood this verse in a manner that does not conflict with modern science!

 

[mansio]

I had posted a list of about fifteen errors in the Quran. I don't know what happened but only the first one was sent.

I had also answered Sumay that I will continue the list of the miracles if she wants too.

 

[Khattab]

Like Brother Ansar said deal with them one at a time, I have no doubt all 15 will be dealt with, just the usual allegations which have been refuted time and time again.

 

[mansio]

Sumay

You did not answer me why Adam is not mentioned in school and university science books. I asked you also where and at what time he lived.


Ansar al Adl

About as-samaa: your definition is exactly mine.

Sometimes I feel like someone who is asked to prove that men are glued to the earth by terrestrial gravity, or that the earth rotates around the sun. Do you think I walk around with those proofs in my pockets. There are plenty of things that are accepted by a majority of people without need of proofs. It is general culture that allows you to distinguish between what is scientific and what is mythical. We live in the 21st century and not in the Middle-Ages, although some people are still mentally in the Middle-Ages.

If you need information on Hinduism you have plenty of it on the internet or in libraries. I read about the kalpas and the seven heavenly levels in a book about Hinduism of course, I did not invent it. I have a number of books on Hinduism in my library, in French.

About 86:6-7 : Are we discussing about what is written in the Quran or what scholars have to say about the Quran ? Do you trust what is written in the Quran or do you have to find explanations to better what the Quran says ? If it is written by men, then I can understand all those pages long discussions. If it written by God I take his word as he has decided it to be.
Your scholars have of course omitted the fact that the idea of the loins as the seat of reproductive faculties is also in the Bible (Gen 35:11 1Kings 8:19 Acts 2:30) and in Greek science (see Hippocrates medical theories).

 

[Abu Zakariya]

mansio

Do you really think that it is fair of you to post all of these allegations at the same time?

I mean, we want you to ask your questions (although they're nor really questions, just plain 'ole allegations) and we aren't afraid to give you an answer.
However, isn't it easier if we take one allegation at a time and discuss it properly?

As for Adam, well, his existence can't be disprooven eather. It is a matter of the unseen, so I could ask you to proove that he didn't exist, as well.

 

[mansio]

I agree with you Zakariya, one at a time.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

mansio,
I removed the extra allegations you posted because I feel that it is only fair if we go through them one at a time, and it seems you agree.

About as-samaa: your definition is exactly mine.

Good to know.

Sometimes I feel like someone who is asked to prove that men are glued to the earth by terrestrial gravity, or that the earth rotates around the sun. Do you think I walk around with those proofs in my pockets. There are plenty of things that are accepted by a majority of people without need of proofs. It is general culture that allows you to distinguish between what is scientific and what is mythical. We live in the 21st century and not in the Middle-Ages, although some people are still mentally in the Middle-Ages.

I'm not sure how this relates to the discussion.

If you need information on Hinduism you have plenty of it on the internet or in libraries. I read about the kalpas and the seven heavenly levels in a book about Hinduism of course, I did not invent it. I have a number of books on Hinduism in my library, in French.

Then you should have no problem providing references to back up what you said about seven heavens.

About 86:6-7 : Are we discussing about what is written in the Quran or what scholars have to say about the Quran ?

The scholars explanations serve to clarify. Let's examine one of these explanations for example:

To begin with, these verses say nothing whatsoever about the creation of sperm or the creation of anything else. Consequently, they do not inform us of where the creation of sperm takes place. They merely say that the substances under discussion come out form the places being described. The word being used is “yakhruj” meaning “to exit, leave, come out, emerge”. It in no way implies anything related to creation or origination.

Secondly, the phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

Thirdly, the words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman, which is the area of her chest.” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

Moreover, the word “sulb” should not necessarily be translated as “backbone”. This word has many possible meanings and backbone is only one of them. It is also quite commonly used to mean the loins of a man. This is how it is used elsewhere in the Qur’ân. Allah says: “Prohibited to you (for marriage) are…wives of your sons proceeding from your loins (aslâb, the plural of sulb).” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 23] There can be no problem with sperm coming out from the area of a man's loins.

Likewise, when we look at the word being translated as “ribs” (tarâ’ib, the plural of tarîbah) we find that it is used linguistically for the general are of the chest and the abdomen. In al-Qâmûs, the famous classical dictionary of al-Fayrûzabâdî it is defined as a number of things: “the bones of the chest or what comes after the two collarbones or what comes between the collarbones and the chest or the four ribs to the right of the chest or the four ribs to the left of the chest or the hands, eyes and feet or the collarbones.” Some Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and some Successors had also provided many possible meanings, like the lower ribs and al-Dahhâk’s statement that it is the area between the breasts and feet and the eyes (a mere indication of centrality).

This word clearly has a very broad and diverse definition. It is so ambiguous a word that the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) could not give it a precise definition. Scholars of Qur’ânic commentary have consistently admitted to there being at least three different possible meanings for this word as it is used in the verse. This is an admission that they do not know for certain what the tarâ’ib are, except that they generally agree it refers to an area of the woman’s body. It can apply to any region nearing the ribcage. Therefore, the area of the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, or the uterus can easily fit into the general area that is being indicated by these verses.

What we are dealing with here is a gross error in translation and not a scientific error at all.​

Here we have an explanation of the ARABIC TERMS used in the Qur'an. If you think you can refute that explanation, go ahead.

Your scholars have of course omitted the fact that the idea of the loins as the seat of reproductive faculties is also in the Bible (Gen 35:11 1Kings 8:19 Acts 2:30) and in Greek science (see Hippocrates medical theories).

We are discussing alleged errors in the Qur'an, so why are you speaking about the Bible and greek science?!

I'll give you another chance. Can you refute the explanations we have provided for the verse or not?

Regards

 

[mansio]

Ansar

If you insist here is the reference about the seven heavens in Hinduism: "L'Hindouisme" by Louis Renou (Presses Universitaires de France) pp 52-53.
I was slightly surprised to find the seven heavens in Hinduism, as it exists also in Greek and Middle-Eastern mythologies.

Why am I speaking about the Bible and Greek science when we are talking about alleged errors in the Quran ?
Simply for the reason that the Quran borrows from the Bible and Greek science. If the Bible or Greek science are wrong then the Quran is wrong. If the Bible or Greek science are true then the Quran is true, but the scientific fact is not from the Quran.

[Quote:To begin with, these verses say nothing whatsoever about the creation of sperm or the creation of anything else.]

Wrong. Verse 86:5 speaks of the creation of man: "Fa lyanzuri l-insânu mimma khuliqa"

[Quote: Consequently, they do not inform us of where the creation of sperm takes place.]

It does not informs us where sperm is formed but where it comes from. The question is not if the Quran is wrong about where sperm is formed but if it is wrong about where it comes from.

[Quote: It in no way implies anything related to creation or origination.]

Wrong. "Mâ'in" is for semen. The verb "khuliqa" (has been created) is mentioned twice.

[Quote: Secondly, the phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg.]

I don't see the point.

[Quote: Thirdly, the words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person.]

What a ridiculous explanation !

[Quote: Moreover, the word “sulb” should not necessarily be translated as “backbone”. This word has many possible meanings and backbone is only one of them. It is also quite commonly used to mean the loins of a man.]

It is what I said: "Your scholars have of course omitted the fact that the idea of the loins as the seat of reproductive faculties is also in the Bible (Gen 35:11 1Kings 8:19 Acts 2:30) and in Greek science (see Hippocrates medical theories)."
If it were only written "sulb", an area from the kidneys to the pubis, there would be less discussion. Remember the verses are supposed to have been written by God. Every word is important and cannot be put aside.

 

[root]

A great debate, I support Mansio's positon. This debate supporting the reproduction system quickly diverges down to human interpretation and also loses any postion of uniqueness.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Mansio,

If you insist here is the reference about the seven heavens in Hinduism: "L'Hindouisme" by Louis Renou (Presses Universitaires de France) pp 52-53.

There are a number of problems with this. First, I asked for a reference to hindu scriptures not some book written in french about hinduism. Secondly, the hindu concept of worlds (Loka) is clearly quite unlike anything in the Islamic religion at all! Third, even if Hindus did believe in just seven heavens, (which they clearly don't, the concept of swarga and moksha is clearly much more complex) it still wouldn't prove anything!

Why am I speaking about the Bible and Greek science when we are talking about alleged errors in the Quran ?
Simply for the reason that the Quran borrows from the Bible and Greek science.

Here we find that you are shifting back into your old irritating habit of making allegations that are not only unsubstantiated, but have been REFUTED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE! What evidence have you provided to support this ludicrous allegation? Not a shred of evidence! You continue to advance your imaginative notions as facts despite the fact that they have already been debunked.

I think it is safe to say that we will dismiss this claim as a lie until you are prepared to do the research, read over the refutations we gave, and provided a thoughtful and evidence-based response.

On to verses 86:6-7. You have mentioned absolutely nothing that refutes the explanation given, but instead you continue to beat around the bush.

Let me make this very clear for you:

CLAIM (from mansio): verse 86:7 contains an error because it states that semen comes from between the loins and the ribs.

RESPONSE: Wrong, there is no error. The Qur'an states that man has been created from that which emanates from between the sulb and the tarâib. The sulb refers to the loins of the man and the taraib refers to the abdomen of the female. This is how the terms have been defined in the classical dictionary Al-Qamus by Al-Fayruzabadi and in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, both written centuries ago when there would have been no concern for the scientific implications of these terms!

Mansio, you failed to respond to the fact that tarâib refers to a woman's body, which shatters your entire allegation!

It is what I said: "Your scholars have of course omitted the fact that the idea of the loins as the seat of reproductive faculties is also in the Bible (Gen 35:11 1Kings 8:19 Acts 2:30) and in Greek science (see Hippocrates medical theories)."

Who cares?! We are talking about what the Qur'an means when it says 'sulb' and 'taraib'! It doesn't make a difference if everyone in the universe has always believed loins are 'the seat of reproductive faculties'. The fact that you are evading is that your allegation has been refuted.

Regards

 

[akulion]

So I guess what you are saying is that The Quran was copied form the previous scriptures?

Well if that is the case then I will put forward an argument given in the Quran itself...

Allah swt says, say to them if they say the Quran was copied, that then they copied their books from the books before them and the ones before them from people before them, until you will come to Abraham (as), then say to them, why not worship the same as Abraham worshipped?

For surely he worshipped none but One God

So IF you claim what you claim then I can easily claim the counter against you which would then lead us to Abraham, and so I invite you to worship Allah in oneness

------------------------------------

Furthermore - there is no reference given to Sperm in 85: 5 to 7
The Quran speaks about a drop emitted - this could be blood from the heart which ofcourse makes up the sperm in the first place.

Also more notably you have taken one verse to critisize it but have disregarded the other verses which DO directly talk about sperm and this description has been acknolowedged by Scholars of Biology and Human reproduction: Human Embroyolgy in the Quran

Furthermore - all your claims themselves dont make sense, you are saying that this part of the Quran exists there and that part exists there...but you miss the most important part which is the Prophet Mohammed(sa) was illiterate...so I wonder how he was able to read all these books.

Even furthermore - texts were not so easily available in those days, publishing did not become common until much later when the Muslims using paper from Chinese first established mass production of books. So in those days parchment would be used and there werent multiple copies of books to go around and if you think about it realistically how many languages did Mohammed know ?
Greek, Sanskrit, Hewbrew, Arabic, Aramiac, what else?

You are turning an illiterate man into a master of all languages and a scholar of some sort..

So that is why your whole argument is baseless

 

[mansio]

Ansar al Adl

I never compared Hinduism with Islam. I compared the idea of Big Bang and Big Crunch that one of your link writers claimed to find in the Quran with a similar idea in Hinduism.
As soon as I manage to find the pages from Hindu scriptures about the cosmic egg Brahmânda with its seven heavenly levels I'll post them for you. Get your Sanskrit-English dictionary ready.

_________________________________________________________________
Your quote: Mansio, you failed to respond to the fact that tarâib refers to a woman's body, which shatters your entire allegation!
_________________________________________________________________

Wrong. I responded to that, but not according to what you expected.
"What a ridiculous explanation" was my response.

How is it possible to imagine for one second that the "sulb" and the "tara'ib" belong to TWO different persons ! Muslim scholars must really have been embarrassed by that sentence to find such a way out.

If that were true, God could have written "issueing from between man's loins and woman's ribs".
Even written like that the sentence would not make sense because of the words "from between". Semen would come from a place situated somewhere between the loins of a man and the ribs of a woman. How is that possible ? Would it float in mid air between the two persons ?
The "tarâ'ib" (plural of tarîbat) are the chest, or the area between the breasts and the shoulder blades, or the ribs, or the breasts, or the area from the lower neck to the chin. That is how all translators understood it.
It may be that one sense of tarâ'ib is abdomen of a woman. The sentence then could have made some beginning of sense if it were written "issueing from the loins and woman's tarâ'ib" without "bayni".

 

[mansio]

Abu Zakariya

By your different remarks about the Arabic language I assume that you have some knowledge of it.
Could you tell me why in the Arabic Quran, Allaah is written with a short "a" in the second syllable ?
In modern books Allaah is written with a long "a" by means of a superscribed alif.
Thank you for answering.