[JennaJJxoxoxo]

Salam everyone
I have recently been having some pretty heated theological arguments with an ex-Muslim about the truth of Islam and I'm afraid to say, he seems to have some very good points which have put allot of doubt in my mind. I am going to post his arguments- my apologies for the length (they refer to scientific miracles in the Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad (saw)) so that people can post counter arguments- and please do! I need them asap

1. He said: There was nothing 'miraculous' about Quranic embryology as similar descriptions were given by the ancient Greeks centuries earlier- paragraph quoting Galen who was born 500 years before Muhammad:

“But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (‘nutfah’). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (‘alaqa’), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...
... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow”

As you can see, not only does Galen give an incredibly similar but more detailed account on the stages of embryological development, but he also makes the same mistake as the Quran does in claiming that the muscles form after the bones. Coincidence? I think not.
Now you may be wondering where Muhammad got this information; the most likely source of this information was an Arab physician named al-Harith ibn Khalada whom Muhammad was well acquainted with and was even recommended by Muhammad himself to treat the Sahaba.

2. I said: [23:14] "Then We made the sperm into a leech-like substance; then of that leech-like substance We made a fetus of a chewed-like substance; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create!"

The wrapping of the muscles around the bones happens after the muscle precursor cells begin their development into muscle - now re-read the quote taking attention to the word 'clothed the bones'
the Noble Verse Isn't speaking about which was created first, the bones or the muscles, but rather, it is speaking about the wrapping of the muscles around the bones happens after the creation of the the bones. which is why allah chose the words 'clothed'.

Again notice how when the quote is showing how time progresses - it uses the word 'then' - it is not used however to say the bones came before the flesh (read the quote) because it is not seperated by 'then' instead it accurately puts them oth in the same phrase of time to show that they happen relatively closely together.


He said: Second, your point about the use of the word 'clothed' is weak; at no point does the Quran give any indication of the creation or existence of the muscles ('lahm') until the part about wrapping them around the bones, this strongly implies that the muscles are created after the creation of the bones. Also, the Quran refers to the 'mudghah' as being made into 'itham' (bones) in the same way (using the word 'khalaqna') that it describes the 'nutfah' being made into a 'alaqah', and a 'alaqah' being made into a 'mudghah':
"khalaqna alnnutfataA Aalaqatan fakhalaqna alAAalaqata mudghatan fakhalaqna almudghata AAithaman"
Therefore, we can infer from the text that the 'alaqah', 'mudghah', and 'itham" are three separate stages, meaning that the Quran describes 'bones' as being a whole stage of development, and that the entire embryo consists of bones during this stage, before being wrapped in 'lahm'. As you know, this is scientifically absurd.


There are two problems with your mode of reason regarding the use of the word 'then' (arabic thumma) and it's effect on the details of the description provided:

"Thumma jaAAalnahu nutfatan fee qararin makeenin.
Thumma khalaqna alnnutfataA Aalaqatan fakhalaqna alAAalaqata mudghatan fakhalaqna almudghata AAithaman fakasawna alAAithama lahman thumma ansha/nahu khalqan akhara fatabaraka Allahu ahsanu alkhaliqeena"

A. As you can see from the above quote, in the original Arabic, there is no 'then' (thumma) between the description of the 'clot' (alaqah) and 'lump of flesh' (mudgha), or between the mudghah and the creation of the bone (itham). So if we are to use the same logic you apply to the later part of the verse then we must conclude that the start of formation of the 'clot' or 'leech-like substance' (which isn't clear but let's assume it's the pre-embyonic stage), and the 'chewed lump of flesh' (ie. embryo) and the formation of bones and muscle all happen at the same time; this is completely incorrect - the first 3 weeks are the pre-embyonic stage, then the conceptus becomes an embryo at around the third week, while muscle and bone do not appear till between 7-12 weeks. In essence, what you're implying the Quran is saying is that what in reality takes place over 7-12 weeks occurs in a single (or very short) instance.

B. You are ignoring the use of the Arabic prefix 'fa', which means 'and then' or 'and so'. 'Fa' is used before the verb 'kasawna' ([we] clothed/wrapped) when referring to the bones being wrapped in muscle (fakasawna alAAithama lahman) and it is also used before the word 'khalaqna' ([we] created) in describing the creation of the 'mudghah' out of the 'alaqah' (fakhalaqna alAAalaqata mudghatan), as well as the creation of bones out of the 'mudghah' (fakhalaqna almudghata AAithaman). In all three instances, 'fa' is used in an identical manner, and going by the known definition of that prefix it is safe to conclude that that in all three instances the former precedes the latter chronologically (ie. alaqah, then mudghah, then itham, then lahm). If instead you choose to change the definition 'fa' to simply 'and' (which is incorrect) then you'll simply find yourself stuck with problem A.

Finally, if you are going to object to my translations, maybe you should check out a few from some well known reputable sources:

Sahih International
Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators. (notice the use of the word 'and' only between alaqah, mudghah, itham, and lahm)
Muhsin Khan
Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.
Pickthall
Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!
Yusuf Ali
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Shakir
Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.
Dr. Ghali
Thereafter We created the sperm-drop into a clot, (Or: embryo) then We created the clot into a chewed up morsel, then We created the chewed up morsel into bones, then We dressed the bones (in) flesh; thereafter We brought him into being as another creation. So Supremely Blessed be Allah, The Fairest of creators.

3. He said: There is actually some evidence that Muhammad was experiencing simple or complex partial seizures, as part of some form of epilepsy, leading to audiovisual hallucinations. You may think this sounds ridiculous, but partial seizures don’t look anything like the violent shaking grand mal seizures often shown on TV shows; in fact simple partial seizures leave consciousness completely intact while complex partial seizures simply cause a transient loss of consciousness that often doesn’t affect muscle tone (ie. a person experiencing a complex partial seizure may lose consciousness but is still able to remain standing, or even continue walking), so others may not even notice that someone is having a partial seizure.
Simple partial seizure
Complex partial seizure

You should also know that there have been many other false prophets throughout history, all claiming to have received messages from God or angels. These aren't bad or power hungry people; they are often very spiritual and are willing to face significant persecution to further their cause. Two examples that come to mind are Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya sect, and Rashad Khalifa, founder of United Submitters International. Neither of these men were crazy, and both were branded heretics or apostates by other Muslims - effectively making them punishable by the death penalty - and Khalifa was brutally murdered at the age of 54. Should we take the fact that these men were willing to face persecution as evidence in support of the authenticity of their claims?

4. He said: About the expanding universe, let's look at the verse that Muslims refer to regarding this 'miracle':


"Wassamaa banaynahabi-aydin wa-inna lamoosiAAoon"

Sahih International
"And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."

Muhsin Khan
"With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof."

Pickthall
"We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)."

Yusuf Ali
"With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace."

Shakir
"And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample."

Dr. Ghali
"And the heaven (is also a sign). We have built it with (Our) Hands (i.e., Capability) and surely We are indeed extending (it) wide."

Quran 51:47

The word in question here is 'moosiAAoon', which means 'the ones who make things vast/expand' (it is a noun, not a verb). The verse does not specify that the universe is still expanding, only that Allah is the one who makes things vast/expand, including the 'heavens'. Only recently have some people such as Dr. Ghali translated 'moosiAAoon' as a verb in the present tense, meaning 'extending/expanding it'. This is incorrect, as can be seen by someone with knowledge of Arabic grammar, and as evidenced by the fact that this is a departure from the majority of previous translations.

Now, even if we suspend our disbelief, ignore all other translations, and assume that Dr. Ghali is correct, what is so miraculous about such a vague description? What 'heaven' is the Quran referring to? The word used is 'samaa', which also means 'sky'. What does 'god' mean when he speaks of how he 'built' the sky? Also, what is so grand about such a description? Anyone could look up at the sky and come to the conclusion, for whatever reason, that the 'heavens' are expanding. Add a few details and maybe then you have something worth bragging about.


Do you not see how all these 'miracles' are just vague descriptions, and are often simply invented by people who deliberately mistranslate the Quran to insert their own 'miracles' into the text? Now if God wanted to include clear scientific miracles, why didn't he include something concrete and completely unknowable at the time? Why didn't he say something like:

'verily we have created all things with energy equal to it's mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied unto itself; and God is the creator of all things'

There, completely clear and not in the least bit vague; and had it been in the Quran, not one person would be able to refute the fact that this is completely correct and completely unknowable at the time.