Science in the Quran or fiction in the Quran

[ush]

Embryology in the Qur'an


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


In the early 1980s, Prof. Keith Moore, formerly an anatomist at the University of Toronto, Canada

produced a special edition of his embryology textbook, the standard version of which has been widely

used in medical schools around the world. Apparently when he first read what the Qur'an had to say

about the development of the human embryo he was "astonished by the accuracy of the statements that

were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established"[1]. Much has

subsequently been written by Muslims in an attempt to demonstrate that the Qur'an, which is claimed

to be God's ultimate revelation contains statements about how humans develop inside the womb which

could not possibly have been known at the time that it was revealed to Muhammed. Indeed, a recent

book confirms the extent to which this has been happening:

Dubai's medical school recently introduced a compulsory course for all students: Islamic Medicine.

The program seeks to link all modern medicine, including genetics, to the Koran. Such courses have

their genesis in orthodox Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have spent considerable sums on medical

conferences at which leading Western scientists are asked to confirm that Koranic verses, which seem

vague to the layperson, are in fact specific predictors of modern science. Videos and pamphlets from

the conferences have been circulated throughout the Muslim world by the Saudis [2].

If it is indeed true that certain verses accurately foretell modern scientific ideas which could not

be tested in the seventh century, then it implies that the Qur'an must have had a divine author. It

is the intention of this paper to examine what exactly was known about the human embryo at the time

of Muhammed in order to see whether any of the theories expressed in the Qur'an were true or indeed

well known before this time.



The origins of life according to the Qur'an
There are at least 60 verses which deal explicitly with human reproduction and development, but these

are scattered throughout the Qur'an and many of the themes are repeated over and over again, as is

common to much of the book. A useful place to begin would be the material out of which we are

created. One would expect the Qur'an to be unambiguous about such an elementary matter, but the

verses listed show just how much uncertainty there appears to be in our origins. Note that except

where indicated the translation used is the translation of Yusuf Ali (Saudi Revised Edition).

Could it be from earth?

11:61 It is He Who hath produced you from the earth

Or dry clay (Arabic Salsaal)?

15:26,28,33 We created man from sounding clay
17:61 ... Thou didst create from clay
32:7 He began the creation of man from clay

Did we come from nothing?

19:67 We created him before out of nothing

No, we did not!

52:35 Were they created of nothing?

Did we come from mud?

23:12 We created man from a product of wet earth (loam) (Pickthall)
23:12 Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay)
38:71 I am about to create a mortal out of mire

Or water?

25:54 It is He Who has created man from water (see also 21:30, 24:45)

Could it be dust?

3:59 He created (Jesus) out of dust
30:20 He created you from dust
35:11 Allah did create you from dust ....

Perhaps we arose from the dead or from one person?

30:19 It is He who brings out the living from the dead
39:6 He created you from a single Person (see also 4:1)

To resolve the considerable ambiguity about what exactly we are made of, it has been suggested that

all of the above are complimentary accounts, in the same way that a loaf of bread could be said to be

made of dough, flour, carbohydrate or molecules. This evades the issue however. The metaphorical

description of God making man out of the dust of the earth is ancient and predates the Qur'an by

thousands of years; it is found in the Bible in Genesis 2:7. If this was literal it would be in

direct scientific conflict with evolutionists who maintain that life was created out of the oceans,

but Muslims maintain that we were created both from the oceans and from earth.



The drop of fluid or semen
In a number of places we are informed that man is created from a drop of fluid (semen, seed or

sperm):

16:4 He created man from a drop of fluid (Pickthall)
16:4 He has created man from a sperm-drop
32:8 He made his seed from a quintessence of despised fluid
35:11 ...then from a little fluid (Pickthall)

53:46 (he created) from a drop of seed when it is poured forth (Pickthall)
53:46 From a sperm-drop when lodged (in its place)
56:58 Have ye seen that which ye emit (Pickthall)
56:58 Do you then see? The (human Seed) that ye emit
75:37 Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth (Pickthall)
75:37 Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
76:2 We create man from a drop of thickened fluid (Pickthall)
76:2 We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm
80:19 From a sperm-drop He hath created him
86:6-7 He is created from a drop emitted - proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

Could any of this have been known to sixth-century Muslims at the time of Muhammed? Surely that

procreation involves the emission of a drop of fluid has been well known from the earliest days of

civilization. In Genesis 38:9 the Bible tells us that Onan "spilled his semen on the ground to keep

from producing offspring for his brother". The verses which describe the origin of life as a drop of

emitted fluid are therefore no more than a direct observation as to what is released during the act

of sexual intercourse. We hardly need to rely upon divine inspiration to inform us of this fact.

In the verses listed above nutfah is used when describing the fluid which gushes out during sexual

intercourse and clearly this can only refer to semen. However, Prof. Moore is keen to translate

nutfah in sura 76:2 as "mingled fluid" [3] and explains that this Arabic term refers to the male and

female fluids which contain the gametes (male sperm and female egg). While it is true that the

ancient Greeks would not have been able to see individual sperm or eggs, these only being visible

through the microscope, the Qur'an emphatically does not mention sperm or eggs; it simply says

nutfah. This can reasonably be translated semen, or at a push, germinal fluid - which was a term used

as early as Hippocrates [4] who spoke of male and female reproductive fluids (but obviously could not

have been aware of the cells contained in the fluids). If Moore wishes to translate nutfah as

germinal fluid, he inadvertently reinforces that the Qur'an is borrowing this term from the Greeks.

Sura 86:6 is interesting since it claims that during the act of sexual intercourse before which a man

is created, the "gushing fluid" or semen issues from between the loins and ribs. Semen is apparently

coming out of the area around the kidneys and back, which is a real problem for we know that the

testicles are the sites of sperm production (although the ancient Greeks were not so convinced.

Aristotle for example amusingly believed that they functioned as weights to keep the seminal passages

open during sexual intercourse [5]).

The explanation offered by Muslims [6] for the strange statement in this sura relates to the fact

that the testicles originally develop from tissue in the area of the kidneys, when the man from whom

sperm is gushing forth was himself an embryo. In other words, in a very convoluted fashion the sperm

originates from the area between the loins and ribs because that is where the testicles which are

producing the sperm originally form.

There is a rather less complicated explanation for this verse however. The Greek physician

Hippocrates and his followers taught in the fifth century BC that semen comes from all the fluid in

the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via

the testicles into the penis [7]. Clearly according to this view sperm originates from the region of

the kidneys, and although there is obviously no substance to this teaching today, it was well-known

in Muhammed's day, and shows how the Qur'an could contain such an erroneous statement.

A bust of Hippocrates

Of course it could be argued against all this that the reference to coming from the loins is merely a

metaphorical figure of speech. We can find examples of this in sura 7:172 "when thy Lord drew forth

from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants" or 4:23 "prohibited to you (for

marriage) are ... wives of your sons proceeding from your loins". But if so then it has to be

accepted that this is a common usage for Middle Eastern cultures [8]; in the Torah God promises Jacob

that "kings shall come out of your loins (chalatzecha)" (Gen 35:11). Later in the Bible a promise is

made to David's "son that shall come forth out of your loins" (I Kings 8:19) and in the New Testament

Peter refers to the same person as "one from the fruit of his loins" (Greek osphus). However, these

are examples of a metaphorical use of the word "loins" (Arabic sulb). Sura 86:6 is clearly talking

about the physical act of intercourse; gushing fluid and ribs (tar a'ib) are both very physical and

in the context of this verse they clearly refer to the site of semen production as wrongly taught by

Hippocrates. So we have found the first example of an incorrect ancient Greek idea re-emerging in the

Qur'an.



Embryological development in the Qur'an
Sura 22:5 says "We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then

from a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed ... and We cause whom We will to rest in

the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes." Sura 23:13-14 repeats this idea

by saying God "placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then We

made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqa); then out of that clot We made a (foetus) lump

(mugdah), then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out

of it another creature." 75:38 also says man becomes an alaqa and 96:2 says we came from alaq.

Moore however goes further and incredibly he claims in a later edition of his textbook that the

Qur'an "states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its

beginning" [9]. This really would be amazing if it was true. Actually the Qur'an says nothing of the

sort.

We have to ask what the precise meaning of these words is in order to know whether the verses contain

important scientific statements that have only recently been discovered, as Moore and others claim.

In comparison with the meaning of nutfah, it is rather more difficult to understand what alaqa means.

Many different suggestions have been made: clot (Pickthall, Maulana Muhammed Ali, Muhammed Zafrulla

Khan, Hamidullah), small lump of blood (Kasimirski), leech-like clot (Yusuf Ali), and "leech,

suspended thing or blood clot" (Moore, op. cit.). Moore suggests that the appearance of an embryo of

24 days' gestation resembles a leech, though this is rather debatable. In side view the developing

umbilicus (genetically part of the embryo) is almost as big as the "leech-shaped" part into which a

human is formed and the developing placenta (which also consists of tissue that is genetically from

the embryo) is much larger than the embryo. It is claimed that the ancient sages would not have been

able to see an embryo about 3mm long and describe it as leech-like, but Aristotle correctly described

the function of the umbilical cord, by which the embryo "clings" to the uterus wall in the fourth

century B.C. [10]. It is impossible to believe the suggestion of Bachir Torki [11] that alaq in 96:2

means links, referring to the gene code of DNA, as this makes a nonsense out of other verses where

the word is used, such as 22:5 ("we made you from a drop of sperm, then from that a gene code, then

from that a little lump of flesh....").

A 24/25 day embryo at the alaqa stage, approx. 2 mm long

To establish a definition for alaqa we might take a look at the Qamus al-Muheet, one of the most

important Arabic dictionaries ever compiled, by Muhammed Ibn-Yaqub al-Firuzabadi (AD 1329-1415) [12].

He says that alaqa has the same meaning as a clot of blood. In 96:2 the word alaq is used, which is

both a collective plural and a verbal noun. The latter form conveys the sense of man being created

from clinging material or possibly clay, which is consistent with the creation of Adam in the Bible

from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and some of the other Qur'anic verses listed above.

However, the translators of the Qur'an have all translated alaq as "clot" as opposed to "clinging" in

96:2 because the use of the singular alaqa elsewhere forces them to use "clot" here too, despite the

attraction for the meaning "clinging" or leech-like which is perhaps more scientifically accurate.

Another source of information are the early Muslim commentators. Ibn Kathir wrote that when the drop

of water (nutfah) settled in the womb it stayed there for forty days and then became a red clot

(alaqa), staying there for another forty days before turning to mugdah, a piece of flesh without

shape or form. Finally it began to take on a shape and form. Both ar-Razi and as-Suyuti [13] claimed

that the dust referred both to Adam's creation and to the man's discharge; nutfah referred to the

water from the male and alaqa was a solidified piece of blood clot. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (died

about AD 1350) wrote that "the foetus is a living or dead babe animal which is sometimes found in the

womb of a slaughtered animal, and its blood is congested" [14]. Another great physician, Ibn al-Quff

wrote some 13 out of 60 chapters from "On Health Preservation" about embryology and pregnancy. He

included a further stage of development one week after conception, the foam stage or raghwah. Up to

16 days the embryo was alaqa (clot) and after 27 to 30 days the clot turns into a lump of meat,

mugdah [15]. These dates must be regarded as very approximate but are nevertheless a major

improvement on what one of the most reliable Hadiths says about foetal development, as we shall see

later.

A 26/27 day embryo, said to resemble a mouthful of flesh, but only 3 mm long

Moving onto the next stage of development, Razi described the mugdah as being a little piece of meat

the size of what a man can chew. The idea that mugdah means chewed flesh is a later, and less

accurate translation of the word, but the idea has persisted because it is claimed that the somites

from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks

implanted in plastercine. It must be said that not only is this an imaginative interpretation

however, but besides, Moore cannot claim that the mugdah should occur at 26-27 days since at that

point the embryo is a mere 4mm long. One would have to wait around 8 weeks before the embryo was the

size of chewed flesh (if a mouthful is defined as being 20-30mm wide), which is what mugdah really

means. And in the following Hadith, transmitted by Bukhari and Muslim, Muhammed claims that the

mugdah stage occurs between days 80 and 120. Yet by this time the foetus is considerably larger than

a lump of flesh the size of which a man can chew, and looks very human-like and totally unlike meat.

`Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported that Allah's Messenger ... said: "Verily your creation is on this

wise. The constituents of one of you are collected for forty days in his mother's womb in the form of

blood [sperm?], after which it becomes a clot of blood in another period of forty days. Then it

becomes a lump of flesh and forty days later Allah sends his angel to it ..."
Thus according to Muhammed, the drop of sperm remains in the womb for 40 days, then becomes a clot

for a further 40 days, then a lump of flesh for 40 days [16]. It has been shown that human sperm can

only survive inside a woman's reproductive tract for a maximum of 7 days; at 80 days the embryo has

very definitely acquired the shape of a human being and looks nothing like either a clot or a

mouthful of flesh.

An eleven week foetus, real size 7.5 cm, but according to Muhammed still at the alaqa stage, a clot

of blood

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.



Some possible explanations
Aristotle believed that humans originated from the action of male semen upon female menstrual blood

[18] which leaves us with something of a dilemma. If we translate alaqa as "clot" it means that the

Qur'an is completely wrong about human development, since there is absolutely no stage during which

the embryo consists of a clot. The only situation in which an embryo might appear like a clot is

during a miscarriage, in which case the clotted blood which is seen to emerge (much of which comes

from the mother incidentally) is solidified and by definition no longer alive. So if ever an embryo

appeared to look like a clot it would never develop any further into a human; it would be a dead mass

of bloody miscarrying flesh. Since Muhammed had several wives it is entirely likely that he would be

very familiar with miscarriages. Alternatively it could be hinting at Aristotle's incorrect belief

that the embryo originated from the combination of male sperm and female menstrual blood.

Moore avoids this problem by translating alaqa as a leech, since he is well aware that there is no

stage in development when the embryo is a clot. As we have seen however, this is only to justify his

interpretation that an embryo of 24-25 days is a clinging leech-like alaqa and one at 26-27 days is a

mugdah with teeth-marks. A further problem with this view is that if the alaqa is translated "leech"

because it appears to be clinging to the uterus wall, does this mean that the foetus only clings to

the uterus wall for a few days? Obviously it remains attached for the entire nine months of

gestation.

There are other problems with Moore's interpretation too. Not least is the claim of Muhammed that the

dates of the alaqa and mugdah were 40-80 days and 80-120 days of gestation respectively, rather than

24-25 days and 26-27 days. It also begs the question as to why, if the Qur'an really is giving us a

highly precise scientific account of human development, it only mentions four stages, nutfah, alaqa,

mugdah, plus the clothing of bones with flesh. Between fertilization and day 28 for example Moore

lists no fewer than 13 stages in his textbook. Why does the Qur'an say nothing about any of these

other stages? The reality is that the more ambiguous the meaning of the Arabic terms, and the more

meanings that can be attached to certain words, the less convincingly can they be said to be highly

precise scientific terms.

However, the most convincing explanation, and the most worrying for those who maintain that the

Qur'an is God's eternal Word, untampered with and free from any human interference, is that the

Qur'an is merely repeating the teaching of the enormously influential Greek physician Galen. If this

is the case, not only is the Qur'an wrong, but it also plagiarises ancient Greek literature!


The account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an, ar-Razi and al-Quff is

identical to that taught by Galen, writing in around AD 150 in Pergamum (Bergama in modern Turkey).

Galen taught that the embryo developed in four stages as detailed below.


English translation of his greek work:

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 (Arabic 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 (Arabic 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 (Arabic mugdah). 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

[19].



Qur'an: Sura 23:13-14


English translation:

Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual

discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot

(Alaqa, a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh

(Mugdah), 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!

The first stage, geniture, corresponds to [nutfah], the drop of semen; the second stage, a bloody

vascularised foetus with unshaped brain, liver and heart ("when it has been filled with blood")

corresponds to [alaqa], the blood clot; the third stage "has the form of flesh" and corresponds to

[mugdah], the morsel of chewed flesh. The fourth and final stage, puer, was when all the organs were

well formed, joints were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move [20]. If the reader is in any

doubt about the clear link being described here between the Galenic and the Qur'anic stages, it may

be pointed out that it was early Muslim doctors, including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the

similarity. Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of

Cambridge concludes

"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" [21].



Stages of development - a modern idea?
It has been said that the idea of the embryo developing through stages is a modern one, and that the

Qur'an is anticipating modern embryology by depicting differing stages. However many ancient writers

besides Galen taught that humans developed in different stages. For example in the Jewish Talmud we

learn that the embryo has six stages of development. Samuel ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish

physician, and one of many with an interest in embryology [22]. 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).
Yet with the benefit of modern science we now know that the formation of a human being is a seamless

continuation from conception to birth, hence the reason why there is so much contemporary confusion

about abortion and embryo research. For if we develop as a continuous process it is impossible to

draw hard-and-fast boundaries about when life starts. This makes a nonsense of the Qur'anic verse

which says (71:14) "When He created you by (divers) stages".



More examples of borrowing from ancient Greek writers
If we look at what the ancient Greeks taught we can clearly see that all the other references to

embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith can also be traced directly back to them. For example there is a

Hadith in which Muhammed is questioned about why a group of red camels have a grey camel among them,

and it is due to a hidden trait. But Aristotle noticed that babies who were born that looked unlike

either of their parents would often take on the appearance of their grandparents [23], so that the

characteristic skipped a generation, being what we now know as recessive. He also tells us of a woman

from Elis who took a black husband and although their daughter was not black, their daughter's

daughter was black, demonstrating a gene which skipped a generation in exactly the same way as

Muhammed described [24].

Another Hadith says "If a male's fluid prevails upon the female's substance, the child will be a male

by Allah's decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by

the male, a female child is formed"[25]. Surely this is not referring to dominant and recessive genes

at all, as certain Muslims have claimed [26], but is simply repeating the incorrect belief of

Hippocrates that both men and women produce both male and female sperm. The sex of the resulting

child is determined by which sperm overwhelms the other in strength or quantity:

"... both partners alike contain both male and female sperm (the male being stronger than the female

must originate from a stronger sperm). Here is a further point: if (a) both partners produce a

stronger sperm then a male is the result, whereas if (b) they produce a weak form, then a female is

the result. But if (c) one partner produces one kind of sperm, and the other another then the

resultant sex is determined by whichever sperm prevails in quantity. For suppose that the weak sperm

is much greater in quantity than the stronger sperm: then the stronger sperm is overwhelmed and,

being mixed with weak, results in a female. If on the contrary the strong sperm is greater in

quantity than the weak, and the weak is overwhelmed, it results in a male" [27].

Earlier in the Hadith, Muhammed says that the reproductive substance of men is white and that of

women is yellow. This sounds very much like the content, white and yellow, that is found inside

developing chick-eggs, and which Aristotle was known to dissect [28].

Later in the same Hadith an angel is apparently sent by Allah to shape the embryo and ask what sex it

is going to be. Notwithstanding that sex is actually determined at the moment of conception according

to whether the fertilised egg has two X chromosomes (female) or an X and Y chromosome (male), and

that there is some ambiguity about the age of the embryo when the angel appears (Hudhaifa b. Usaid

reported that Muhammed said 40 or perhaps 50 days, not 42, and Abu Tufail maintains that Muhammed

said to Hudhaifa b. Usaid that sperm resided in the womb for 40 days), Hippocrates taught that it

took 30 days for the male genitals to form and 42 for the female embryo [29]. No wonder the angel has

to wait for forty-two days before it learns the child's sex. In reality, prior to 7 weeks of

gestation the ovaries and testes appear identical and the external genitalia only start to diverge

around 9 weeks.

Sura 39:6 says that God made us in stages in threefold darkness. There have been many interpretations

of this verse, including that of as-Suyuti who said that there were three membranes surrounding the

foetus, one to carry nutrients to it, another to absorb its urine, and the third to absorb other

waste products. Elsewhere it has been suggested that they are the abdominal wall, the uterine wall

and the amniotic sac in which the foetus sits. This is entirely observable to the naked eye, as

Hippocrates described dissecting pregnant dogs to find puppies sitting in the amniotic sac inside the

uterus [30]. A rather macabre practice of Queen Cleopatra was to rip open the wombs of her pregnant

slave-girls in order to see their foetuses, according both to Rabbinic traditions and Plinius [31].

Furthermore, the Romans introduced the custom of opening the womb of a pregnant woman if she died

before she had delivered her baby; the woman and her baby would be buried side-by-side, thus giving

rise to the term "Caesarean section".

It is said by Muslims that sura 80:20 describes how easy Allah has made it for delivery of the

infant, but this contradicts sura 46:15 ("his mother beareth him with reluctance and bringeth him

forth with reluctance"). In fact 80:19 is talking about man's origins from a drop of sperm, and 80:21

about his death and burial, so it is entirely logical that 80:20 refers not to the process of

parturition (giving birth) but to the whole of man's life being made easy for him by God. In the

context this makes a lot more sense, does not contradict 46:15 and does not go against the weight of

obstetrical evidence that makes giving birth one of the most dangerous things a woman can do in her

life. (In Mozambique, childbirth is the seventh most common cause of death in women, and worldwide a

woman dies in labour every 53 seconds.) The Biblical teaching that women give birth with much pain

(Genesis 3:16) is far more realistic.

Sura 46:15 also says, "The duration of pregnancy and separation [weaning] is thirty months" and sura

31:14 informs us that "his separation is at the end of two years". This implies that the duration of

a normal pregnancy is six months. Nowadays with advanced neonatal facilities it is just possible for

a small proportion of babies born at 24 weeks' gestation to survive, albeit with severe disabilities

in many cases. In Muhammed's day no babies could have survived at so premature an age, and the Qur'an

is wildly inaccurate about the duration of a normal pregnancy.

Sura 33:4 says that Allah has not put two hearts into any man. Yet duplication of the heart has been

admitted, albeit with reluctance by Geoffrey-Saint-Hilaire and celebrated anatomists including

Littre, Meckel, Colomb, Panum, Behr, Paullini, Rhodius, Winslow and Zacutus Lusitanus [32].

In other places the Qur'an contains commands which have been claimed to be fantastically advanced and

sensible, when in fact they were known and followed by far more ancient civilizations. In sura 2:222,

Allah tells Muhammed that menstruation is an illness and men must not have sexual intercourse with

their wives until they are cleansed from their periods. Yet 2000 years earlier Moses received the

command not to have sexual intercourse during a woman's period (Torah: Leviticus 18:19) but this was

very definitely not for health reasons, but for religious, ceremonial reasons. Having sex during

one's period is hardly likely to cause male infertility, endometriosis and fallopian tube damage, as

has been claimed by some Muslims with no scientific evidence, even if it might be unpleasant for the

couple. But perhaps more importantly menstruation is not an illness; indeed the shedding of the

endometrial layer of the uterus helps to prevent uterine cancer. Progesterone has to be included in

hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) in post-menopausal women to induce an artificial menstruation every

month to prevent a build-up of endometrium which could become cancerous!



But how could Muhammed have known these things?
It is one thing to find the Qur'an repeating the same embryological ideas as those described

originally by the ancient Greeks, but is there any way in which we can be sure that the material was

familiar to the Arabs of Muhammed's day? Given that so much of what the Qur'an says is based upon

Galen's beliefs, it is particularly significant that some 26 books of his work were translated into

Syriac as early as the sixth century AD by Sergius of Resh' Aina (Ra's al-Ain). Sergius was a

Christian priest who studied medicine in Alexandria and worked in Mesopotania, dying in

Constantinople in about AD 532 [33]. He was one of a number of Nestorian (Syriac) Christians who

translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac; others included Bishop Gregorius, al-Rahawy,

al-Taybuti, the Patriarch Theodorus and al-Sabakti [34].

The Nestorians experienced persecution from the mainstream church and fled to Persia, where they

brought their completed translations of the Greek doctors' works and founded many schools of

learning. The most famous of these by far was the great medical school of Jundishapur in what is now

south-east Iran, founded in AD 555 by the Persian King Chosroes the Great (also known as Anusharwan

or Nushirvan), whose long reign lasted from AD 531 to around 579.

The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be sought in late Sasanian medicine,

especially in the School of Jundishapur rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of

Islam Jundishapur was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time, combining

the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan atmosphere which prepared the

ground for Islamic medicine. The combining of different schools of medicine foreshadowed the

synthesis that was to be achieved in later Islamic medicine [35].

Arab medicine, to deal with only one side of this question, borrowed from many sources. The biggest

debt was to the Greeks ... The medicine of Jundi Shapur was also mainly Greek. There must have been

Syriac translations in the library of the hospital there long before the Arabs came to Persia ...

According to Ibn Abi Usaybi'a the first to translate Greek works into Syriac was Sergius of

Ra's-al-`Ayn [sic], who translated both medical and philosophical works. It was probably he who

worked for Chosroes the Great and it was his translations in all probability which were used in Jundi

Shapur [36].

According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia and al-Qifti [37], the most celebrated

early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary

of Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of

Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical

sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the

medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." [38]

He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes [39]. Later he became a

companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed

actually sought medical advice from him [40]. He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his

"teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [i.e., Muhammed] [41]. "Such medical knowledge as

Muhammed possessed, he may well have acquired from Haris bin Kalda [sic], an Arab, who is said to

have left the desert for a while and gone to Jundi Shapur to study medicine...On his return Haris

settled in Mecca and became the foremost physician of the Arabs of the desert. Whether he ever

embraced Islam is uncertain, but this did not prevent the Prophet from sending his sick friends to

consult him." [42]

Harith Ibn Kalada was unable to father any children, and it is said that he adopted Harith al-Nasar

(Nadr), who was apparently a cousin of Muhammed, and also a doctor by profession [43]. Interestingly

Nadr mocked Muhammed, saying that the stories in the Qur'an were far less entertaining and

instructive than the old Persian legends he had grown up with. Perhaps he recognised that the Qur'an

had human sources for some of its stories? As a result of this Muhammed became his sworn enemy, and

the Prophet put him to death following his capture in the Battle of Badr in 624 [39].

So we have just the link we need to show how "The translations (into Syriac) of Sergius Ras el Ain,

penetrated to Jandi-Shapur. During the first years of the 7th century [more likely the end of the

sixth century], Harith ben Kalada studied medicine there and Muhammad owed to Harith a part of his

medical knowledge. Thus, with the one as well as the other, we easily recognize the traces of Greek

(medicine)." [44] To summarise: Sergius died about the time that Chosroes the Great began his reign,

and may even have been employed by Chosroes to translate Galen from Greek into Syriac. Halfway

through his reign Chosroes founded Jundishapur, where Galen's manuscripts must surely have been kept

in translation. Towards the end of his reign he had an audience with Harith Ibn Kalada, who later

became associated with Muhammed.

We also know that according to Muslim traditions part of at least one verse in the Qur'an that

relates to the developing human came originally from human lips. While Muhammed was dictating verse

23:14 to `Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, the latter got carried away by the beauty of what he heard about the

creation of man, and when Muhammed reached the words "another creature" his companion uttered the

exclamation "Blessed be God, the best of creators!" Muhammed accepted these words as though they were

the continuation of his revelation and told Ibn Abi Sarh to write them down, even though they were

quite clearly his companion's words, not Muhammed's or Allah's words [45].

This really does beg the question: since we know that at least one verse of the Qur'an contains the

added words of a mere human being, how can we possibly be sure that this did not happen anywhere else

in the Qur'an?

After the fall of Alexandria in AD 642 knowledge of Greek medicine spread even more rapidly

throughout the Arab world. In the 9th century Hunain Ibn Ishaq (AD 809-873) made perhaps the

definitive Arabic translation of Hippocrates and Galen [46], [47], [48] and al-Kindi wrote over

twenty medical treatises, including one specifically on Hippocrates.

Indeed, the writers of the Arabic medical literature acknowledge as their sources the major Greek and

Indian medical traditions. For example, one of the earliest Arabic compendiums of medicine is Ali

at-Tabari's "Paradise of Wisdom" [49], [50], written by a Christian convert to Islam in about 850 at

Samarra in Mesopotamia. In it he said that he was following the rules set down by Hippocrates and

Aristotle regarding how to write his treatise. It contains 360 chapters, and the fourth Discourse,

beginning at chapter 325 is entitled "From the Summaries of Indian Books". Chapter 330, from

Sushrata, "The Genesis of the Embryo and of the Members" claims that the embryo results from mixing

of sperm and menstrual blood (vis-a-vis Aristotle!) and describes various constituents of the embryo.

The medical historian Arthur Meyer summed up the whole of the Arabic embryological tradition when he

said that at-Tabari "depended largely upon Greek sources, which would seem to imply that he could

obtain little from the Arabs. Moreover, since Aristotelian and Galenical teaching survived side by

side for over a thousand years without a known Arabic counterpart, it is doubtful if the latter

existed" [51].

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

[52] the words of Hippocrates explain the Qur'an and Hadith, and the latter are used to explain

Hippocrates. For example:

"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" [53].

Here is someone writing a medical account who includes Hippocrates (bold type), 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.

Other embryologists were known but added nothing new to Galen, for example Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn

'Abdallah Ibn Sina (AD 980-1037) who wrote a Canon Medicinae. Clement of Alexandria included familiar

information and believed that the embryo was formed through the combination of semen and menstrual

blood. Lactantius of Nicomedia in AD 325 opened eggs at varying stages of development.

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




It seems that not even Prof. Moore is sufficiently convinced by the scientific "facts" in the Qur'an

to risk his reputation as a highly respected professor of anatomy in the medical establishment. The

Islamic edition of his textbook is not available even in the British Library or the US Library of

Congress, let alone other medical libraries in Western countries [54], presumably because he is aware

that not only do the Islamic contributions in it contradict known science, but they also contradict

what he has written in the standard version of his textbook. And ironically in the bibliography for

the first chapter, "A history of embryology", in both the standard and Islamic versions he refers to

Needham's important work on the history of embryology [55]. Needham however is unimpressed with the

Arabic claims of embryology and after writing almost 60 pages about ancient Greek, Indian and

Egyptian embryology he dismisses the entire Arabic tradition in less than one page, concluding that

"Arabic science, so justly famed for its successes in certain fields such as optics and astronomy,

was not of great help to embryology". After listing some of the verses in the Qur'an about embryology

he dismisses them as merely "a seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda" [56], in other

words a mixture of Greek and ancient Indian teachings. In the most recent (1998) edition of The

Developing Human, Moore also directs his readers to a book which contains another essay by Basim

Musallam, which again points out how similar the Qur'anic science of embryology was to that of Galen,

and how this close association was never questioned by the ancient Muslim scholars [57].

In conclusion then there is not a single statement contained in the Qur'an relating to modern

embryology that was not well known through direct observation by the ancient Greek and Indian

physicians many centuries before the Qur'an was written. Morever, much of what the Qur'an actually

does say about embryology is scientifically inaccurate. The ancient physicians' works were translated

into Syriac in the century preceeding Muhammed, and were therefore accessible to non-Greek speakers.

We know that one of the Companions of the Prophet was a doctor who trained at the very same medical

school that the Greek translations were kept and taught at. We even know that at least one of the

verses which describes embryology, sura 23:14 contains the words of another of Muhammed's companions.

We are forced to conclude that, far from proving the alleged divine credentials of the Qur'an, its

embryological statements actually provide further convincing evidence for its human origins.

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


References
Keith L. Moore (Saunders, 1982) The Developing Human, 3rd edition with Islamic Additions, p. viiic
J. Goodwin (Plume/Penguin, 1995) Price of Honor - Muslim Women Lift The Veil Of Silence On The

Islamic World, p. 145
Moore, op. cit., pp. 14a, 446f
Hippocratic Writings (Penguin Classics, 1983) p. 320
Aristotle (English trans. A. L. Peck, Heinemann, 1953) Generation of Animals, 717b
Famsy Conference, 8 July 1995
Hippocratic Writings, op. cit., pp. 317-8
W. Campbell (Middle East Resources, 1986) The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History and

Science, pp. 181-182
K. L. Moore, (Saunders, 1998) The Developing Human, 6th edition, p. 10
Aristotle, op. cit., 740a
B. Torki (1979) L'Islam Religion de la Science, p. 178
Al Munjid fil Lugha wala'aam (Dar Al Mashreq sarl, Lebanon, 1987)
As-Suyuti, trans. Elgood (Ta-Ha, 1994) As-Suyuti's Medicine of the Prophet, p. 184ff
Iman Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (English trans. Mahammad Al-Akili, Pearl, 1993) Natural Healing with the

Medicine of the Prophet, p. 284
Sami K. Hamarneh (Cairo, 1974), The Physician, Therapist and Surgeon Ibn al-Quff, p. 105
al-Bukhari, 8.593; Muslim Kitab an-Nikah, MCII
K. L. Moore, op. cit.(1998), pp. 56, 63, chapters 15 and 16
Aristotle, op. cit., 729a
Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans.

Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10 pp. 92-95, 101
A. W. Meyer (Stanford, 1939) The Rise of Embryology, p. 27
B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54
J. Needham (Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959) A History of Embryology, p. 77
Aristotle, op. cit., 767b, 769a
Aristotle, op. cit., 722a
Sahih Muslim CXXV (entitled "The characteristic of the male reproductive substance and the female

reproductive substance, and that the offspring is produced by the contribution of both")
Famsy Conference, op. cit.
Hippocrates, op. cit., pp. 320-1
J. Needham, op. cit., p. 53
Hippocrates, op. cit., p. 329
Hippocrates, op. cit., p. 345
B. Palmer (ed.) (Paternoster Press, 1986), Medicine and the Christian Mind, p. 19
G. M. Gould, W. L. Pyle (Julian Press, 1896) Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine p. 296
G. Sarton, (Williams and Wilkins, 1927) Introduction to the History of Science, vol I, pp. 423-424
A. A. Khairallah (American Press, Beirut, 1946) Outline of Arabic Contributions to Medicine, p. 24
H. Bailey (ed) (Cambridge University Press, 1975) Cambridge History of Iran, vol 4, p. 414
C. Elgood (Camrbidge University Press, 1951) A Medical History of Persia, p. 98
See for example Ibn Abi Usaybia, "Classes of Physicians" in 649 AH/1242AD; or al-Qifti, "History of

the Philosophers", 624AH/1227AD.
M. Z. Siddiqi (Calcutta University, 1959) Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature, p. 6-7
E. G. Browne (Cambridge University Press, 1962) Arabian Medicine, p. 11
M. J. L. Young et al., (Cambridge University Press, 1990) Cambridge History of Arabic Literature:

Religion, Learning and Science in the `Abbasid Period, p. 342
A. A. Khairallah, op. cit., p. 22
C. Elgood, op. cit., p. 66
C. Elgood, op. cit., p. 68 (Click here for further information about this)
L. LeClerc, Histoire de la M‚decine Arabe (Burt Franklin, New York; originally published in Paris,

1876) vol I, p. 123
Commentary of al-Baidawi, The Lights of Revelation (Dar al Geel), p. 184 (see on sura 6:93 for an

explanation of 23:14; click here for further information about this)
M. Meyerhof (1926) New light on Hunain Ibn Ishaq and his period, Isis, vol 8, pp. 685-724
H. Bailey, op. cit., p. 415
E. G. Browne, op. cit., p. 24-26
M. Meyerhof (1931) Ali at-Tabari's "Paradise of Wisdom", one of the oldest Arabic Compendiums of

Medicine, Isis, vol 16, pp. 6-54
Ali b. Rabban-al-Tabari, ed. M. Z. Siddiqi (Frankfurt am Main: Institute for the History of

Arabic-Islamic Science, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, 1996, originally published in 1928)

Firdausu'l-Hikmat, or Paradise of Wisdom, in vol 29, "Islamic Medicine"
A. W. Meyer, op. cit., p. 27
Ibn Qayyin (Damascus, 1971) Tuhfat: Tuhfat al mawdud bi ahkam al-mawlud, pp. 254-291
B. Musallam, op. cit., p. 56
This information was accurate as of November 1996. Obviously this "oversight" could be easily

rectified by Muslim efforts in reaction to this paper. But at the time of writing (the first edition

of this article), more than 14 years after the publication of the "edition with Islamic additions",

this special edition of the textbook was not listed in these library catalogues.
K. L. Moore, op. cit.(1998), p. 15
J. Needham, op. cit., p. 82
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
Copyright 1996, 1999 by Dr. Lactantius.

The author is a practising medical doctor in the United Kingdom and would be pleased to hear your

responses at Lactantius@hotmail.com. His namesake Lactantius was a celebrated apologist of the early

church.

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

[wahid]

very intresting, didn't know all this!!

[ush]

This is for the various Muslims on this board running for cover after Galen's ideas appear in the Quran.

Claudius Galen (c. AD129 - 216)


Galen's dissection of a pig

The Romans were excellent builders, soldiers and administrators, but they produced very few scientists, philosophers and doctors. Not surprisingly, therefore, the most famous doctor in the Roman Empire was a Greek, Claudius Galen.

Who was Galen?

Galen was a Greek doctor, who studied in Egypt and returned to Greece in 157 where he was appointed physician to the gladiators.

This was an ideal place to practise medicine, as there were many injuries. In AD 162 Galen went to Rome to become a doctor to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

How did he develop his ideas?

Galen was influenced by Hippocrates's idea of the Four Humours (the theory that the body was made up of four liquids, blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile). He developed this by introducing the idea of using opposites to treat illnesses. For example, if a patient had a fever this was believed to be the result of too much yellow bile in the body. As a way of treating this, Galen would suggest that the patient drink lots of cool liquid and eat cold foods.

Being a doctor at a gladiator school gave Galen the opportunity to develop his interest in anatomy and skills as a surgeon. Galen dissected pigs, goats and apes and applied what he had learnt to the human body.

For example he realised the importance of the spinal cord and how if it were cut there would be no movement from the part of the body below the cut.

Medical changes
Galen's ideas dominated medicine throughout the Middle Ages. He discovered that blood moved in the body, although he did not know that it circulated. Medical students studied his descriptions of operations, including a tracheotomy to cure breathing difficulties, long after his death.

To help with the diagnosis of patients, Galen took their pulse, a practice that is still used today. Galen's drawing of the heart was studied by doctors until the 16th century.


Ush

[Farhana_faz]

lalala lala lalala lala......... Oh i mean heres more scientific proof!.. Now your mission is to go and browse through your website and find faults for each one.. I am half way through reading your long pasted article. While we finish reading that, you can read these and dont u dare skip any bit .....~~>


THE FUSING AND SEPARATING OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH

How do modern scientists explain the formation of the universe? Dr. Maurice Bucaille explains it in his book, The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, as follows: "The basic process in the formation of the universe . . . Lay in the condensing of material in the primary nebula followed by its division into fragments that originally constituted galactic masses. The latter in their turn split up into stars that provided the subproduct of the process, i.e. the planets" (p. 149). Does the Qur'an say anything about this condensing and separation of the primary material to result in the formation of our universe? Let's have a look. The creator, Allah, says in his final
book: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were fused together, then we separated them . . ." (Qur'an 21:30).

Dr. Bucaille sees this as "the reference to a separation process of a primary single mass whose elements were initially fused together" (p.143). Thus the Qur'an gives an accurate account of the formation of the universe to call upon humankind to recognize the power of their creator.
This raises an interesting question: How could a man living in the seventh century invent these ideas which could not be confirmed until modern times? And how could he in so doing avoid the mythical and fanciful ideas prevalent in human history? Dr. Bucaille mentions some of these myths for contrast: "When, as in Japan, the image of the egg plus an expression of chaos is attached to the above with the idea of a seed inside an egg (as for all eggs), the imaginative addition makes the concept lose all semblance of seriousness. In other countries, the idea of a plant is associated with it; the plant grows and in so doing raises up the sky and separates the heavens from the earth. Here again, the imaginative quality of the added detail lends the myth its very distinctive character" (p. 152).

In contrast to those myths, the Qur'anic statements are "free from any of the whimsical details accompanying such beliefs; on the contrary, they are distinguished by the sober quality of the words in which they are made, and their agreement with scientific data" (p. 152).
It must be that the Qur'an is not the product of any human or humans, but a revelation from Allah. The Qur'an says: "The revelation of the scripture whereof there is no doubt is from the Lord of the Worlds" (Qur'an 32:2).

The Sun is a star that is roughly 4.5 billion years old, according to experts in astrophysics. It is possible to (distinguish a stage in its evolution, as one can for all the stars. At present, the Sun is at an early stage, characterized by the transformation of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms. Theoretically, this present stage should last another 5.5 billion years according to calculations that allow a total of 10 billion years for the duration of the primary stage in a star of this kind. It has already been shown, in the case of these other stars, that this stage gives way to a second period characterized by the completion of the transformation of hydrogen into helium, with the resulting expansion of its external layers and the cooling of the Sun. In the final stage, its light is greatly diminished and density considerably increased; this is to be observed in the type of star known as a 'white dwarf'.

The above dates are only of interest in as far as they give a rough estimate of the time factor involved, what is worth remembering and is really the main point of the above, is the notion of an evolution. Modern data allow us to predict that, in a few billion years, the conditions prevailing in the solar system will not be the same as they are today. Like other stars whose transformations have been recorded until they reached their final stage, it is possible to predict an end to the Sun. The second verse quoted above (sura 36, verse 38) referred to the Sun running its course towards a place of its own. Modern astronomy has been able to locate it exactly and has even given it a name, the Solar Apex: the solar system is indeed evolving in space towards a point situated in the Constellation of Hercules (alpha lyrae) whose exact location is firmly established; it is moving at a speed already ascertained at something in the region of 12 miles per second. All these astronomical data deserve to be mentioned in relation to the two verses from the Qur'an. Since it is possible to state that they appear to agree perfectly with modern scientific data.
TOP
-----------------------------------------

FROM A GASEOUS MASS TO THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
Concerning the creation of the heavens and the earth, the Qur'an says that prior to the creation, the Heaven was smoke. God then commanded it and the earth to come into being and they came willingly (see surah 41:1 1). How does that compare with modern scientific explanations? Let us hear a scientific explanation and then judge for ourselves.

The French scientist Dr. Maurice Bucaille in his book called The Bible, the Qur'an and Science explains: "At the earliest time it can provide us with, modern science has every reason to maintain that the universe was formed from a gaseous mass principally composed of hydrogen and a certain amount of helium that was slowly rotating" (p.147). (Big Bang Theory)

Didn't the Qur'an say that the Heaven was smoke before its creation? Dr. Bucaille explains the connection between his description and that of the Qur'an as follows: "Smoke is generally made up of a gaseous substratum, plus, in more or less stable suspension, fine particles that may belong to solid and even liquid states of matter at high or low temperature" (p. 143). He therefore sees no contradiction of the Quranic use of the Arabic word dukhan (translated smoke) and a modern interpretation of that word as a gaseous mass with fine particles when speaking of the formation of the universe.

We notice here two remarkable features of the Qur'an. The first feature is that it expresses scientific truths that will be verified many centuries later. The second feature is that the Qur'an expresses those truths using terms and expressions that would avoid confusing its first readers in the seventh century. The seventh century reader of the Qur'an can easily relate to the image of smoke, and the twentieth century scientist can easily interpret the word as a gaseous mass.
-----------------------------------------


***AVOIDING THE MISTAKES OF GENESIS

As we saw in chapter 2, both the Quran and modern science confirm that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously, having been separated from a primary nebula. It is important to understand that the Bible, the most famous record of the creation prior to the Quran gives a sequence for the creation of the heavens and the earth that is today found unacceptable from a scientific standpoint. If the Quran was the work of human beings it is difficult to imagine how they could have avoided the human errors so firmly fixed in the minds of people from the previous records.

In the Bible, in Genesis, chapter 1, we read that God created light which He called day, and separated it from the darkness which He called night (see v. 3). Today we know that the alternation of day and night is caused by the earth's movement in relation to the sun. But, according to Genesis, the sun was not created until the fourth day (see v. 16). So how could day and night alternate before that? A related problem is that vegetation is created on the third day (see vv. 11-12) whereas the sun which is necessary for sustaining vegetation does not appear until the fourth day. "What is totally untenable" says Dr. Bucaille, "is that a highly organized vegetable kingdom with reproduction by seed could have appeared before the existence of the sun" (The Bible, the Quran and Science, p. 42).

We have already seen that the Quran states, and modern science confirms, that the heavens and the earth were formed together. Dr. Bucaille explains as follows: "Earth and moon emanated, as we know, from their original star, the sun. To place the creation of the sun and moon after the creation of the earth is contrary to the most firmly established ideas on the formation of the elements of the solar system" (p. 42). By giving a sequence in which the sun and moon are created after the creation of the earth, the Genesis account proves erroneous. On the other hand, the Quran, by speaking of the simultaneous creation of the heavens and the earth, has judiciously avoided the errors of the Genesis account.
Could the Quran have been authored by a human? No! Dr. Bucaille asks: "How could a man living fourteen hundred years ago have made corrections to the existing description to such an extent that he eliminated scientifically inaccurate material and, on his own initiative, made statements that science has only in the present day been able to verify?" (p.151). (Dr. Bucaille was not born a muslim, but after reading the Quran and seeing how the Quran goes in such details into Science he converted to Islam.)
------------------------------------------------

SIX DAYS OF CREATION OR SIX PERIODS?

Today we know that the creation process can be measured in billions of years.
The priestly editors or the Bible could not have known this. In their eagerness to enjoin Sabbath observance on others they wrote that God rested on the very first Sabbath day after finishing up his work of creating the heavens and the earth.

The six days of creation in the book of Genesis, then, are clearly like six days of any seven-day week. The Priestly editors have made it clear that a day is meant a period from one sunset to another. Six days meant from Sunday to Friday. They believed that the reason the Sabbath day became holy is that God Himself had rested on that day. Thus the editors tell us: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done" (Genesis 2:2).
If that is not far enough, the editors took the idea that God rested farther still when they wrote as follows: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed" (The Holy Bible, King James Version, Exodus 31: 17).

The idea that God rests like humans and gets refreshed like humans had to be corrected by Jesus, on whom be peace, when, according to John, he declared that God never stops working, even on the Sabbath day (see John 5:16). God clarified the matter in His own words when he declared: "And verily we created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six days, and naught of weariness touched us" (Quran 50:38 see also v. 15).

The above quranic verses clearly refute the idea that God rested. God, according to the Quran does not get tired. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes him (Quran 2:255). But how about the period of creation? Was that six days in the Quran too? In the above quotation from the Quran the term translated 'days' could mean, according to Dr. Maurice Bucaille, "not just 'days', but also 'long periods of time', an indefinite period of time (but always long)" (The Bible, the Quran and Science, p. 139). Dr. Bucaille notes that the Quran also speaks of "a day whereof the measure is a thousand years of your reckoning" (Quran 32:5). The Quran also speaks of a day whereof the measure is 50,000 years" (Quran 70:4).

Dr. Bucaille also points out that long before our modern ideas of the length of time involved in the creation, commentators of the Quran understood that when the Quran speaks of six days of creation, it does not mean six days like ours, but rather six periods. Abu al Su'ud, for example, writing in the sixteenth century, understood it as six events (see The Bible, the Quran and Science, p.l39). Again, we see that the Quran has avoided repeating an error which was established in a previous book an error that will not be discovered until modern times. In view of this, can anyone insist that the Quran is the work of a man?
--------------------------------------

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

The Bible provides a chronology of history that extends back to the creation of Adam and Eve and to the creation of the earth. From this chronology it is possible to determine the date of the creation and hence the age of the earth.

Archbishop Ussher of Armagh (1581-1657) had calculated the year of creation to be 4004 BC If that was not precise enough, Dr. Lightfoot of Cambridge worked out that the exact time when God completed His creation was 9 a.m. on Friday, October 23, 4004 BC (see the book 7whinking about God by Sr. R. W. Maqsood, p. 63).

Many religious groups and sects have used this date in predicting precise dates for the end of the world, but all such predictions have so far proved erroneous. The one fact against them is that the world is still intact and we are very much alive.One reason al1 of those predictions failed is that they are calculated from a false date of creation. If 4004 BC was the year of creation, that would make the earth less than six thousand years old. No scientist can accept this today.

Modern scientists estimate that the earth is 4.5 billion years old with a maximum error of 2.2 % (see The Bible, the Quran and Science, p. 148). Knowing this, many educated people lost faith in religion. (Judaism & Christianity) They naturally felt that the Word of God should not contain errors of this kind. Others maintain that the Word of God was meant to teach only that truth which God wanted put into the scriptures for our salvation It if therefore immaterial if the book contains historical or scientific errors. As the scientist Galileo put it, the Bible is there to teach people how to go to heaven; it is not there to teach people how the heavens go. Some maintain, therefore, that it is understandable that the book will contain some historical and scientific errors since it was written by human beings who lived a long time ago and did not share our modern knowledge. (The Quran completely refutes this idea. The Quran does not contain any Scientifical mistakes like the Bible does. Did man write the Bible or God. If not God than why do they say the Holy Bible is the Word of God) The Quran, on the other hand, does not contain any historical or scientific or any kind of error. God challenges us to test this claim by examining the book for ourselves (see Quran 4:82).The Quran does not repeat the incorrect biblical chronology we have seen above. The Quran does not give a chronology since its purpose is not to provide us with the details of history, but only to teach us the lessons arising from specific events in history.

The Quran does, however tell us that God measured the sustenance of the earth in four periods (Quran 41 :10). As to what could be the significance of these four periods, Dr. Bucaille comments as follows: "One could perhaps see in them the four geological periods described by modern science, with man's appearance, as we already know, taking place in the quaternary era. This is purely a hypothesis since nobody has an answer to this question" (The Bible, the Quran and Science, p. 150).

How did the author of the Quran avoid the mistake in chronology committed by so many others, and believed in by so many others even up to our present day? Could a man in the seventh century have known that the earth was much more than six thousand years old? How could he come by this modern knowledge unless God was revealing knowledge to him? God tells us that the Quran is His book and not the work of any man (see Quran 10:37).
-----------------------------------------


INTERSTELLAR GALACTIC MATERIAL

The Quran mentions a rather curious category of created things, namely things between the heavens and the earth. Dr. Bucaille observes that this mention in the Quran "may surprise the twentieth century reader of the Quran" (The Bible, tl1e Quran and Science, p. 144). For example, one verse says as follows: "To Him (God) belongs what is in the heavens, on earth, between them and beneath the soil" (Quran 20:6; other verses include 25:59, 32:4 and 50:38).

What is that between the heavens and the earth? Dr. Bucaille explains as follows: "The creation outside the heavens and outside the earth is a priori difficult to imagine. To understand these verses, reference must be made to the most recent observations on the existence of cosmic extragalactic material, and one must indeed go back to ideas established by contemporary science on the formation of the universe . . ." (p. 145).

Scientists tell us that a primary nebula condensed, then divided up into fragments. These fragments, these galactic masses, further split up into stars and their sub-products, the planets. Each time such a division or split occurred, there remained extra material apart from the principal elements newly formed. The scientific name for these extra materials is 'interstellar galactic material'.

Is this extra material significant? Yes. Experts in astrophysics are quite aware of such material which have "a tendency to interfere with photometric measurements" (The Bible, the Quran and Science, p. 149). The extra material is so rarefied that they may be referred to as dusts or smokes or gases. Yet they altogether occupy so much total space that they may correspond to "a mass possibly greater than the total mass of the galaxies" (p. 149).

Again, we must face up to the implication of all this. How could a man living fourteen hundred years ago have known about interstellar galactic material? Was Muhammad, on whom be peace, well versed in modern astrophysics? Or is the Quran nothing but the Word of God? Allah, the only true God, declares in His book: "The revelation of the scripture is from Allah, the Mighty, the Wise. Surely We [Allah] have revealed the scripture unto you [Muhammad] with truth; so worship Allah, making religion pure for Him (only)" (Quran 39:1-2).
-------------------------------------

FORMATION OF IRON!
This is no less than a reminder to (all) the worlds. And you shall certainly know the truth of it (all) after a while. (Qur’aan 38:87-88). Thus, the Qur’aan is a reminder for all of mankind until the Last Hour. It contains information that man discovers in due time. Because this Qur’aan was revealed from Allah’s knowledge and every single verse in it was revealed with Allah’s knowledge, as He Himself said:

Professor Armstrong works at NASA, otherwise known as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, where he is a well-known scientist there. We met with him and asked a number of questions about Qur’aanic verses dealing with the expertise in Astronomy. We asked him about Iron and how it was formed. He explained how all the elements in the earth were formed. He stated that the scientists have come only recently to discover the relevant facts about that formation process. He said that the energy of the early solar system was not sufficient to produce elemental Iron.

In calculating the energy required to form one atom of iron, it was found to be about four times as much as the energy of the entire solar system. In other words, the entire energy of the earth or the moon or the planet Mars or any other planet is not sufficient to form one new atom of iron, even the energy of the entire solar system is not sufficient for that. That is why Professor Armstrong said that the scientists believe that iron is an extraterrestrial that was sent to earth and not formed therein.

We read to him the Qur’aanic verse saying: And we sent down Iron, in which is Great might, as well as many benefits for mankind (Qur’aan 57-25).

Then we asked him about the sky and whether it had any gaps or rifts in it. He disproved this and replied that what we are talking about is a branch of Astronomy called the "Integrated Cosmos" which we scientists have only come to know recently. For example, if you have a body in outer space which travels a certain distance in any direction and then travel the same distance in a different direction, you will find that the mass weight is the same in all directions. Because this body has its own equilibrium, the pressures from all directions are the same. Without this equilibrium, the whole universe would collapse. I recalled Allah’s verse in the

Qur’aan: " Do they not look at the sky above them? How we have made it and adorned it, and there are no flaws in it?" (Qur’aan 50:6).

Then we talked to Professor Armstrong about the attempts of scientists to reach the edge of the universe, and we asked him whether they were successful in this. He replied that they are fighting an uphill battle to the edge of the universe, we construct more powerful equipment to observe the universe only to discover that the new stars we see are still within our galaxy and that we have not yet reached the edge of the universe. He is aware of the Qur’aanic verse which says: And we adorned the lowest heaven with lamps and we made such (lamps) missiles to drive away satans. (Qur’aan 67:5).

Indeed, all these stars are adornments for the lowest heaven. He says that scientists have not reached the end of the universe. Professor Armstrong added that because of this, they are thinking of stationing more telescopes in outer space so that their observations will not be obstructed by dust and other atmospheric impediments. Vision telescopes using light are unable to travel long distances, so we replaced them with radio operated ones enabling us to see further, but we nevertheless are still within the boundaries. I mentioned to him this verse: So turn thy vision again: Do you see any flaw? Again turn your vision a second time: (your) vision will come back to you dull and discomfited, in a state worn out (Qur’aan 67:3-4).

Each time Professor Armstrong told us some scientific fact, we mentioned to him the relevant verse which he agreed with. Then said to him: ‘You have seen and discovered for yourself the true nature of modern Astronomy by means of modern equipment, rockets, and space ships, developed by man. You have also seen how the same facts were mentioned by the Qur’aan 14 centuries ago, so what is your opinion about these?
He replied: That is a difficult question which I have been thinking about since our discussions here. I am impressed that how remarkably some of the ancient writings seem to correspond to modern and recent Astronomy.
-------------------------------------

ORGANIZATION OF THE UNIVERSE
What the Quran mentions about the organization of the Universe is important because "these references constitute a new fact of divine Revelation" (The Bible, the Quran and Science, p. 153). The Quran deals with this matter in depth although this is not dealt with in the previous scriptures.

Dr. Maurice Bucaille also points out the important fact that the Quran does not contain "the theories prevalent at the time of the Revelation that deal with the organization of the celestial world" (p. 153). If the Quran was authored by any human being, he or she would have naturally included the ideas prevalent at the time. But many of those ideas were later shown to be inaccurate. How did the author of the Quran know enough to exclude those ideas, unless the author is God himself.

Those who say that Muhammad authored the Quran think that the Arabs were very knowledgeable in the field of Science, and Muhammad was or course one of them. But this explanation is based on the incorrect assumption that the Arabs knew Science before the Quran was revealed. As pointed out by Dr. Bucaille, the fact is that Science in Islamic countries came after the Quran, not before. "In any case", writes Dr. Bucaille, "the scientific knowledge of that great period would not have been sufficient for a human being to write some of the verses to be found in the Quran" (The Bible, the Quran and Science, p. 1 53-1 54)
Modern astronomers are aware that the stars and planets are kept within ranges of precise distances from each other. Had it not been for this fact, collision between them would be inevitable. The author of the Quran was also aware of this. In the Quran we read "the sun and the moon (are subjected) to calculations (Quran 55:5).

Again, we read: "For you (God) subjected the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses" (Quran 14:33). The phrase 'diligently pursuing their courses' is a translation of the Arabic term daa'ib which here means 'to apply oneself to something with care in a perseverant, invariable manner, in accordance with set habits' (The Bible, the Quran and Science, p.l55). And that indeed is how the sun and moon behave.

Another verse in the Quran says, "the stars are in subjection to His command" (Quran 16:12). Order in the universe is essential for its preservation. God, who subjected them to that order knew about it before any scientist.
-------------------------------------------

WHAT HOLDS UP THE SKY?
Today scientists speak of gravitational forces that hold the heavenly bodies apart from each other and prevent them from colliding with each other. How was this to be conveyed to the first readers of the Quran? God tells us in the Quran that He is the One Who raised the sky (Quran 55:7) and that he holds it back from falling on the earth (Quran 22:65). But how exactly does God do this?

If the author of the Quran was a human being, it would have been very easy for the author to copy the answer to this question from the Bible. But today no one will believe that answer. In the New American Bible, a picture is drawn to show how the authors of the Bible imagined the world to look like. In that picture, the sky "resembles an overturned bowl and is supported by columns" (The New American Bible, St. Joseph's Medium Size Edition, pp. 4-5). The earth in that picture is flat, and is also supported by pillars. After describing the picture at length, the editors of that Bible conclude by calling that idea of the world a "prescientific concept of the universe."

At the time when the Quran was being revealed, anyone could have easily believed this description which was already found in the Bible. It is only in modern times that people would know better. How did the author of the Quran avoid this mistake?

God says in the Quran that He created the heavens "without any pillars that you can see" (Quran 31:10). Again, the Quran says: "God is the One Who raised the heavens without any pillars that you can see" (Quran 13:2). Dr. Maurice Bucaille comments: "These two verses refute the belief that the vault of the heavens was held up by pillars, the only things preventing the former from crushing the earth" .To be able to avoid that prescientific error, the author of the Quran must have been either a modern scientist, or God Himself.
---------------------------------------

COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES
The sun and the moon are different from each other not only in terms of size, but also in terms of function. The sun generates light, but the moon does not. The moon merely reflects the light coming from the sun. Every high school student today knows this.

A man or woman in the seventh century, however, would not have known about this fine distinction between the sun and the moon. To such a person, the two would appear as a greater light and a lesser light. Such a person would observe that the greater light lights up the day and the lesser light lights up the night. And this indeed is how the sun and the moon were described in previous books.

The Bible, describing the creation, says: "God made two great lights the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night" (Genesis 1: 16). The author of the Qur'an however, was aware that this comparison between the sun and the moon is not adequate. Therefore the Qur'an does not refer to them as being a greater and a lesser light.

The Qur'an says: "God is the One who made the sun a shine and the moon a light" (Qur'an 10:5).
Commenting on this, Dr. Bucaille says: "Whereas the Bible calls the sun and moon 'lights', and merely adds to one the adjective 'greater' and to the other 'lesser', the Qur'an ascribes differences other than that of dimension to each respectively" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 156).

Similarly, the Qur'an says: "Blessed is the One Who placed the constellations in heaven and placed therein a lamp and a moon giving light" (Qur'an 25:61). Here again, the difference between the sun and the moon is noted. The sun is called a lamp, and the moon is called an object giving light. Again in the Qur'an God says that He "made the moon a light" and "made the sun a lamp" (Qur'an 71:15-16).

Furthermore, God calls the sun a "blazing lamp" (Qur'an 78:12-13). This term which is used for the sun is never used for the moon in the Qur'an. In all of these verses, God expresses the notion that the sun and the moon are "not absolutely identical lights" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 156).

Dr. Bucaille draws his conclusions from what he found in the Qur'an about the sun and the moon: "What is interesting to note here is the sober quality of the comparisons, and the absence in the text of the Qur'an of any elements of comparison that might have prevailed at the time and which in our day would appear as phantasmagorial" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p 157). In short, "There is nothing in the text of the Qur'an that contradicts what we know today about these two celestial bodies." (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 157).
--------------------------------------------


THE SUN & MOON AND THEIR ORBITS
Today we know that the Moon revolves around the earth in approximately 29.5 days. The sun also revolves in its own orbit. To understand the sun's orbit, Dr. Bucaille says that the position of the sun in our galaxy must be considered, and we must therefore call on modern scientific ideas

Our galaxy, the milky way galaxy, includes one hundred billion stars situated in such a formation that the galaxy is shaped like a disc. This disc turns around its center like a gramophone record. Now, it is obvious that when a gramophone record turns, any point on the disc would move around and come back to its original position. Similarly, every star in the galaxy moves as the galaxy rotates on its axis. Therefore the stars that are away from the center of the galaxy orbit around the axis. The sun is one of those stars.
Dr. Bucaille explains that modern science has worked out the details of the sun's orbit as follows: "To complete one revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and the sun take roughly 250 million years. The sun travels roughly 150 miles per second in the completion of this"

After describing this, Dr. Bucaille comments: "The above is the orbital movement of the sun that was already referred to in the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago." And yet this is a new finding. As Dr. Bucaille says, the knowledge of the sun's orbit is an acquisition of modern astronomy

Two verses in the Qur'an refer to the orbits of the sun and moon. After mentioning the sun and the moon, God says: "Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (Qur'an 21:33; 36:40). How did the author of the Qur'an know of this? Even after the Qur'an was revealed, early commentators could not conceive of the orbits of the sun and moon. The tenth century commentator Tabari could not explain this so he said, "It is our duty to keep silent when we do not know"

Dr. Bucaille comments: "This shows just how incapable men were of understanding this concept of the sun's and moon's orbit." From this it is clear that if the Qur'an was here expressing an idea already known to the people, the commentators would have easily understood it. But this, as Dr. Bucaille explains was "a new concept that was not to be explained until centuries later". This confirms what God said to his prophet, on whom be peace: "This is of the tidings of the Unseen which we inspire in you (Muhammad). Neither you nor your people knew it before this" (Qur'an 11:49).
------------------------------------------


THE SUN & MOON MOVE WITH THEIR OWN MOTION
The Qur'an makes the following statement about the sun and the moon: "Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (Qur'an 21:33; 36:40). Why did the Qur'an say that the sun and moon move with their own motion? And, if that is true, where did the author of the Qur'an get this information?

The fact is that the sun and moon rotate on their axes and are in part animated by this rotating motion. The phrase "travelling with its own motion" in the verses quoted above is a translation of the Arabic verb 'yasbahoon'. This could also be translated 'they swim.' In that case, the verse would read that the sun and the moon, "Each swim in its own orbit." Those who translate the verse this way explain that the term swim refers to movement with one's own internally generated force. Furthermore the movement of a swimmer is graceful, measured, and smooth. This is a very fitting description for the movement of the stars and planets including the sun and the moon.

After describing the scientific data concerning the rotation of the sun and the moon, Dr. Bucaille says: "These motions of the two celestial bodies are confirmed by the data of modern science, and it is inconceivable that a man living in the seventh century A.D.... could have imagined them" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 163).

It is also amazing that the Qur'an uses a different term for the movement of the clouds and the mountains (see Qur'an 27:88). Obviously, the clouds and mountains are driven by external forces. The cloud is driven by the wind and the mountains move with the rotation of the earth. The sun and moon, however, move with their own motion, and therefore the Qur'an uses a peculiar term "they swim" to refer to their smooth, graceful, self-propelled movement.

How did the author of the Qur'an know enough to make this choice of words that will reflect a modern scientific truth? The Qur'an is no less than a revelation from God.

sura 36, verse 40: "The sun must not catch up the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."

Here an essential fact is clearly stated: the existence of the Sun's and Moon's orbits, plus a reference is made to the traveling of these bodies in space with their own motion. A negative fact also emerges from a reading of these verses: it is shown that the Sun moves in an orbit, but no indication is given as to what this orbit might be in relation to the Earth. At the time of the Qur'anic Revelation, it was thought that the Sun moved while the Earth stood still. This was the system of geocentrism that had held away since the time of Ptolemy, Sec-ond century B.C., and was to continue to do so until Copernicus in the Sixteenth century A.D. Although people supported this concept at the time of Muhammad, it does not appear anywhere in the Qur'an, either here or elsewhere.

1. The Moon's Orbit.
Today, the concept is widely spread that the Moon is a satellite of the Earth around which it revolves in periods of twenty-nine days. A correction must however be made to the absolutely circular form of its orbit, since modern astronomy ascribes a certain eccentricity to this, so that the distance between the Earth and the Moon (240,000 miles) is only the average distance.

We have seen above how the Qur'an underlined the usefulness of observing the Moon's movements in calculating time (sura 10, verse 5, quoted at the beginning of this chapter.) This system has often been criticized for being archaic, im- practical and unscientific in comparison to our system based on the Earth's rotation around the Sun, expressed today in the Julian calendar.
This criticism calls for the following two remarks:

a) Nearly fourteen centuries ago, the Qur'an was directed at the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula who were used to the lunar calculation of time. It was advisable to address them in the only language they could understand and not to upset the habits they had of locating spatial and temporal reference-marks which were nevertheless quite efficient. It is known how well-versed men living in the desert are in the observation of the sky; they navigated according to the stars and told the time according to the phases of the Moon. Those were the simplest and most reliable means available to them.
b) Apart from the specialists in this, most people are unaware of the perfect correlation between the Julian and the lunar calendar: 235 lunar months correspond exactly to 19 Julian years of 365.25 days. Then length of our year of 365 days is not perfect because it has to be rectified every four years (with a leap year): With the lunar calendar, the same phenomena occur every 19 years (Julian). This is the Metonic cycle, named after the Greek astronomer Meton, who discovered this exact correlation between solar and lunar time in the Fifth century B.C.

2. The Sun.
It is more difficult to conceive of the Sun's orbit because we are so used to seeing our solar system organized around it. To understand the verse from the Qur'an, the position of the Sun in our galaxy must be considered. and we must therefore call on modern scientific ideas. Our galaxy includes a very large number of stars spaced so as to form a disc that is denser at the centre than at the rim. The Sun occupies a position in it which is far removed from the centre of the disc. The galaxy revolves on its own axis which is its centre with the result that the Sun revolves around the same centre in a circular orbit. Modern astronomy has worked out the details of this. In 1917, Shapley estimated the distance between the Sun and the centre of our galaxy at 10 kiloparsecs i.e., in miles, circa the figure 2 followed by 17 zeros. To complete one revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and Sun take roughly 250 million years. The Sun travels at roughly 150 miles per second in the completion of this. The above is the orbital movement of the Sun that was already referred to by the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago. The demonstration of the existence and details of this is one of the achievements of modern astronomy.

--The Moon completes its rotating motion on its own axis at the same time as it revolves around the Earth, i.e. 29.5 days (approx.), so that it always has the same side facing us. --The Sun takes roughly 25 days to revolve on its own axis.

There are certain differences in its rotation at its equator and poles, (we shall not go into them here) but as a whole, the Sun is animated by a rotating motion. It appears therefore that a verbal nuance in the Qur'an refers to the Sun and Moon's own motion. These motions of the two celestial bodies are confirmed by the data of modern science, and it is inconceivable that a man living in the Seventh century A.D.--however knowledgeable he might have been in his day (and this was certainly not true in Muhammad's case)--could have imagined them.

This view is sometimes contested by examples from great thinkers of antiquity who indisputably predicted certain data that modern science has verified. They could hardly have relied on scientific deduction however; their method of procedure was more one of philosophical reasoning. Thus the case of the Pythagoreans is often advanced. In the Sixth century B.C., they defended the theory of the rotation of the Earth on its own axis and the movement of the planets around the Sun.

This theory was to be confirmed by modern sciece. By comparing it with the case of the Pythagoreans,it easy to put forward the hypothesis of Muhammad as being a brilliant thinker, who was supposed to have imagined all on his on his own what modern science was to discover centuries later. In so doing however, people quite simply forget to mention the other aspect of what these geniuses of philosophical reasoning produced, i.e. the colossal blunders that litter their work. it must be remembered for example, that the pythagoreans also defended the theory whereby the Sun was fixed in space; they made it the centre of the world and only conceived of a celestial order that was centered on it.

It is quite common in the works of the great philosophers of antiquity to find a mixture of valid and invalid ideas about the Universe. The brilliance of these human works comes from the advanced ideas they contain, but they should not make us over look the mistaken concepts which have also been left to us. From a strictly scientific point of view, this is what distinguished them from the Qur'an. In the latter, many subjects are referred to that have a bearing on modern knowledge without one of them containing a statement that contradicts what has been established by present-day science.
----------------------------------------

THE CONQUEST OF SPACE

From this point of view, three verses of the Qur'an should command our full attention. One expresses, without any trace of ambiguity, what man should and will achieve in this field. In the other two, God refers for the sake of the unbelievers in Makka to the surprise they would have if they were able to raise themselves up to the Heavens; He alludes to a hypothesis which will not be realized for the latter.
1) The first of these verses is sura 55, verse 33: "O assembly of Jinns and Men, if you can penetrate regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them save with a Power."
The translation given here needs some explanatory comment:
a) The word 'if' expresses in English a condition that is dependent upon a possibility and either an achievable or an unachievable hypothesis. Arabic is a language which is able to introduce a nuance into the condition which is much more explicit. There is one word to express the possibility (ida), another for the achievable hypothesis (in) and a third for the unachievable hypothesis expressed by the word (lau). The verse in question has it as an achievable hypothesis expressed by the word (in). The Qur'an therefore suggests the material possibility of a concrete realization. This subtle linguistic distinction formally rules out the purely mystic interpretation that some people have (quite wrongly) put on this verse.
b) God is addressing the spirits (jinn) and human beings (ins), and not essentially allegorical figures.
c) 'To penetrate' is the translation of the verb nafada followed by the preposition min. According to Kazimirski's dictionary, the phrase means 'to pass right through and come out on the other side of a body' (e.g. an arrow that comes out on the other side).
It therefore suggests a deep penetration and emergence at the other end into the regions in question.
d) The Power (sultan) these men will have to achieve this enterprise would seem to come from the All-Mighty. 'There can be no doubt that this verse indicates the possibility men will one day achieve what we today call (perhaps rather improperly) 'the conquest of space'. One must note that the text of the Qur'an predicts not only penetration through the regions of the Heavens, but also the Earth, i.e. the exploration of its depths.
2) The other two verses are taken from sura 15, (verses 14 and 15). God is speaking of the unbelievers in Makka, as the context of this passage in the sura shows: 'Even if We opened unto them a gate to Heaven and they were to continue ascending therein, they would say: our sight is confused as in drunkenness. Nay, we are people bewitched." The above expresses astonishment at a remarkable spectacle, different from anything man could imagine.
The conditional sentence is introduced here by the word lau which expresses a hypothesis that could never be realized as far as it concerned the people mentioned in these verses.
When talking of the conquest of space therefore, we have two passages in the text of the Qur'an: one of them refers to what will one day become a reality thanks to the powers of intelligence and ingenuity God will give to man, and the other describes an event that the unbelievers in Makka will never witness, hence its character of a condition never to be realized. The event will however be seen by others, as intimated in the first verse quoted above. It describes the human reactions to the unexpected spectacle that travelers in space will see: their confused sight, as in drunkenness, the feeling of being bewitched... This is exactly how astronauts have experienced this remarkable adventure since the first human space flight around the world in 1961. It is known in actual fact how once one is above the Earth's atmosphere, the Heavens no longer have the azure appearance we see from Earth, which results from phenomena of absorption of the Sun's light into the layers of the atmosphere.
The human observer in space above the Earth's atmosphere sees a black sky and the Earth seems to be surrounded by a halo of bluish color due to the same phenomena of absorption of light by the Earth's atmosphere. The Moon has no atmosphere, however, and therefore appears in its true colors against the black background of the sky. It is a completely new spectacle therefore that presents itself to men in space, and the photographs of this spectacle are well known to present-day man. Here again, it is difficult not to be impressed, when comparing the text of the Qur'an to the data of modern science, by statements that simply cannot be ascribed to the thought of a man who lived more than fourteen centuries ago.
--------------------------------------------


THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE

The expansion of the Universe is the most imposing discovery of modern science. Today it is a firmly established concept and the only debate centres around the way this is taking place.
It was first suggested by the general theory of relativity and is backed up by physics in the examination of the galactic spectrum; the regular movement towards the red section of their spectrum may be explained by the distancing of one galaxy from another. Thus the size of the Universe is probably constantly increasing and this increase will become bigger the further away the galaxies are from us. The speeds at which these celestial bodies are moving may, in the course of this perpetual expansion, go from fractions of the speed of light to speeds faster than this.
The following verse of the Qur'an (sura 51, verse 47) where God is speaking, may perhaps be compared with modern ideas: "The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."
'Heaven' is the translation of the word sama' and this is exactly the extra-terrestrial world that is meant.
'We are expanding it' is the translation of the plural present participle musi'una of the verb ausa'a meaning 'to make wider,
more spacious, to extend, to expand'.
Ramidullah in his translation
of the Qur'an talks of the widening of the heavens and space, but he includes a question mark. There are those who arm themselves with authorized scientific opinion in their commentaries and give the meaning stated here. This is true in the case of the Muntakab, a book of commentaries edited by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Cairo. It refers to the expansion of the Universe in totally unambiguous terms.

[The_Oshik-kitoe]

TO USH:

I haven’t read this entire topic yet, and after I do Insha- Allah I will answer to your topic.

USH I will say it again

YOU STILL DID NOT PROVE THAT GALEN STUDIED EMBRYOLOGY!

When you replied to my topic you didn’t you say:

Muhammad prophet used Galen's theory which came out in AD150 which is well know in all that area about embryology.
No facts there in fact it should be Galen to be prophet not Muhammad

WHY are you trying to run away from the facts?
Answer my Questions and don’t try to run away.
If you do then you prove to be a coward

YOU CAN RUN USH BUT I WILL NOT LET YOU HIDE.

The student of life Oshik-kitoe


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

[The_Oshik-kitoe]

Ush …… WHERE ARE YOU?
IM WATING FOR YOUR PROOF…..
OK..Let me tell you one more thing about Galen.
First you don’t know who Galen is.
Second I don’t think you have studied enough about him.
So let me give you some facts about Galen.
Galen was a physician he studied on animals & observed how human body functions
He studied, goats, pigs & monkeys to demonstrate how different 'muscles' are controlled.
And for your information:
He ONLY studied the spinal cord, bladder, kidney, brain, heart vain liver arteries & blood.
And during his studying he made many mistakes.
One of them was the liver & blood circulation (&I don’t wish to go on as this is not a history lesson)
If you had studied the history of Galen you will have found that there is no proof of Galen studying embryology.
''Galen did not study human embryonic development''.
The first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an hi-tech microscope was in 1677
''More than 1000 years after Muhammad'' .
Do you have anything alse to say?
If not then accept that QURAN IS THE TRUE BOOK & MUHAMMAD IS THE TRUE PROPHET.

From the student of life the Oshik-kitoe



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

[Wais_Islam]

USH, Ugly Satan in Hiding,

You still haven't proved the availability of Galen's works in Arabia during the Prophetic era. Please find me just one piece of evidence you fool that's all I'm asking for.
Waiting to hear from you you low life Christian peasant with no Christian friends.