Please comment:Embryology in quran !

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
D

Doc4patient

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

embryo_around_4th_week1.jpg


Human embryo around the 4th week.

‘


Alaqah is a stage in the development of the embryo. The Qur'an mentions that human development passes through a number of distinct stages. These stages are descriptive of the embryo's external appearance and have been assigned the names: nutfah (a drop), alaqah (clinging form), mudghah (chewed-like form), izam (skeleton, bones), lahm (muscles, flesh) and nash'ah (growth, development, initiation). The terminology used to describe human development in the Qur'an is characterized by descriptiveness, accuracy and ease of comprehension. Until recently these statements were not fully appreciated, since they referred to details in human development which were scientifically unknown in earlier times
.
​
This essay by Elias Kareem focuses on the term ‘alaqah with an emphasis on the outer appearance of the embryo and its internal structures. This essay is an updated version of an unpublished essay from September 2000. Please return to this page for future updates.​
Click to expand...
Dear colleagues, please comment on this paper from "scientific/medical" perspective.

Thanks everyone :)!
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Doc4patient said:
Dear colleagues, please comment on this paper from "scientific/medical" perspective.

Thanks everyone :)!
Click to expand...

Read the whole Koran before some believer's re-interpretation. Embryos are not blood clots and the sun doesn't set in a pool of congealed mud. Believers interpret what they read as they want to fit their beliefs, then try to feed it to others. Of course, preaching to the converted is much easier.

Watch this: First comes denial, then anger. I somehow don't think we'll make it to bargaining, depression, or acceptance.

Let the games begin! I will not make personal attacks or call people names, regardless of how they will flame me but I will challenge beliefs, interpretations and assumptions.

Read this book: http://prophetofdoom.net/pdf/Prophet_of_Doom_Entire_Book.pdf

It is much more truthful than the one mentioned above. Then, read the Koran and the Hadith without the blinders of belief.

Attack me all you want, but read "The Prophet of Doom" first. Otherwise, you will be in blissful ignorance and will have no fulcrum to apply your lever.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
loveoforganic said:
:whoa:
Click to expand...

I'm surprised no one used the "popcorn eating" emoticon yet. But then again, nothing really happened. I am waiting, maybe in vain, for the arguments to start. I love proselytising threads, but only when they bring participation. We all know the true subject here is not embryology.
 
I hope the OP is reading the book.
 
Doc4patient said:
I hope anyone give me his feedback on this paper.
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

Again, it is just a bunch of loose observations written by a believer who wants to make a claim that the book he believes in has any credibility. Stretching the truth and giving misguided interpretations will not make a falllacy true. The embryo at no time is a blood clot. People have been looking at embryos of various species, including human, for a long, long time. The Koran does not make similes for those things. It states them as facts. And those "facts" are not found in poetic portions of the book, so they are mentioned authoritatively to be believed literally.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a well written article. I don't think the embryo as a leech analogy is a great one, but I see the parallels the author was trying to make. The blood clot analogy does not fit at all, in my mind. Weeks 0-2 have no similarity to a blood clot, the blood islands in the yolk sac are part of the embryo, not the whole thing. Blood islands by themselves are just ecchymosises, from a medical stand-point.
 
tiedyeddog said:
I think it's a well written article. I don't think the embryo as a leech analogy is a great one, but I see the parallels the author was trying to make.
Click to expand...

Parallels can be taken out of anything. Look at the apocalyptical Christian sects over the last two millenia. Armaggedon is due any day. A parallel, an allegory, or an analogy is not a fact. The facts mentioned here are not opened to interpretation.
 
I didn't really see the point of the paper... is it just trying to establish that the quran isnt in direct contradiciton of medical science?
 
Kadava Reviva said:
Parallels can be taken out of anything. Look at the apocalyptical Christian sects over the last two millenia. Armaggedon is due any day.
Click to expand...

And your point is what? I didn't read any segment in the article stating that this interpretation should supersede current medical teaching. I don't think the article was trying to say the Qu'ran explains embryology at the molecular level.

Sounds like a believer is trying to give others some science to explain what they already believe. Nothing wrong with that, and I say that as a catholic. We do similar things.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
to be fair, however - (was gunna start with devil's advocate... but figured that was too pun-heavy)

attempts to reconcile religion and science through interpretation could potentially go a long ways toward lessening the hostility between the two. 1 positive effect would be a reduction in atheists assuming scientific advancement is contradictory to theism, and maybe we could close that ridiculous creationist natural history museum that states that dinosaur bones were placed on earth 6k years ago to test our faith.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
I didn't really see the point of the paper... is it just trying to establish that the quran isnt in direct contradiciton of medical science?
Click to expand...

It's trying to just tie together science and the teachings of the Qu'ran. The point, I think, is to help people of their faith think about their teachings in a new way.
 
tiedyeddog said:
I think it's a well written article. I don't think the embryo as a leech analogy is a great one, but I see the parallels the author was trying to make. The blood clot analogy does not fit at all, in my mind. Weeks 0-2 have no similarity to a blood clot, the blood islands in the yolk sac are part of the embryo, not the whole thing. Blood islands by themselves are just ecchymosises, from a medical stand-point.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much :)

Anyone else want to say anything?

@ Spammers: You are more knowlegable that Prof. Keith Moore, I know.
 
Doc4patient said:
Dear colleagues
This is PDF Document (6.9 MB)
http://www.iera.org.uk/downloads/Embryology_in_the_Quran_v1.1.pdf
about Embryology in the Quran (chapter 27). I hope if there is someone here from anatomy department can ascertain its veracity- together with the prevous paper

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Ok, this paper is absolute garbage. It is obviously trying to prove that the Qu'rans interpretation is scientifically accurate, it even says so on page 16 when comparing the Qu'ran to Aristolte's theory. There is no essence of clay in sperm or eggs, no scholarly research into linguistics is going to change that. You shouldn't be taking this stuff literally.... Check this out from the Qu'ran:
Sura 36:40
"it is not permitted to the sun to catch up the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day, each just swims along in its own orbit"

We know this isn't scientifically true, right?! What about in the arctic?! Solar eclipses?!
serenade said:
I'm not usually anti-theistic.... but here's a related video

[YOUTUBE] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJanZqJlu4s&context=C3203050ADOEgsToPDskL_LKBkDLnkaaYGpMWHAzCk [/YOUTUBE]

also the Quran says that fresh water and salt water do not mix. I think that is sufficient evidence to ignore any 'science' in that book.
Click to expand...

lol, the anand and hamza dudes got crushed in that interview. I like the total misquote of Moore and Persaud. I want to reiterate that my thoughts on both of those papers are that they fly if it's strictly loose interpretations applying science to the Qu'ran, and not meant to be "scientific research". That is not research, that's one dudes opinion, much like if someone did the same thing with the bible. Neither of those papers "prove" jack, they are just some thoughts from my perspective. It's about faith.... you shouldn't be trying to use science to prove your religion, it doesn't work like that. Since religion cannot be tested by scientific methods the two are mutually exclusive.

P.S. I never thought people would be arguing over a book that caused me so much pain... those diagrams suck, for real.
 
Last edited:
tiedyeddog said:
Ok, this paper is absolute garbage.

Check this out from the Qu'ran:
Sura 36:40
"it is not permitted to the sun to catch up the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day, each just swims along in its own orbit"

We know this isn't scientifically true, right?! What about in the arctic?! Solar eclipses?!

It's about faith.... you shouldn't be trying to use science to prove your religion, it doesn't work like that. Since religion cannot be tested by scientific methods the two are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

So true. There should be a separation of church(or mosque, temple w/e) and state. As well as a separation of religion and science (thanks GWB for the useless stem cell research ban).
 
tiedyeddog said:
It's trying to just tie together science and the teachings of the Qu'ran. The point, I think, is to help people of their faith think about their teachings in a new way.
Click to expand...

I am a Christian, yet I don't think that religious texts were ever meant to be scientific texts. I don't understand why people consistently try to pull science out of whichever text. (somehow this justifies one's faith?)
 
tiedyeddog said:
Ok, this paper is absolute garbage. It is obviously trying to prove that the Qu'rans interpretation is scientifically accurate, it even says so on page 16 when comparing the Qu'ran to Aristolte's theory. There is no essence of clay in sperm or eggs, no scholarly research into linguistics is going to change that. You shouldn't be taking this stuff literally.... Check this out from the Qu'ran:
Sura 36:40
"it is not permitted to the sun to catch up the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day, each just swims along in its own orbit"

We know this isn't scientifically true, right?! What about in the arctic?! Solar eclipses?! l
Click to expand...
Where is the errors u found ?
Nothing in the paper about what u r saying !
Irrelevant Q: The translated meaning of the ayah u quoted http://quran.com/36/40, HOW it's scientifically not true ? Do u really have doubt about sun & moon having orbits !
 
Last edited:
Shnurek said:
So true. There should be a separation of church(or mosque, temple w/e) and state. As well as a separation of religion and science (thanks GWB for the useless stem cell research ban).
Click to expand...
http://scienceislam.com/

But i am talking about this 2 papers. This is NOT a religious thread. It's a thread about if someone think this 2 papers aren't scientifically valid !
 
There is a reason most great scientists and doctors are not religious. As the great Dr. Carl Sagan said, all technology can be used for both good and evil. It is up to us to guide the destiny of the human race for good or for evil. If I had a religion it would probably be saganism.
 
Shnurek said:
There is a reason most great scientists and doctors are not religious. As the great Dr. Carl Sagan said, all technology can be used for both good and evil. It is up to us to guide the destiny of the human race for good or for evil. If I had a religion it would probably be saganism.
Click to expand...

Are you saying so because you think that's true or you have some sort of evidence saying so? Are you using the word "religious" very loosely here? Most people in the world aren't quote-on-quote religious, as in they follow the tenets very closely. I know many outstanding physicians who have a religion, whether they are good followers or not I have no idea and you probably don't either. If you do though, please send it my way! I'd be interested. :)
 
JP2740 said:
Are you saying so because you think that's true or you have some sort of evidence saying so?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is out of the realm of hard science and it is hard to gather evidence of this. So yes, I was being anecdotal.
 
Doc4patient said:
http://scienceislam.com/

But i am talking about this 2 papers. This is NOT a religious thread. It's a thread about if someone think this 2 papers aren't scientifically valid !
Click to expand...

If you're honestly looking to see if this is scientifically valid, it really isn't. The references to clotted blood are wrong, and critically, it seems to claim that "skeleton and bones" are formed before "flesh and muscle". This really shows that whatever was writen in the Koran was guesswork, that the author of your paper is trying to say is truth. If I were an ancient writer, I'd also guess that our skeletons are made first, and then our flesh and muscles made around that. Unfortunately, that's just not true.

I'm sorry OP, but all I'm seeing is that the paper is trying to say that guesswork (the Koran) is "truth". It just sounds exactly what someone who had some decent theories of what's going on in the womb might guess, but not what modern science has actually shown.

I know it'd be nice to think that the writer of the Koran was truly enlightened and somehow figured all of this out, or was given this knowledge, but this is evidence against that belief.
 
Doc4patient said:
Where is the errors u found ?
Nothing in the paper about what u r saying !
Irrelevant Q: The translated meaning of the ayah u quoted http://quran.com/36/40, HOW it's scientifically not true ? Do u really have doubt about sun & moon having orbits !
Click to expand...

Couple of points:
1. you can never test if a creator placed this clay extract into a womb. Not testable = not science. Science is proven using the scientific method. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
2. There are no similarities between clay and zygotes. None. Trying to say clay can also be called "extract" doesn't help.
3. What the commenter below says.
4. The clot description is totally wrong.

TenderRender said:
If you're honestly looking to see if this is scientifically valid, it really isn't. The references to clotted blood are wrong, and critically, it seems to claim that "skeleton and bones" are formed before "flesh and muscle". This really shows that whatever was writen in the Koran was guesswork, that the author of your paper is trying to say is truth. If I were an ancient writer, I'd also guess that our skeletons are made first, and then our flesh and muscles made around that. Unfortunately, that's just not true.

I'm sorry OP, but all I'm seeing is that the paper is trying to say that guesswork (the Koran) is "truth". It just sounds exactly what someone who had some decent theories of what's going on in the womb might guess, but not what modern science has actually shown.

I know it'd be nice to think that the writer of the Koran was truly enlightened and somehow figured all of this out, or was given this knowledge, but this is evidence against that belief.
Click to expand...
exactly my thoughts.

One last thing about the sun and moon thing.

definition of "outstrip":
1. Move faster than and overtake (someone else).
2. Exceed: "supply far outstripped demand".

In some regions of the world, there is polar night. The moon is displayed more than the sun, outstripping it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night
Also, The moon can block the sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

Thus, Sura 36:40 "it is not permitted to the sun to catch up the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day, each just swims along in its own orbit" Is totally wrong. The sun does catch up to the moon and sometimes night is longer than day. Also, it makes it seem like the moon and sun orbit the earth. We know this is not true but was widely accepted when the Qu'ran was written.
 
Last edited:
Something is to be stated as a fact. I was born muslim. I , thanks to God, memorize the whole quran by heart, when i grow up and came to the internet world, I was -really- shocked when i found a site stating it found errors in quran. I checked the hundreds of the "errors". If i was an outsider, i may have been deceived, but actually, as a person who understand arabic I realized this person who wrote that either
1- Ignorant
2- Liar
There is NO third possibility !
So my q can never be if quran right or wrong- It's Imposible to be wrong
It's about this paper.

N.B: If another outsider has read any so called error. and want to know more about the subject, use this
http://bemuslims.weebly.com/muslims-search-engine.html
If there is a doubt regarding any thing u can send me a message to explain because this thread as i said isnot about quran, it's about the paper.
TenderRender said:
If you're honestly looking to see if this is scientifically valid, it really isn't. The references to clotted blood are wrong
Click to expand...
The word is Alaqa, its different meanings are discucussed in the first paper.

and critically, it seems to claim that "skeleton and bones" are formed before "flesh and muscle".
This really shows that whatever was writen in the Koran was guesswork, that the author of your paper is trying to say is truth. If I were an ancient writer, I'd also guess that our skeletons are made first, and then our flesh and muscles made around that. Unfortunately, that's just not true.
Click to expand...
Quran has never said that , its your claim. It seems u didn't read the related part.
 
Doc4patient said:
Something is to be stated as a fact. I was born muslim. I , thanks to God, memorize the whole quran by heart, when i grow up and came to the internet world, I was -really- shocked when i found a site stating it found errors in quran. I checked the hundreds of the "errors". If i was an outsider, i may have been deceived, but actually, as a person who understand arabic I realized this person who wrote that either
1- Ignorant
2- Liar
There is NO third possibility !
So my q can never be if quran right or wrong- It's Imposible to be wrong
It's about this paper.

N.B: If another outsider has read any so called error. and want to know more about the subject, use this
http://bemuslims.weebly.com/muslims-search-engine.html
If there is a doubt regarding any thing u can send me a message to explain because this thread as i said isnot about quran, it's about the paper.
The word is Alaqa, its different meanings are discucussed in the first paper.

Quran has never said that , its your claim. It seems u didn't read the related part.
Click to expand...

1331-look-at-him-look-at-him-and-laugh-60s-spiderman.jpg


.
 
Doc4patient said:
If i was an outsider, i may have been deceived, but actually, as a person who understand arabic I realized this person who wrote that either
1- Ignorant
2- Liar
There is NO third possibility !
So my q can never be if quran right or wrong- It's Imposible to be wrong
It's about this paper.
Click to expand...

I wish I could use this logic on my physio exam tomorrow. What? My answer is wrong? /smacks professor. YOU'RE A LIAR!
 
tiedyeddog said:
Couple of points:
1. you can never test if a creator placed this clay extract into a womb. Not testable = not science. Science is proven using the scientific method. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
2. There are no similarities between clay and zygotes. None. Trying to say clay can also be called "extract" doesn't help.
3. What the commenter below says.
4. The clot description is totally wrong.
Click to expand...
I realized you have nothing to prove.
1- Oh my God !
2- Read page 11 and 12 again. You have a problem in understanding.
N.B: Read this may help: http://quran.com/32/7-8
Just a note: It seems i know about u regarding either embryology and quran.
 
There's no point in arguing with the delusional, they will rationalize away all dissonance with reckless abandon. So don't waste your time trying to convince him otherwise, just let him remain ignorant, it reduces future competition.
 
Doc4patient said:
I realized you have nothing to prove.
1- Oh my God !
2- Read page 11 and 12 again. You have a problem in understanding.
N.B: Read this may help: http://quran.com/32/7-8
Just a note: It seems i know about u regarding either embryology and quran.
Click to expand...

Edit: No, The Qu'ran is just wrong. And I am smarter than you. That's science.
 
Last edited:
Doc4patient said:
I realized you have nothing to prove.
1- Oh my God !
2- Read page 11 and 12 again. You have a problem in understanding.
N.B: Read this may help: http://quran.com/32/7-8
Just a note: It seems i know about u regarding either embryology and quran.
Click to expand...

You don't have to legitimize your religion with us (we don't care). You can believe whatever you want to believe...along with your pro female genital mutilation agenda: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=818787
 
Doc4patient said:
Something is to be stated as a fact. I was born muslim. I , thanks to God, memorize the whole quran by heart, when i grow up and came to the internet world, I was -really- shocked when i found a site stating it found errors in quran. I checked the hundreds of the "errors". If i was an outsider, i may have been deceived, but actually, as a person who understand arabic I realized this person who wrote that either
1- Ignorant
2- Liar
There is NO third possibility !
So my q can never be if quran right or wrong- It's Imposible to be wrong
It's about this paper.
Click to expand...

Remember kids, never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
 
Doc4patient said:
Quran has never said that , its your claim. It seems u didn't read the related part.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the Quran, I'm talking about the paper. Please, this isn't a religious thread. As you've said many times, this isn't about the Quran, this is about the paper. This also isn't my claim. From the paper, end of the first page:

"then We made out of that chewed-like form, izam (skeleton, bones), then We clothed the bones with lahm (muscles, flesh)"

Your paper clearly states this progression from skeleton/bones to muscles/flesh. You asked if this paper was correct or not, I'm telling you this part is not. I assume your paper correctly quotes the Quaran; either way, its either the paper or the source its quoting that is wrong.

And please stop going off topic, this is about the paper, remember, not the Quaran.
 
Doc4patient said:
http://scienceislam.com/
Click to expand...

from your link:


The Quran has set a precedent 14 centuries before modern science, explaining in simple and direct terms about his "creation" of animals and their various functions and then assures us it is He who has the Power over everything. This statement includes the fact Allah can if He Wills, reshape and alter his creation as He Chooses. There is clear evidence within many species of alteration and changes within the species. However, there is no concrete evidence to support a cross over in development from one type to another, such as reptiles turning into birds or alligators turning into cows. The statements made in Quran are quite clear when Allah tells us of having brought forth other life forms and then destroying or replacing them with others. This again, does not imply evolution in the sense of one type becoming or changing into another.

There is no DNA research pointing to a connection between apes and humans as was supposed by the scientists and those who had financed them over the years. In fact, the barnyard pig is closer to humans in many aspects, than a monkey or a gorilla. Consider the fact, doctors use the skin from pigs to replace needed tissue on burn victims and the famous movie actor, John Wayne had a pig's heart valve installed in his own heart in a 1977 operation to save his life. It worked, too - until his smoking caused him to die of cancer.
 
mleick said:
from your link:


The Quran has set a precedent 14 centuries before modern science, explaining in simple and direct terms about his "creation" of animals and their various functions and then assures us it is He who has the Power over everything. This statement includes the fact Allah can if He Wills, reshape and alter his creation as He Chooses. There is clear evidence within many species of alteration and changes within the species. However, there is no concrete evidence to support a cross over in development from one type to another, such as reptiles turning into birds or alligators turning into cows. The statements made in Quran are quite clear when Allah tells us of having brought forth other life forms and then destroying or replacing them with others. This again, does not imply evolution in the sense of one type becoming or changing into another.

There is no DNA research pointing to a connection between apes and humans as was supposed by the scientists and those who had financed them over the years. In fact, the barnyard pig is closer to humans in many aspects, than a monkey or a gorilla. Consider the fact, doctors use the skin from pigs to replace needed tissue on burn victims and the famous movie actor, John Wayne had a pig's heart valve installed in his own heart in a 1977 operation to save his life. It worked, too - until his smoking caused him to die of cancer.
Click to expand...


bc the stuff was not in quotes.... I can't tell what your point is exactly. I am hoping your point was that the quran DOES make statements that modern science has shown to be inaccurate.
 
What PZ myers said.

"essence of clay". Tzortzis happily announces that clay contains "Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Calcium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sulfur, Chlorine, Sodium, Magnesium and Silicon; all of which are required for human functioning and development". These are irrelevant factlets. Clay is a fine-grained hydrous aluminum phyllosilicate; carbon, which is the element to consider in organic chemistry, is present as a contaminant, but the primary elements are aluminum and silicon. It's nothing like the composition of the human body. This part of Tzortzis case is simply a lie.
Click to expand...

"drop of fluid". Tzortzis tells us that the Arabic word here is "nutfah", which has a number of meanings, but he likes the interpretation that it implies mingled fluids. Then he babbles on about oocytes and spermatazoa and secretions of the oviduct, none of which are mentioned in the Quran and are completely irrelevant. Bottom line: Arabs noticed long ago that sex involves a mingling of fluids. Brilliant. I think most of us could figure that out without divine inspiration.

He spends a fair amount of time pointing out that both Aristotle and Galen had a male-centric view of procreation, where the man's contribution was the dynamic agent and the woman was a passive vessel. They were wrong. In order to rescue the Quran, though, Tzortzis has to bring in Ibn Qayyim, a 13th century Islamic scholar, who pointed out that women have to provide a significant contribution to inheritance, since their traits are also present in the children. This, again, is an obvious and observable property, and the Greeks also argued over the relative contributions of male and female. There is nothing in the Quran that is beyond casual observation or non-existent in the scholarly works of the time.
Click to expand...

"in a safe place". Tzortzis quotes modern embryologists and throws around the terms endometrium, syntrophoblast, implantation, uterine mucosa, proteolytic enzymes, etc., etc., etc. I ask you, is any of that in the quoted verse from the Quran? No. Total bull**** from the apologists. That the embryo grows in a "safe place" — the woman's belly — is another obvious property.
Click to expand...

Not gonna quote the whole thing but, yeah, this 'revelation' is equal parts nonsense and observations that a 3 year old could have made.

The fetus lives in a safe place? Who knew?! I thought it lived in a lion's den on top of a volcano...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread
Top