Just to steer us back to the original Topic Islam & Science I mentioned there was a problem and I will certainly be happy to give reason why I see this problem: The following explains why Mohammed was saying nothing new. Please note: This does not mean Mohammed was wrong - it just proves that Divine Revelation was NOT NEEDED for Mohammed to write those statements. In an effort to show the scientific accuracy of the Koran, Muslim's are quick to bring up the claim of embryology revealed in stunning accuracy, before man discovered for himself. Muslims love to tell the story of how professor Keith L. Moore, the former anatomist at the University of Toronto, was impressed with the Koran’s embryological information. However many Muslim are completely unaware that all of the information in the Qur'an about embryology had already been revealed many different times, centuries before hand. Furthermore, some of the information is scientifically inaccurate. But don't take my word for it, early Muslim doctors, like Ibn-Qayyim, were first to blow the whistle when they saw the Koranic material, mirrored a Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. In 1983 Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concluded, "The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account....There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages" (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54) In other words when it comes to embryology the Qur'an merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered 450 years earlier. Samuel ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish physician, and one of many with an interest in embryology . The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as golem (formless, rolled-up thing); shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac); 'ubbar (something carried); v'alad (child); v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed). (J. Needham (Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959) A History of Embryology, p. 77) J. Needham spent almost 60 pages in his book "A history of embryology", discussing ancient Greek, Indian and Egyptian embryology, than in less than 1 page he dismisses the entire Arabic tradition by concluding that "Arabic science ... was not of great help to embryology". After listing some of the verses in the Qur'an about embryology he dismisses them as "a seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda" . (J. Needham (Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959) A History of Embryology, p. 82), in other words a mixture of Greek and ancient Indian teachings. And what about professor Keith L. Moore, once at the University of Toronto, who Muslims love to quote as a scientist who saw the light of the Koran? If you buy Moore’s latest sixth edition University textbook called "The developing human", he actually directs his readers to read an essay by Basim Musallam, who we just quoted. who shows that the Koran merely echoes what Greek doctor "Galen" wrote 450 years earlier. It seems Dr. Moore is not as impressed today. (B. Musallam, The human embryo in Arabic scientific and religious thought, in, G. R. Dunstan (ed.) (University of Exeter Press, 1990) The human embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and European traditions, pp. 32-46) An extraordinary passage from the writings of the medieval philosopher Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya shows how heavily the later Arabic writers depended upon the Greek doctors; in one continuous discourse (Ibn Qayyin (Damascus, 1971) Tuhfat: Tuhfat al mawdud bi ahkam al-mawlud, pp. 254-291) the words of Hippocrates explain the Qur'an and Hadith, and the latter are used to explain Hippocrates: "Here is someone writing a medical account who includes Hippocrates, the Qur'an and Hadith (bold italics), commentaries on them (italics) and his own thoughts (normal type) in one and the same paragraph. Of course the intelligentsia of Muhammed's time would have been familiar with both Greek and Indian medicine: "Hippocrates said ... 'some membranes are formed at the beginning, others after the second month, and others in the third month ...' That is why God says, 'He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, by one formation after another in three darknesses'. Since each of these membranes has its own darkness, when God mentioned the stages of creation and transformation from one state to another, He also mentioned the darknesses of the membranes. Most commentators explain: 'it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta' ... Hippocrates said, 'The ears are opened, and the eyes, which are filled with a clear liquid.' The Prophet used to say, 'I worship Him Who made my face and formed it, and opened my hearing and eyesight' etc. etc"" (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 56). The Koran says in16:4 "He has created man from a sperm-drop", but this was understood about 2000 years before the Koran, for the Bible says, "Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother." (Genesis 38:9) That man was created from dust is recorded in Gen 2. Scientific errors related to embryology are contained in the Koran. In 86:6-7 the Koran says, "He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believe semen originates from all the fluid in the body, starting from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally the testicles into the penis. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317)
Some suggest that Mohammed is challenging that a Book as eloquent as The Koran OR THE OLD TESTAMENT... In anycase, this is a challenge that makes very little sense from any objective angle. Who is judging this competition?? What are the standards - Beautiful Sweet words, even spacing, the 'Sound' it makes to the Ears? Most English Speakers would say Spanish is a hundred times more 'Beautiful' to hear than Arabic - Are they 'Wrong'? In anycase, here is a Sura that some Arabic speakers consider just as 'Eloguent' as anything in the Koran?
"Who is judging this competition??" Words Apart, your ask could look really weird Maybe you should replace the words "this competition" by " you or that thread you have been so active in. Do not let yourself and Jonny2mad have public debate, you are exposing what so many weep about (I mean the kind of occupation you have on such thread, with such kind of will, males me weep).
Why are you avoiding Muhammeds Challenge Spiritforces? Mohammed institutes a competition (not me or anyone else). He challenges anyone to write a more eloquent scripture than he (and Allah) has written. Now my question is a simple one - Who will decide what is more eloquent? Dont be sad, dont weep for me or anyone else.. simply try and answer this question? Who is judging the 'Eloquent Scripture' competition that your Mohammed has started?
This alleged surah which you posted his a funny, a vain attempt to resemble a quranic surah, Im not suprised that the author didn´t add a translation of english( Ive seen some of the others so called "surahs" in his page and they all seme to have no meaning carried in them) to this surah. You know, even if he made it sound "quite" ok, it´s totally without meaning. As one who knows more then half of the quran by heart I must say: Ha ha, I dont seem to know if I should laugh at this poor attempt or be angry...
Yes, I want to laugh to, Cabdiraz. Here is the obvious problem - Mohammeds Challenge is completely Subjective. Realistically many people might decide these Surah's are more eloquent. You will certainly say that they are 'not very eloquent'. Non-Arab speaking listeners/readers would maybe make no distinction and possibly find either Surah 'Ugly' or 'Unattractive' to the ear. When translated into English, The Koran sounds perfectly ordinary (if we are refering to 'Eloquence') So Mohammeds Allah only proves his reality by being eloquent in one language? If I were you Cab... I would outwardly laugh at the new Surah .. but inside you should probably be angry. Very Angry. But dont be angry.. just accept and judge according to the truth you see before you. Ask God to show you more. Maybe he is telling you something loud and clear and for your benefit when a Surah is shown as eloquent as Mohammeds Surahs?
In some way u r right. But u should know that Muhammad (PBUH) used a helper to write down the Holy Quran. In this way u r right. But in another way u r totally wrong. Allah (swrt) send the messages to the Blessed Prophet and he used to tell his helper to write in the Holy Quran.
