ANSWERED: Please help the kafirs say things about quran and i want answer

[Karim_sunni]

For aghie i will response the the sites you gave me:

One of the Kaffirs said

Dr Moore states "First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm". That was the point of the video, so let's focus on that claim. As I've shown you, that is not the accepted view of modern embryology, in fact the development of muscle tissue is finished before the bones are fully formed in the foetus.. Even according to professor Moore's textbook, bone and muscle develop simultaneously out of the same mesodermal tissue from days 20 to 23! (Keith L. Moore (Saunders, 1982), The Developing Human, 3rd edition with Islamic Additions, pp. 56, 63, chapters 15 and 16).
http://***************.org.uk/Respo...ruth/chap04.htm

Salaam aghie, The same sort of lies are also quote in other wordings at different chapters ah that kuffar site, see for example below

The final stage of human development which the Qur'an describes is the creation of bones, and the clothing of bones with flesh. However, according to modern embryologists including Prof. Moore, the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle ("flesh") develops [17]. Thus bone and muscles begin to develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially. Whereas however most of the muscle tissue that we have is laid down before birth, bones continue to develop and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into one's teenage years. So far from bones being clothed with flesh, it would be more accurate if the Qur'an had said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only scientifically completely false, but is directly copied from the ancient Greek doctor Galen, as we shall see shortly.

Answer:

Dr. Keith Moore is among the foremost authorities on embryological development in the world. He says the following about the development of bones and muscle:

‘The continuation of Surah 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models, and then muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm...when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic conncetive tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiaeted. It later develops into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones’

[b]Now, either Dr Moore is an unusually brave man for staking his tremendous respect in the scientific community for having authored the standard textbook on embryology in the world ‘The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology’ which has been published in eight languages and has recently seen the publication of it’s sixth edition, by lying through his teeth and deliberately distorting scientific knowledge to make it fit in with the Quran- or otherwise he is telling the truth, and the formation of bones before muscles does indeed occur. Interestingly, the critic has decided not to quote directly from ‘modern embryologists including Prof. Moore’ but rather referred to the book knowing most of his readers won’t have the time to check whether Dr Moore has really said what he is telling us he said, and whether it means what he would like it to mean! I would advise Dr.Lactantius to refer to relevant quotations when arguing his points, rather than to devoting his time and energy on the inclusion of pretty diagrams and busts of this and that Greek physician or this or that ancient hospital! Perhaps the good doctor was hoping we would be encapsulated by the textbook- like professionalism of the presentation of the article, and ignore the lacklustre and unscholarly nature if the points raised in it. Oh well, better luck next time!
On this point, Dr.Bucaille writes:

‘The embryo is initially a small mass. At a certain stage in its development, it appears to the naked eye like chewed flesh. The bone structure develops inside this mass in what is known as mesenchyma. The bones that are formed are covered with muscle, the word ‘lahm’ (intact flesh-bracket mine) applies to them’

I cannot claim to be to be an expert on embryology, but it does appear very obvious to me that either the interpretation of the Quranic description that the critic is providing in incorrect or else the science behind his criticism is faulty. In either case, I do not believe that the Quran has made any scientific mistake whatsoever! Dr.Omar Abdul Rehman sheds some light on this issue:

The above Ayah explicitly states that the bones are formed first and that this is followed by the formation of flesh or muscles which take their position around the bones (clothing the bones). In fact the primordia or precursors of both the bone and muscle (in the form of myotomes and selertomes(are present together with those of bones and other tissues and organs in a collective primitive structure are formed during the first 40 days and is found in the Mudghah. However, in this stage the primordia of muscle have not yet differentiated into definitive bones and muscles. As they do not have the shapes or forms of bones or muscles, the whole embryo at this stage does not have a human appearance.
During the seventh week- the skeleton begins to spread throughout the body and the bones take their familiar shapes. The embryo then starts to acquire the human appearance. At the end of the seventh week and during the eighth week the muscles take their positions around the bone forms, "definitive muscles of trunk, limbs and head are well represented and foetus is capable of some movement".


Source:

http://www.answering-christianity.co...embryology.htm




Further proof that the site you gave (http://***************.org.uk/Respo...ruth/chap04.htm) is lying, can we see by their following quote

The kuffar say:

Let us see what Prof. Moore has to say.
"It is cited in the Qur'an, the Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are produced from a mixture of secretions from the male and the female."
No, the Qur'an ONLY mentions the male's semen:
Woe to man! What has made him reject Allah? From what stuff has He created him? From a sperm-drop: He has created him, and then molded him in due proportion. (Qur'an 80:17-19)
This is scientifically incorrect. We are formed when a sperm and egg unite! Why does male semen get all of the credit in the Qur'an? After all, we can see semen, but we cannot see the ovum. Since the Qur'an tells us about semen (or rather the "sperm drop"), which we can see, but says nothing about the egg, we would conclude that this is a simple human observation - certainly not a scientific miracle! In any event, an ovum is NOT a secretion!

Islam Answer:

I agree absolutely that, the Quranic description of procreation from a drop of fluid is something that is clearly observable to human beings and has been known to mankind throughout history. However that does not mean to say, that the Quran has not provided any new information on embryology or referred to any facts that would have been beyond human observation. As for the meaning of the word ‘nutfah’, the word simply means ‘drop’ or ‘small dribbling quantity of liquid’. In verses where ejaculation is clearly referred to i.e. ‘nutfah gushing forth’ it clearly does refer to sperm. However that does not exclude the possibility that it might have another meaning in verses where ejaculation is not discussed. In 76:2 the creation of man from a ‘mixed drop’ is referred to. This allows Muslims to interpret the word as ‘zygote’ in those other verses, since that would fit the description of a ‘mixed drop’ forming as it does, from the mixing of the male and female gamates. Nutfah does not have one meaning in the Quran; the correct meaning can only be reached after studying the other characteristics of any particular verse. ‘Germinal fluid’ is not the correct translation, nor the one proposed by Dr Moore, he states:

The zygote forms by the mixture of the sperm and the ovum (‘the mixed drop’)

The critic is correct in saying that the Quran does not refer to individual sperm, but he ignores a verse of great significance:

"And we created his progeny from the extract of a lowly fluid" (32:8)

The word ‘sulala’ translated here as ‘extract’ is used in Arabic to refer to ‘a part of something, the issue of something else’. That is to say, that the author of the Quran demonstrates knowledge that only a part of sperm (a lowly fluid due to it’s area of origin) is required for the creation of the human being. Also the word ‘nutfah’ itself indicates a very small quantity of liquid. This is not at all something that is observable to humans, nor is it mentioned in any ancient source (including Greek!) other than the Quran. Yet modern science has informed us that only one of the spermatozoa from the millions present in the ‘drop’ is required for fertilisation. I.e. only the ‘sulala’ of the sperm-drop is required for the creation of man, exactly as the Quran had stated over a fourteen centuries ago. This is one, among the many logically irrefutable facts of science in the Quran.


Proof from hadith

He then said: I have come to ask you about the child. He (the Holy Prophet) said: The reproductive substance of man is white and that of woman (i. e. ovum central portion) yellow, and when they have sexual intercourse and the male's substance (chromosomes and genes) prevails upon the female's substance (chromosomes and genes) , it is the male child that is created by Allah's Decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed by the Decree of Allah. The Jew said: What you have said is true; verily you are an Apostle. He then returned and went away. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0614)"

Brother these links completely expose their lies, PLEASE STOP DISCUSSION WITH THE KUFFAR !
AND DON”T VISIT THEIR SITE WITH LIES, THEY JUST CONFUSE YOU WIT SMART LIES, IT’S REALLY DANGEROUS, CAUSE THEY USE SMART TECHNIQUES AND LIES


As far as the proof that the quran is correct with embryologie, visit:

http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_o...an_p1_07.php#8 ( a great site)


http://www.answering-christianity.co...embryology.htm (must read)


http://www.answering-christianity.co...evelopment.htm (also a great reply)

http://www.answering-christianity.co...ermination.htm (must read)

http://www.answering-christianity.co...on_of_milk.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.co...st_feeding.htm




Muslim Response and Conclusion


[b]Cheap and vulgar personal attacks on Prof. Moore do nothing at all do nothing at all to enhance, and rather a lot to detract the intellectual quality of the critic’s points. If Dr Moore was really so unconvinced about the scientific facts described by the Quran he would have never agreed for these texts to be available in the referred libraries-even after November 1996![/b] In any case even if Dr Moore has been hesitant to share his views with the scientific establishment it’s not hard to understand why, since he knows full well that he is very likely to be treated with contempt for even referring to religion in a scientific context in that community. This would have been the case if Dr Moore were trying to prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible or any other text, and just the same as that of the Quran. Also, simply because Dr Moore has ‘directed’ readers to works that disagree with his views does not mean he supports everything those sources say! The critic has taken a huge leap of logic in making the assumption that referring to something means you agree with everything that it says. As such Moore’s references to the work of Needham etc do not prove anything at all. In conclusion, the Quran contains numerous statements relating to modern embryology that do not in any way resemble the observations of Greek and Indian physicians, not does it contain any statements that are scientifically inaccurate. The miraculous descriptions of the embryo at a time before microscopes were invented still remain an inexplicable miracle, which can only be explained if we accept the ultimate reality of existence- that the Quran is the word of God. The critic has made many logical errors in his research and has failed in disproving the scientific accuracy of the Holy Quran and in linking it to human sources. The main flaws in his article can be summarised as follows:

His entire argument rests on his personal interpretations on of the meanings of key words such as alaqa, nutfah etc. If one uses alternative translations that are equally valid in the Arabic language his entire critique falls apart completely.

If there is similarity between sources it does not always indicate that borrowing has occurred. The critic makes this flawed assumption. This is not relevant to the Quran; in any case since there is little similarity -if there is any at all- between its embryological descriptions and those of others.
He does not provide full references, and uses his half-baked references to give an incorrect or incomplete idea of the sources he is using.

Most of his criticisms lack logic, integrity and even sincerity.
Thus, it is clear that the critic’s attempt has fallen flat on its face. Despite a very elaborate effort, his article has proven to be lacking substance in numerous instances. The Quran has once again emerged victorious and its enemies have once again been proven wrong:

And Say: Truth has come and falsehood vanished, indeed falsehood is ever bound to vanish (Quran 17:81)



I've also checked those other two sites you referred to, i've readed some parts of it, and off course they use the same lying tactic, they say things without proof and ' The Christian Missionary Charge Of Plagiarism ' they blame the Quran of Plagiarism


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...ek.html#Charge

Further i'm careless that osama bin laden supported the book of professor Moore, who cares, Bin laden perhaps is interested also in science, let him be.


Really if the QUran had scientific errors, there would be books written and many sites about it, only anti-islamic sites aghi always show up with some articles full of lies about the quran and science

the last site you gave me 'geocities/freethougtofmecca' is an ahteist site, they use the same false claims as the christions do i see, i've checked that page, they also making false claims like the QUran borrows from Greeks in history for science etc, don't read those sites aghie, there ALl lies and trash, and please stoppppppppppppppp now , dont read Kuffar sites, i've showed you the truth, and don't discuss with those kuffar, just stay in contact with islamic people and read books about islam



my sources


SOURCES:

1. ‘The Bible, The Quran and Science’ (Seglers 1976) by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.

2. ‘A Scientists Interpretation of References to Embryology In The Quran’ by Prof.Keith Moore, available at Error! Bookmark not defined..

3. ‘Does the Qur’an Plagiarise Ancient Greek Embryology’ by Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman available Error! Bookmark not defined..

4. ‘What was man created from?’ and ‘Does semen emanate from between the back and the ribs?’ by Moiz Amjad, available at Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. Responses to Error! Bookmark not defined. by Abdullah Ibn Adam and Mohd.Elfie at Error! Bookmark not defined.

6. ‘Alleged Scientific errors in the Quran’ by Ahmed A.Abdullah at Error! Bookmark not defined.