Back to main page

Debunking "Islam Watch" Part 2 : QURAN AND EMBRYOLOGY

-Note-
-Debunking "QURAN AND EMBRYOLOGY" debunk-
-Greek EMBRYOLOGY-
-Straw man argument-
-Why the Quran leaves margin for people to get confused?-
-Bonus Miracle-
-Closing words-

Note

This article was made by request from and for someone I care about guiding, it only has one debunked claim from Islam Watch website, this article however could be and will be edited later.

Also sub links are ignored, for the same reason.

Debunking "QURAN AND EMBRYOLOGY"

This article attempts to add to this debate, concentrating solely on the Quranic verses, because inclusion of the hadiths would clearly show up the stupidity of the QEP (see the list above).

I wish you included them, that will make debunking one claim even easier, continue:

Dr Omar Abdul Rehman’s article is clearly the most detailed, and I will use it as the basis for rebuttal as it includes all the QEP nonsense of Drs Keith Moore and Maurice Bucaille.

Okey, continue:

think it is a waste of time to argue such imponderables of whether the ‘alaqa’ is a leech, or a leech-like thing, a clinging thing, or a clot. I will accept each and every one of these Islamist definitions because such arguments are futile. Both sides would merely be agreeing to disagree.

No you can't just skip that ^_^ because the words are important, the word "alaqa" means a Leech, it also means stuck or stick or getting fixed in position in general, and skipping all other meanings, this is the key for this miracle, first:

6-8 days after fertilization the Blastocyst goes into Implantation stage, in which the Blastocyst at the end of day 8 gets "burrowed" (alaqa) in into the endometrium of the uterus, and then it stuck there. Source

Then the Blastocyst acts just like a Leech and suck the needed nutrients from uterine glands through Lacunae network (Syncytiotrophoblast), I quote from Wikipedia:

Syncytiotrophoblast ... is the epithelial covering of the highly vascular embryonic placental villi, which invades the wall of the uterus to establish nutrient circulation between the embryo and the mother.

So now it get stuck like a Leech, It sucks like a Leech, but does it look like a Leech, short answer: YES, here you go: (I toke this Figure from this article, that is doing the same as me ^_^ , Muslims hero's are everywhere.)

All of this from a single word that you tired to skip, nice objectivity ^_^, lets continue:

A further Islamist miracle is that words like alaqa can have several meanings, and each of these meanings applies at the same time. Thus, an alaqa is a leech, looks like a leech if viewed in a certain angle or a clot in another angle, or clings to the endometrium. Truly the Quran is miraculous.

That's something in the Arabic language in general, for example the lion in Arabic has a lot of names, I count 347 in this Wikipedia page, also the language miracles of the Quran is next level to you, stick with science ^_^

Also you are wrong, the Blastocyst doesn't "clings" to the endometrium, but gets inside it as I explained above, make your words.

Therefore, my opinion is that the best method of debunking the QEP is by questioning every Islamist claim as to their validity, and to make the Islamist justify every claim. This would include why they chose to make a choice when there are several other equally valid possibilities, why they chose to ignore clearly nonsensical phrases, and why they assume certain phrases to be metaphorical while others to be literal.

You know you don't scare us ^_^, continue:

In this way, I will show the QEP to be the patent nonsense that it is.

And I will show you the nonsense you are ^_^

I will also ignore the obvious similarities between the embryology prevailing at the time the Quran was written and the QEP, notwithstanding Dr Omar Abdul Rehman’s excellent article. This is because Muhammad’s plagiarizing of ancient Greek and Indian embryology can never be proven one way or the other. Therefore, I will concentrate solely in showing that the QEP is made up of incorrect or illogical or unproven assertions.

No you won't skip that part either, how can it be a miracle if it doesn't contradict false beliefs of its time ^_^, introducing:

Greek EMBRYOLOGY

Most science back at that age and before it, goes to Greek philosophers and thinkers ("scientists") like: Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen, and if you want be a scientist back then, using those as resource the way to go ^_^.

In his book "Generation of Animals", Aristotle state in many parts of his book that the female play no role but "material" role when it comes to "contribute semen to generation", I quote:

The foregoing discussion will have made it clear that the female, through it does not contribute any semen to generation, yet contributes something, viz., the substance constituting the menstrual fluid... [Generation of animals, English, A.L. Peck, 729a]
These are the lines upon which that subject should be reated. And what we have said indicates plainly at the same time how we are to answer the questions which we next have to consider, viz., how it is that the male makes its contribution to generation, and how the semen produced by the male is the cause of the offspring. [Generation of animals, English, A.L. Peck, 729b Source]

In another words, I quote from this Article:

which Aristotle separates into active and passive principles, again underlining male semen as the efficient cause of generation and the female menstrual blood as the material cause.
Aristotle asserts that the female does not have a seminal fluid, but rather that her contribution to her offspring is only in the form of the nutritive menstrual blood that is the material of generation.

This is what is known as Preformationism, I quote from Wikipedia:

preformationism (or preformism) is a formerly popular theory that organisms develop from miniature versions of themselves. Instead of assembly from parts, preformationists believed that the form of living things exist, in real terms, prior to their development.[1] It suggests that all organisms were created at the same time, and that succeeding generations grow from homunculi, or animalcules, that have existed since the beginning of creation.

In another word, they thought that the semen has a tiny person in it, and that person with female material grows until we get a new born.



Weird drawings.



The best part is this:

Aristotle accepted and elaborated this idea, and his writings are the vector that transmitted it to later Europeans. Aristotle purported to analyse ontogeny in terms of the material, formal, efficient, and teleological causes (as they are usually named by later anglophone philosophy) – a view that, though more complex than some subsequent ones, is essentially more epigenetic than preformationist. Later, European physicians such as Galen, Realdo Colombo and Girolamo Fabrici would build upon Aristotle's theories, which were prevalent well into the 17th century.

Along with other myths like:

As early as 330 BC, Aristotle prescribed the ligation (tying off) of the left testicle in men wishing to have boys.[17] In the Middle Ages, men who wanted a boy sometimes had their left testicle removed. This was because people believed that the right testicle made "boy" sperm and the left made "girl" sperm. [Source, Has photos not recommended and prohibited in Islam to see]
People have probably been trying to pick the sex of their kids since time began. For example, in the Middle Ages, men who wanted a boy sometimes had their left testicle removed. This was because people believed that the right testicle made "boy" sperm and the left made "girl" sperm. [Stanford University, Source]

Its sad to know those people got into so much pain because of Greek jokes, however, there is more:

The upper half of the body, then, is first marked out in the order of development; as time goes on the lower also reaches its full size in the sanguinea. All [20] the parts are first marked out in their outlines and acquire later on their colour and softness or hardness, exactly as if nature were a painter producing a work of art, for painters, too, first sketch in the animal with lines and only after that put in the colours. [THE COMPLETE WORKS OF ARISTOTLEP, Princeton University Press P. 2515]

That's the IQ of some of those philosophers, still, this time it includes some "Indian embryology" :

Here again I provide a brief reference from the Hippocratic author of the treatise On Generation. 13 He thought that there were two seeds, the male one being stronger than the female one, and the sex of the embryo being determined by the final proportions of the two seeds. This theory was also defended by several forerunners and contemporaries of Hippocrates, such as Pythagoras, Alcmaeon, Empedocles, Parmenides, Democritus, and Epicurus; whereas Diogenes and Anaxagoras recognized only the male seed.
Here again I provide a brief reference from the Hippocratic author the male one being stronger than the female one, and the sex of the embryo being determined by the final proportions of the two seeds. This theory was also defended by several forerunners and contemporaries of Hippocrates, such as Pythagoras, Alcmaeon, Empedocles, Parmenides, Democritus, and Epicurus; whereas Diogenes and Anaxagoras recognized only the male seed.
Regarding the respective contribution of both seeds to the com- position of the embryo, recall that Galen, who did not devote much bones, and cartilage derived from the male seed, while the uterine membranes originated from the female. As for the muscles, liver, and other viscera, they were generated directly from the blood."4 The Hindus (Susruta-Samhita) held that the solid parts (such as hair, bones, teeth, muscles, veins, and nerves) were provided by the father, whereas the soft parts (flesh, fat, blood, viscera) originated from the mother. And J. Needham says in his History of Embryology that in New Guinea the natives make a distinction between the red flesh provided by the mother and the white bones coming from the father.15 This last instance is a striking example of the worldwide dispersion of ideas, apparently, in this case, based originally upon an opposition of colors: white = male, red = female
It can be alleged that the Sages of the Talmud were to some extent aware of the main theories of Greek antiquity on generation. They seemingly achieved a kind of synthesis of the Hippocratic and Aristotelian approaches. On the one hand, they held that both man and woman produce seed. On the other hand, they accepted the image of the catamenial blood's being curdled by the male seed.[Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Autumn, 1981), P 302-303]

And this comic titled "Artistotle thought the brain was a Radiator", is funny.

So all these false ideas and more, contradict with what the Quran says, and the Quran didn't copy a single one of them, and yet still stupid Islam enemies come and say that Quran copied it from those Greek jokes, so dumb and I will prove it.



From this page, I quote:

Aristotle describes copulation in some mobile non-sanguinous animals (insects, crustaceans, and cephalopods) that do not have red blood. He returns to the definition of seminal fluids in chapters 17 through 20. He refutes the idea that the male seed is composed of particles from every part of the parent’s body —a theory that was resurrected in the eighteenth century as “ pangenesis” as support for the concept of generation known as spermist preformationism, and later used by Darwin to account for heredity.
For the Hippocratic author, the seed originates from the whole body, from the solid and liquid parts.*[Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Autumn, 1981), P 304]

Lets see what Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him says about it:

He said that when God’s Messenger was asked about withdrawing the penis he replied, “The child does not come from all the liquid, and when God intends to create anything nothing can prevent Him.” [Mishkat al-Masabih 3187 Book 13, Hadith 105, Source]

So straight up saying semen isn't from all parts of the body (liquids) ^_^, but only semen of male with semen of women.


Now there is a little note here, I think from my knowledge that those who hate Islam really love Greek "science", and the Christians who hate Islam so much really want the first crusade to happen again, but let me tell you, Greek scientists (not all of them) are stupid and we won the battle of hattin, try to get some of me templars. =)


You are not going to take Islam down, deal with it. =)



Lets continue with our debunk:

The Quran never explicitly claims that the female parent contributes genetic material. It is merely the assumption, and an assumption only, of the Islamists that 'nutfatun amshaajin' (mixed drop or mingled sperm) includes the female gamete.
"Verily WE created Man from a drop of mingled sperm." (76:2)

Warning: Hold your brain.

The term ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ could just as easily refer to the sperm-menstrual blood union of Aristotle and the ancient Indian embryologists


or the two sperm hypothesis of Hippocrates and Galen, or even the readily observed mingling of semen and vaginal discharge during sexual intercourse.


In other words, the fact the Quran does not explicitly state that ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ contains the ovum, together with the existence of other possible explanations, means that it is illogical to assume the former and not the latter.

Ok here you have reached a level of dumbness no Islam enemy has ever did, First of all the current understanding of ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ isn't new in anyway:

From book Fath al-Bari that was created by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (18 February 1372 – 2 February 1449 CE / 773 – 852 A.H.), I quote In Arabic:

وزعم كثير من أهل التشريح أن مني الرجل لا أثر له في الولد إلا في عقده وأنه إنما يتكون من دم الحيض، وأحاديث الباب تبطل ذلك...

Because there is no English translation of the book (As far as I know), I will translate it myself, and if you think I am wrong, then using the sources, you could translate it yourself (Because we don't trust each other, don't we =) ):

And many anatomists claimed that a man’s semen (sperm) has no effect on the child except in his contract and that it is formed from menstrual blood, and the hadiths of the chapter invalidate that... [Fath al-Bari Sharh al-Bukhari (14 vol), page 480, Source 1, Source 2]

So that's straight up disagree with Aristotle claims about menstrual blood being a material part of semen.

Another well known Book "Tafsir al-Qurtubi" by Al-Qurtubi 1214-1273, I quote:

ذهب قوم من الأوائل الى ان الجنين انما يتكون من ماء الرجل وحده, ويتربى في رحم الام, ويستمد من الدم الذي يكون فيه...
والصحيح ان الخلق انما يكون من ماء الرجل و المرأة لهذه الاية..

And the translation (note: if I add () in the translation, it is an additional information.):

Some of the first people believed that the fetus is formed from the man’s sperm (semen or fluid) alone, and is raised in the mother’s womb, and is derived from the blood that is in it... The truth is that creation is made from the semen of a man and a woman for this verse. [Tafsir al-Qurtubi vol 19 P 413, Source 1, Source 2]

This also disprove the claim that only male semen is responsible for embryos, that's for the "sperm-menstrual blood union of Aristotle", for ancient Indian embryology, I don't have to explain why it is not mentioned in the Quran.

As for the two sperm hypothesis I couldn't found much information about it other then what I said above and this page, but I doubt this theory is saying that those "seeds" are mixed, as the theory itself says when the "male seed" is stronger then "female seed" the born is boy, and such, but how is that? I couldn't found information.

And for the "eadily observed mingling of semen and vaginal discharge during sexual intercourse", the verse talks about sperms and not "vaginal discharge".

And lastly you wanting the Quran to say ovum is just dumb, the Quran isn't a book in which you decide what you want in and what you don't, in another word, THE QURAN DOESN'T LISTEN TO ANY ONE'S SUGGESTIONS, and the simple fact that Muslims before technology came understood the verse meaning is enough for it to be right, regardless if they knew they were ovum or not, they knew something is mixed, technology comes and found out that its ovum and sperm, there for it was the meaning, done, lets continue:

The insistence by Islamists that it explains the former is pure conjecture devoid of evidence, and constitutes the logical fallacy of equivocation, and its adoption is merely wishful thinking or the Islamist art of the ‘reinterpretation after the fact.’

Is this your "Islamist Debating Technique"? what a dumb non objective technique, continue:

One might contend that the Quran does not claim a role for the ovum at all, or is even ignorant of its existence.

The Quran already said the humans are created when Allah want, with a mixture of sperms, and since we now know that the male sperm is ovum, a creation can't happen without it (unless Allah want), and so the role of ovum is undeniable, continue:

The Islamists claim that the Quran correctly states that the sex of the progeny is determined by the sperm from the male parent, based on verses 53:45-46.

Ok, lets see:

and that it is He who created pairs, the male and the female, From a sperm-drop when it is emitted. [Quran 53:45-46]

I don't see the problem?

There are only two logical explanations of nutfatin itha tumna; that it is the sperm emitted, or the blastocyst (i.e. zygote) implanted. If it is the latter, the Islamists have no case to argue that the Quran correctly states that gender is determined by the sperm of the male parent. Hence, nutfatin itha tumna must refer to the sperm emitted.

Okey, so what's the problem.

It is possible the Quranic verses 53:45-46 state that the male and female progenies, and not merely the genders, are created from the sperm. This is a possibility totally discounted by Islamists without evidence and suggests a biased interpretation of the verses in light of modern facts. For where is the mention of the ovum? Not in these verses nor anywhere else in the Quran.

Ok lets see the Tafsir (Source 1, Source 2):

Lets see another verse that has similar meaning:

Does the human think he will be left to roam at will? What, was he not an ejaculated drop (of sperm)? Then he was a clot of blood, then He created and formed him and made from him two kinds, male and female. [Quran 36-39]

And lets read the Tafsir (Source 1, Source 2):

And so your claim isn't completely wrong ^_^ I am surprised, BUT, we still have proofs that it is the case, from the Hadith:

Thauban, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), said: While I was standing beside the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) one of the rabbis of the Jews came and said: Peace be upon you, O Muhammad. I pushed him back with a push that he was going to fall. Upon this he said: Why do you push me? I said: Why don't you say: O Messenger of Allah? The Jew said: We call him by the name by which he was named by his family. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: My name is Muhammad with which I was named by my family. The Jew said: I have come to ask you (something). The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: Should that thing be of any benefit to you, if I tell you that? He (the Jew) said: I will lend my ears to it. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) drew a line with the help of the stick that he had with him and then said: Ask (whatever you like). Thereupon the Jew said: Where would the human beings be on the Day when the earth would change into another earth and the heavens too (would change into other heavens)? The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: They would be in darkness beside the Bridge. He (the Jew) again said: Who amongst people would be the first to cross (this bridge).? He said: They would be the poor amongst the refugees. The Jew said: What would constitute their breakfast when they would enter Paradise? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: A caul of the fish-liver. He (the Jew) said. What would be their food alter this? He (the Holy Prophet) said: A bullock which was fed in the different quarters of Paradise would be slaughtered for them. He (the Jew) said: What would be their drink? He (the Holy Prophet) said: They would be given drink from the fountain which is named" Salsabil". He (the Jew) said: I have come to ask you about a thing which no one amongst the people on the earth knows except an apostle or one or two men besides him. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Would it benefit you if I tell you that? He (the Jew) said: I would lend ears to that. He then said: I have come to ask you about the child. He (the Holy Prophet) said: The reproductive substance of man is white and that of woman (substance) yellow, and when they have sexual intercourse and the male's substance prevails upon the female's substance , it is the male child that is created by Allah's Decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed by the Decree of Allah. The Jew said: What you have said is true; verily you are an Apostle. He then returned and went away. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that. [Sahih Muslim 315a Book 3, Hadith 38 Source]

And so we understand that if the prevailed substance of the male or the female dictates what gender the child will be, unlike the (which testicle the sperm comes from dictates the gender of the child, as said above) so is this true scientifically? the answer is yes:


Female substance is more acidic, while male substance (sperm) is more alkaline, and those factors dictate the pH of the environment the sperm will go through, sources include, I quote:

The World Health Organization (WHO) laboratory manual (1992) states the normal values for pH in liquefied semen to be between 7.2 and 8.0 ... The mean pH values were consistently well above 8.0 regardless of analysis method and time after ejaculation. Since semen analysis is part of clinical assessment of male infertility and includes pH measurement, our findings suggest that the range of normal values needs to be revised further. [Source]

And:

The World Health Organization laboratory manual, last revised in 1992, states that the normal pH of semen ranges from 7.2 to 8.0. Our experience has been that values in our patient population are consistently higher than this range. To confirm this we reviewed >1100 semen records.
For all patients (N = 1199) mean (+/-SD) semen pH was 8.2 +/- 0.3. The range was 7.3 to 9.5, with pH < 8.0 in 32% of the samples... Mean semen pH value was 8.2 for both groups. In a small group of patients (n = 19) whose sperm preparations had been documented to result in a clinical pregnancy after intrauterine insemination the semen pH was 8.3 +/- 0.3, with a range of 7.9 to 8.7. [Source]

For those who don't know, pH level above 7 means its alkaline, that's for the semen, what about the Female substance? I quote:

‌The vagina’s pH level is about 3.8 to 4.5, which means it’s on the acidic side. Its acidity slightly decreases as you get older, with its pH level rising closer to 5. [Source]

Another quote:

A normal vaginal pH level is between 3.8 and 4.5, which is moderately acidic. However, what constitutes a “normal” pH level can vary slightly based on your stage of life. [Source]

And so after we understood that, what this has to do with the sex of child, the answer is, and I quote:

The theory behind douching for preconception sex selection is based on the laboratory evidence that X-carrying sperm cells are hardier than Y-carrying sperm cells. Research (in Petri dishes) has found that X-sperm can tolerate more acidic environments and that Y-sperm does better in more alkaline environments. [Source]

Another quote:

The changes in the pH environment within is now thought to affect baby’s gender. Experts say that alkaline in the follicular fluid will favour Y sperm (conceive a boy) while acidic in the follicular fluid gives preference to the X sperm (conceive a girl).[Source]

And so the Hadith is right!! when one of the substances prevailed, it also prevailed its pH level over the other, and thus be a factor for dictating the sex of the child, however we must focus here, this is one of the factor, not all that there is to it, that's why the Hadith says "by Allah's Decree", and just like that we found another miracle while debunking one ^_^, you atheists/enemies of Islam, have nothing but mislead yourself for the stupidest reason, more on that later.

Now going back to our topic, could you please debunk the miracle itself and not move around?

In fact, the Quran itself provides the evidence of its doctrinal omission or rejection of the role of the ovum in procreation, for verse 2:223 states that wives are merely tilth. This is saying they are like the earth receiving the zygote (i.e. seed) from the male.

I am afraid that lost your mind here, you don't know what Rhetoric is? ("majaze" talk will come later in this article), the verse has nothing to do with ovum or sperm or any of that, you are just doing another straw man argument, continue like that ^_^:

Therefore, if read in the context of verse 2:223, ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ cannot contain the ovum because tilth does not contribute genetic material to the development of the seed (i.e. zygote), and must mean the semen mingled with some unspecified non-genetic material-contributing female secretion.

So what you did is, you get another verse that has nothing to do with the topic, and then you link the rhetoric with knowledge that didn't exist before technology (and Allah knows) and you mix it with the random nonsense we debunked, you can't be less dumb then that, and almost all Muslims enemies use the exact same way, cheating and lying and misleading, continue:

In light of these facts, backed by the Quranic verses, it is apparent that the Quran’s view of human conception and reproduction is that the male parent contributes the diploid seed (nutfatin itha tumna) and the female parent, as tilth, merely contributes the environment and nutrients for the growth and development of this diploid seed.

And you also made a conclusion out of your Straw man argument, I feel like I need to explain that to the reader.

Straw man argument

Straw man argument based on Wikepedia is:

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

That doesn't need any more explanation, lets continue:

These verses clearly delineate the stages of the QEP as thus:
  1. Dust/wet earth/clay
  2. Nutfah (Believed to be sperm)
  3. Alaqa (leach, leach-like, clot, clinging thing)
  4. Mudgha (chewed lump, partly formed and partly unformed)
  5. Izhaam/Aitham (bones)
  6. Izhaam covered with Lahm (muscles and flesh)
  7. Another creation (fetus?)

I don't feel good about that.

The Islamists all conveniently ignore the first stage which is ‘DUST’. What does it correspond to in the modern Embryology? I know some Islamists would claim the dust to be metaphorical. Where is the evidence for that? If the dust is metaphorical, then the other stages should also be metaphorical, in the absence of evidence to differentiate between metaphorical and literal phrases.

Wait for it...

The evidence that ‘dust’ is not metaphorical is the word ‘then’ or ‘thumma’ linking dust and sperm. This is the same word linking various stages in the QEP sequence of events. To arbitrary assume that this word now no longer means an immediate follow-on to the next stage is disingenuous and devoid of explanatory evidence.

Very nice, you answered yourself ^_^ good boy, so your whole problem is ignorant about the conjunctive adverb "Tumman", and you also throw a straw man their, saying that it is "no longer means", like the Arabic language rules has "changed".

Now to explain it to the reader, the conjunctive adverb "thumma" or "ثم" doesn't mean it was immediate follow-on, and that's the case even for English, if I said "I visited Turkey then France", does this mean as soon as I came Turkey I left it to France? not really, and I quote from this dictionary:

following next after in order of position, narration, or enumeration : being next in a series

That's for English, in Arabic however we got a conjunctive adverb that does indeed mean an immediate follow-on, and it is "Fa" or "ف" (I also translate to "So", but not in immediate follow-on use) , and it is used in the Quran a lot, and this Image explains it better:

Notice that when it comes to "Tumma" all the conjunctive adverb "then" are there, but when it comes to "Fa" some translator simply link between verses to show that they are immediate follow-on (for that use), and if you think I cheated, then try it yourself.

Another funny thing about this argument is that, if "thumma" means an immediate follow-on the many if not most of the Quran verses won't make sense, but the guy throw that argument anyway, how stupid.

As for the talk about us being dust in origin and not sperm (and what I mean here isn't the origin of us being the offspring of Adam who was made out of dust, but us being created before he was on earth) that a wide subject that doesn't fit our topic now, but some how we changed from "EMBRYOLOGY" to "Straw man and waste time", lets continue:

Some Islamists will argue that the dust refers to the catalytic stage of clay in the first stage of abiogenesis. However, this is in error because there are numerous, literally eons length, steps between this clay-catalysis stage and the creation of humans. Secondly, the verse implies that man was made FROM clay, giving the impression clay was a building block and not a catalytic compound. Therefore, this clay-catalysis notion is nonsensical and debunked.

Huh, now you exposed yourself, "Islamists" believe in abiogenesis? if a Muslim believes in abiogenesis then he is not a Muslim anymore, no Muslim on earth believes that, nor believe in evolution, or any theory that tries to explain the origin of this world and life, and you come here to throw a another straw man on us? shame on you, is this the reason you left Islam for, lies? you are lying and you know you are lying, how dare you say it with straight face!

If it wasn't because of the people that may believe you I would of never wasted time debunking such self debunking claims, lets continue:

Most QEP proponents either conveniently omit the embarrassing verse 40:67 or dishonestly quote only the fragment supporting their case.

The only thing embarrassing here is the abiogenesis quote, but lets see what you will say about that verse (that I have been using as a reference the while making of this article):

Those QEP proponents who omit this verse are Keith Moore, Maurice Bucaille, Sharif Kaf Al-Ghazal, Nadeem Arif Najmi and Omar Abdul Rehman. Only Ibrahim Syed quotes the verse, but only up to the alaqa stage. Zakir Naik references it in a footnote, glossing over the ‘missing stages’, while Sulayman Gani quotes the verse in full, but glosses over the missing stages.

You got so much free time to name all of them, as if you want them dead in any cost.

This shows that the Quran can’t even get its embryology stages correct. Some might view 40:67 to ‘contradict’ the other embryology verses as it states clearly and plainly that the child is formed straight after the alaqa stage.

First, the verse doesn't contradict with anything, this verse simply almost everything needed to understand this miracle, as I will explain now:

The verse say:

It is He who created you from dust, then from a (sperm) drop, and then a (blood) clot. He then brings you forth as an infant, then you reach your strength, after which you come of age - though some of you die before it - and that you reach an appointed term, in order that you understand. [Quran 40:67]

We won't talk about the dust stage, as that's not the part of the miracle and also need to be explained alone and it is a wide subject.

We have talked about how the old Greek EMBRYOLOGY works, and how the Quran doesn't mention any of it, and give the right answer to how a embryo first stage is created.

and then a (blood) cot, and we mean the leech part that I also explain above, and how the Blastocyst is like a leech when it comes to sticking, stuck and sucking and even the look.

Now there is another stage but it is mentioned in another verse:

Then We created of the drop, a clot (of congealed blood) and We created the clot into bite-size tissue, then We created the bite-size tissue into bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it an other creation. Blessed is Allah, the Best of creators! [Quran 24:14]

Now here the translators did a good job taking into account the Tafsir, that was made before technology, and there for before this miracle shined, so what is the "bite-size tissue", first you have to understand that it is indeed "bite" (not added just like that by the translator) it is "Mudgha" or like the guy called it "chewed" or "something that was chewed by teeth", and so if they are a stage in human embryo that looks like a "chewed tissue", the answer is yes:

That's how the embryo looks like after the Embryonic Folding, like something that was chewed and have teeth traces.

The miracle doesn't end here, the other green part of the verse "then We clothed the bones with flesh" means that the bones were made first, then the flesh came to cover it, is that true? the answer is yes:

I quote:

muscle (myotome) and vertebrae (sclerotome). ... Each somite then differentiates into an outer dermatome, an inner myotome and a medial sclerotome (Fig. 4.6). Because the sclerotome differentiates before the other two components... [Syringomyelia: A Disorder of CSF Circulation, P. 54 , Source, Source 2]

And this is unlike how Hippocrates imagined it, I quote:

condeness as the result of heat: for the principle that heat coagulates and solidifies, ... , where the formation of bones is explained in the same way [The Hippocratic Treatises "On Generation", On the Nature of the Child, "Diseases IV", page 156, Source]

So meat is "coagulates and solidifies" by heat, then the bones formate in the same way, Hippocrates jokes doesn't end here, but that's out of the focus of this article.


And so, after that stage, the embryo takes its time to become a complete baby and a new human is created:


So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!


Lets continue with the guy talk:

There is a clear mistake in the QEP idea of the formation of bone. Drs Needham and Needbeer of freethoughtmecca explain this well and I defer to their expertise.

Ok, show us (I will read the Quote he putted):

While we will return to the issue of mudgha below, we should now move on to the issue of izhaam (bones). As was noted above, after the alaqa is turned into a mudgha, the Qur'an states fa-khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, or "then we formed the morsel into bones." Moore and his cohort try to change the translation to "out of the mudgha we formed bones," so as to give the impression that the bones are forming inside the embryo, rather than the entire object becoming bones. This brings to light the duplicitous nature that these people are taking to the text.

Well it was surprise for me to confirm what you said, as while searching for this article I came to this video video by my brother in Islam Mohammed Hijab (I love you <3)

Said almost the same thing, I could understand that, its a mistake my brother did and I don't blame him (and I will fix his mistake here, and possible reach to him and send him this article.), but for you, I WILL PUT YOU IN SHAME.

The problem you have is that you think because the Quran said "then we formed the morsel into bones" there for the whole mudgha should be bones, and that's an error only ignorant in Arabic will fall into, and I will explain:

in Arabic we have something called "Al majaze al morsal" or "المجاز المرسل" and it is widely used in the Quran, for example:

And two young men went to prison with him. One of them said: I dreamed that I was pressing wine... [Quran 16:36]

Notice "pressing wine", now ask your self, can you press wine? wine is already a liquid, why press it? the answer is what we just said, its "مجاز مرسل" and to explain it, you have to see what wine used to be, it used to be grapes right? so the real meaning is "I was pressing grapes" and after the pressing we get wine, this "majaze" (metaphor) of type "What it will be", and there are many types, this picture show them (Source):

And because I don't want see this mistake by any Anti-Islam idiot I will explain each time with an example from the Quran:


There are other "majaze" but they are less used, those are the common ones.

Now to fix the problem, "then we formed the morsel into bones", Quran used "majaze" of type All (but want piece), so not all of the mudga turned into bones, but a part of it, and this way, the problem is fixed ^_^.

Next time any Islam hater must understand those before talking.




Lets continue with the Quote:

As will be noted below, proponents of this polemic want izhaam to not actually be a reference to bone, but rather cartilaginous precursors to bone, thus we see that there are two possible (and rather different) usages of the logical structure khalaqnaa X,Y being employed. Does the logical structure mean "we formed the X into a Y," or does it mean "we caused a precursor to Y to form inside the X"? No person to put forth the polemic has ever explained which is the correct interpretation, or if both are possible how they know to use one and not the other. The reality is that khalaqnaa X,Y means "we formed the X into a Y," and there is no implication that the Y (much less something other than Y!) is only forming inside the X.

As I said, it seems to be a mistake done by some Muslims who probably missed the "majaze" part of the Arabic language, possibly because most of the time they are trying to convince people using only English, lets continue:

When we reach izhaam we find another problematic part of the verse. Consider that the text reads: khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, fa-kasawnaa al-izhaaman laHman. First note that khalaqnaa is past tense, and the pre-fix fa means "then." So the verse reads: "we formed the morsel into bones, then we clothed the bones with flesh." Thus, it implies bone forms before soft tissue, which is a blatant error, not to mention one that parallels Galen.

We just gave a proof above that its the case ^_^, the bones are formed very shortly because the soft tissue, as the letter "Fa" means immediate follow-on, and that's shows accuracy =), lets continue:

As was alluded to above, there is an argument put forth by those who push this polemic that the "bones" are actually a reference to cartilaginous models that will later ossify. Of course, the text has izhaam, which only means bone - there is no reference to cartilage (Arabic: ghudhroof), so we see that the champions of this deceptive polemic are importing things. Furthermore, as was noted in the previous paragraph, the text has a past tense conjugation followed by the word "then" (fa), thus the logic of the text is that the bones were completed, finished, and then they were clothed with flesh. This does not square with the actual process that some wish to correlate the text with, where cartilaginous skeletal models ossify while muscle forms around them simultaneously.

Nice ^_^, so you already know that the bones are "majaze" of type what it will be, and thus we don't need a reference to cartilaginous to confirm that, and also they didn't "import things", this is a feature in the Arabic language, and if you didn't accept it then don't try to debunk the Quran using language, and I already explained what "Fa" mean, so the bones doesn't have to be finished (turn into a real solid bone) for the flesh (muscle) to form, lets go back to our guy:

Unless and until an Islamist can adequately explain why the syntax of stage transformation is somehow different in the izhaam stage compared to all the other stages, one must logically conclude that the Quran is in error in believing that the mudgha turned totally into izhaam.

I guess you mean how we know is something is "majaze" or not, the answer is knowledge, you simply use your previous knowledge to know what type of majaze is in here, if there is no majaze then it is what it means (and Allah knows), with the advancement of technology we managed to know that the mudgha doesn't fully turn into bones there for its a majaze, got it ^_^, lets continue:

The Islamist would simply say that the syntax allows both interpretations, i.e. khalaqna can mean made into or made within. However, I’m still to see an Islamist provide proof of this assertion. It is easy to make assertions. Backing them up with evidence is another matter. Therefore, in the failure of evidence otherwise, the conclusion must be that the syntax of verse 23:12-14 must reveal the QEP to be in error.

I talked about it above, skipping...

Secondly, the Islamist has to explain why the author(s) of the Quran was deficient in their language and forgot to mention cartilage (ghudhroof) but bone (izhaam).

Yah dirty way of saying that tho, you know that the Quran is the word of Allah, but anyway, first you didn't even understand the difference between "thumma" and "fa" and you come to criticize the language of the Quran, the same language that the Arabes of Muhammad (PBUH) time couldn't believe, and those aren't some simple people that know the Arabic language, if you saw some of their texts and "language stories" your brain will be set on fire, as those people talk stuff that takes days for today Arabes to write, go figure.

Secondly and as I said above, the Quran doesn't follow any one's suggestions, lets continue:

Thirdly, muscle and bone (or their precursors) develop contemporaneously, although muscle begins developing before cartilage and bone. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for the QEP proposition of a stage in which bone is later covered with flesh after its own formation. Muscles begin developing in week four. There are 40 pairs of developing muscles in the five-week embryo, and they begin to move by week six when the skeletal system is still totally cartilage which forms in week five or six. By week seven, the muscles and nerves begin work together, when ossification (i.e. bone formation) begins.

With the knowledge I said above, your claim is false, and for "although muscle begins developing before cartilage and bone" that's a scientific problem and I hope you got a proof for it, lets continue:

It can be argued that since cartilage does not begin forming until week five or six and muscles begin forming in the fourth week, the Quranic verse 23:14 got the embryology completely reversed, and therefore, incorrect.

I hope you got a proof for that:

Here is the scientific evidence for the contemporaneous development of cartilage/bone and muscles:

Yes, bring them ^_^:

Ossification (in upper limb) occurs at the end of the 7th week. - The Developing Human, 6th Edition Clinically Oriented Embryology Keith L. Moore, Ph..D., FIAC, FRSM T.V.N. Persaud, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., FRCPath W.B. Saunders Company (Philadelphia), 1998 p. 96

Lets see what the same book you bring also say (Source):

In a frontal section of a 4-week embryo, the sclerotomes appear as paired condensations of mesenchymal cells around the notochord... [The Developing Human, 6th Edition Clinically Oriented Embryology, p. 413]
The skeletal system develops from mesodermal and nerual crest cells. As the notochord and neural tube form, the intraembryonic mesoderm lateral to these structures thickens to form two longitudinal columns of paraxlal mesoderm (Fig 15-1A and B). Toward the end of the third week, these columns become segmented into blocks of mesodermal tissue, the somites (Fig. 15-1C). Externally the somites appear as beadlike elevations along the dorsolateral surface of the embro (see Chapter 5). Each somite differetiates into two parts (Fig. 15-1D and E):
The ventromedial part is the sclerotome; its cells form the vertebrae and ribs.
The dorsolateral part is the dermomyotome; ceels from its myotome region from myoblasts (primordial muscle cells), and those from its dermatome region from the dermis of the skin. [p.407]

So your book admits the sclerotome (which later will become bones), form in the 4th week, with the dermomyotome, and note here that dermomyotome is not myotome, they are different, now to confirm that the sclerotome if formed before myotome, lets see this Video:

In the video Professor Zach Murphy state that somites get separates into two chunks: dermatomyotome and sclerotome, and then the dermatomyotome differentiates into : myotome and dermatome, and so we confirmed the paper that we talked about above, and lets not forget that your quote says "7th week" while we are talking end of 3th week or the 4th week, lets see what other sources you got:

According to Rugh in Conception to Birth Roberts Rugh, Ph.D., Landrum B. Shettles, Ph.D., M.D. Harper & Row, (New York), 1971, muscles appear in pelvis by 6th week (p 43). Movement of the muscles is being controlled by the nervous system by the 6th week (p 34). All of the muscle blocks have appeared by day 36 after conception (p 46).
Thus bone appears after muscles have formed.

From the same Source, I quote:

Durning this period of the initial development of the nervous system, the embryo is simultaneously forming some of its basic muscles. By 28 days it has the building blocks for 40 pairs of muslces, situated from the base of its skull to the lower and of its spinal columm. The 33 pairs of vertebrae that form the spinal column start as segments known as somites, which grow laterally out from the neural tube in the third week. [P. 35]

28 days is exactly 4 weeks, like we said above, lets continue:

Even if we were to accept that the Quran was only referring to precursors of bone and not bone itself, even though it used the Arabic word for bone, izhaam, the embryology is still wrong.

Lets see what else you got ^_^:

Muscle precursors begin developing into muscle soon after mesenchymal (skeletal) condensation [see here and here].

The first Link doesn't work, even using the wayback machine, the second link also doesn't work, but using the wayback machine I got this this, a PDF file that looks like a kid has made, It says stuff then move to say other stuff, and throw some figures without even explaining what they are, by checking the address we see this:

http://people.uncw.edu/ballardt/bio316/limb.pdf

If we removed the sub parts we get this link "http://people.uncw.edu/" and it takes us to a page from University of North Carolina Wilmington, and I quote:

The views and opinions expressed on student and faculty web pages on the http://student.uncw.edu and http://people.uncw.edu web servers are strictly those of the page author. The contents of these pages have not been reviewed nor approved by the University of North Carolina Wilmington.

So this is not a scientific paper or anything that was approved by a university, it is just a PDF file made by an unknown (possible Amar Khan himself ^_^), So is that what you got, you throw books quotes that have no relation with what we are talking about to scare the reader, broken link without a domain and a joke PDF file? I don't know who believes in the stuff you share, but he got to be super low IQ, lets continue:

Looks like muscle forms contemporaneously with cartilage formation and is not delayed until bone had formed. Muscle development starts on Day 28 [see link].

Before that you said 7th and 6th week now you say 28 day (4 week), oh well, lets see the link you got.

The link takes you to a page that has nothing to do with this topic, and the wayback machine doesn't work with it, and so, because I got a scientific source for my claim, it is then still valid until you disprove it, lets continue:

Building blocks are present for 40 pairs of muscles, which are located from the base of the skull to the bottom of the spinal column. Day 28 after conception Rugh, p 35 Muscles appear in the pelvic region. Day 31 after conception Rugh, p 43 All of the muscle blocks have appeared. Day 36 after conception Rugh, p 46 Muscular layers of the stomach, esophagus, and intestines begin to proliferate. Day 56 after conception Rugh, p 53 The first indication of limb musculature is observed. 7th week of development Sadler, 7th edition, p 168

Now you admit your source say that muscles start forming from day 28 (4 weeks), also where does it says that cartilage and muscle appear in the same time? (or muscles before bones) it doesn't, lets continue:

Cartilage first appears in week 5 [see here]

The link doesn't work, but using the wayback machine I got this, the page indeed say:

5th week Cartilage first appears

Now lets see how valid this source is, using the same method as before, we see the full link "som.flinders.edu.au/FUSA/ORTHOWEB/notebook/disease/embriology.html" we remove the final part and put in the wayback machine and we got this this, I quote:

These Notes were produced by Orthopaedic Registrars of the South Australian Training Program to assist study for the Part 2 FRACS Examinations for fellowship in Orthopaedic Surgery. These notes were derived from journal articles, clinical meetings and other sources. This material should not replace clinical judgement or any published data regarding patient care or drug dosing.

So not only the source claim they don't get their information through studies and scientific papers, but they also don't recommend it!

If you still believe in this guy, then I am sorry for you.

Lets continue:

But the cartilage skeleton begins forming by week 6 [see here].

Lets check the validity of the source first, the link does work, and we saw the main domain we see "http://www.personal.psu.edu" notice the "personal" word in it, if we open the link, we read, and I quote:

The purpose of www.personal.psu.edu is to provide web hosting services in a unified place for Penn State departments, organizations, faculty, staff and the general student population.

So the website is nothing but a hosting services, and I think anyone can host any trash in it to throw his agenda ^_^, lets continue:

Thus, when the bone precursors were developing, muscles were also developing at the same time. The cartilage model of the skeleton begins developing by week 6 (see above) and is only developed by the 7th week (link).

The link doesn't work, using the wayback machine it worked, and it doesn't look like a site made by a university, as it has "Help us" tab, and there is no university that asks for donations (as far as I know), and so checking more I found the site to be made by "American Collegians for Life" checking more on who are these people I found this, I quote:

SFLA was founded in 1988 as American Collegians for Life by students at Georgetown University. They run an event called "sockit2PP", targeting Planned Parenthood.

(To see the truth about Planned Parenthood see this article)

In other words this is not a valid source, also it is out of the topic that you gave, remember you said "Even if we were to accept that the Quran was only referring to precursors of bone and not bone itself", and you still didn't give anything but broken links of invalid sources, lets continue:

Mesenchymal models of the bones in the limbs undergo chondrification to form hyaline cartilage. Week 6 (Moore: The Developing Human, 6th ed., p. 420, fig. 15-15D).
At this time, all the muscle blocks have already appeared. [Rugh p. 46]

We already talked about this, lets continue:

Thus, Keith Moore is wrong. Muscles do not take their positions around the bone forms at the end of the seventh week and during the eighth week. All the muscle blocks have already appeared around the developing skeleton by day 36—i.e. early week 5. Bone and Muscle develop contemporaneously. In fact, muscle appears BEFORE bone and around the same time as the cartilage precursor.

Lol, here you used his work to prove your point, then you say he is wrong, but I think I know why =), lets continue:

Also I already answered this.

This diagram shows that the week 6 embryo (Carnegie Stage 16) already has musculature when the cartilage is forming.

And there is no diagram...

So that's all you got? the valid sources you used are doesn't even target what the miracle states, and you kept flexing it like you are sure you understood it, but that's expected from someone who doesn't know the basic of Arabic language. =) lets continue:

Proponents of the QEP state that mudgha stage in which the phrase “partly formed and partly unformed” or “shaped and shapeless” refers to the incomplete cell differentiation observed in this stage.
Yusuf Ali 22:05: … We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed…

For the "formed and unformed" or "partly formed and partly unformed" Tafsir scholars agreed that it talks about "formed" who finishes all stages and born to life, and "unformed" who fall (die) along those stages and not get complete and live (this is my own conclusion from the Tafsir), lets continue reading this guy's claim:

Sadly for the Islamists, some of whom are embryologists and medical doctors and so should know better, this claim is not backed by the scientific evidence.
Remembering that this mudgha stage occurs before the izham stage, it must occur before week six, when the progeny is still in the “embryo” stage. However, modern embryologists know that cell differentiation occurs well before the ‘mudgha’ stage and well into the “fetal” stage. Hence the QEP claim must be incorrect.

Now I don't know who claimed that (as you didn't give any name), but I agree that its wrong, also the Tafsir already has Ibn Abbas (only Muslims know what that means ^_^), and so the Quran isn't the one to blame this time, lets continue:

Islamists claim that the Quran correctly denotes the start of the Fetal stage by referring to the creation of ‘another creation’ after the izham/lahm (bone clothed with flesh) stage which supposedly occurs at week eight.
An experienced embryologist would know that the delineation of the embryo and fetal stages is arbitrary.
However, the 8-week dividing line is still arbitrary, since a firm scientific basis for the transition to the fetal stage is lacking (link).

I don't know where you get your "Islamists" claims from, each time you come and say "Islamists claim" without giving any name, and also we are called Muslims, not "Islamists", I will skip this part as I doubt Muslims claimed this, and if they did I say they are wrong straight up, this is far from what the miracle is about, lets continue:


Some Islamists claim that the Quran correctly states that the least period of conception is 6 months. They base this claim on two verses.
Pickthall 46:15: And We have commended unto man kindness toward parents. His mother beareth him with reluctance, and bringeth him forth with reluctance, and the bearing of him and the weaning of him is thirty months, till, when he attaineth full strength and reacheth forty years, he saith: My Lord! Arouse me that I may give thanks for the favour wherewith Thou hast favoured me and my parents, and that I may do right acceptable unto Thee. And be gracious unto me In the matter of my seed. Lo! I have turned unto Thee repentant, and lo! I am of those who surrender (unto Thee).
Pickthall 31:14: And We have enjoined upon man concerning his parents. His mother beareth him in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning is in two years. Give thanks unto Me and unto thy parents. Unto Me is the journeying.

Ahuh continue:

Dr Omar Abdul Rehman claims that ‘the two texts taken together leave only six months (22 weeks i.e., five and half Gregorian months are equal to about six lunar months. of pregnancy).’ Here, Dr Abdul Rehman’s sleigh of hand to fit 22 weeks into six lunar months is ludicrous as each lunar month consists of four weeks, while five and a half Gregorian months consist of about 23.8 weeks.

Ok there are a lot of mistakes here, lets fix them:

First, lets give a little zoom to where you get "Dr Omar Abdul Rehman" claims, as the start of your section you gave this link that doesn't work, using the wayback machine I got this which says it was "Presented by Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman", now lets just ignore everything and check the look of it:

hmmm, where have I seen that style before? lets check this link from answering-Islam (Another anti-Islam site), that I debunked here, now lets see its style:

It is exactly the same style.

Now before I claim that the page was made by answering Islam lets dig deeper, when we see the link we found "http://www.aquaire.clara.co.uk/" this means its a site domain, not a page from a site, so this was not a full site before, but just a single page, now searching on the tips this link was referenced I found: This paper, This book, and the rest is either a reference by normal people or a copy of the page we are debunking (because you can't be creative ^_^), however, from the book I quote:

Authors Note: Not all publication names are listed for the books referenced. These books are mostly Arabic and do not have names of the publishers and/or places of publication. However, these are quite common in Islamic literature and do not prevent people from reaching these references.

And so the validity of this source is questionable, but lets give it and say it is a valid source and was written by a Muslim.


Second, Dr Omar Abdul Rehman or any other Muslim today, are not the first to claim this, in Tafsir : Al-Saadi, Baghaway, Ibn-Katheer and even Al-Jalalayn stated this, and to add more Ibn-Katheer stated that a group of sahaba (followers of Muhammad (PBUH) who lived in his time and saw him) also agreed on this claim, and so this exist WAY before today [Source, it is on Arabic, go translate it yourself and do your own research]

Third, since "Dr Omar Abdul Rehman" said 6 months of lunar months, which end up with 24 weeks, this means that the only mistake he did was not calculating how many weeks there are in 6 months of lunar months, it is just that mistake? lets continue:

Dr Al-Ghazal also claims that according to ‘scientific facts’ the least period of conception is 22 weeks.

Lets see, I quote from his book "Medical Miracles of the Qur'an":

In this stage, the organs and other systems prepare to function. The foetus is ready for life outside the womb starting from the 22nd to the 26th week (i.e. after completion of the 6th month of gestation), when the respiratory system is ready to function and the nervous system is able to adjust the temperature of the foetus body. [Page 24, Source]

And so he didn't say 22 week exactly, but gave a rang from 22 to 26 week.

Even assuming the arbitrary claim by Drs Al-Ghazal and Abdul Rehman of 22 weeks, being the ‘most cases’ scenario (patently false according to medical statistics – see below), one is left with the conclusion that the Quran is still in error as six lunar months is 24 weeks, not 22 weeks.

Now here you showed your dumbness, who said the Quran is the one to say 6 lunar months = 22 weeks? even the 6 month things isn't mentioned, this now becomes a Straw man argument!

This two-week difference is very important to the development and survivability of the fetus. Hence, it should not be summarily dismissed and rounded to the nearest month. If anything, it should be rounded to five lunar months, not six.

This just exposes your straw man argument, as the both your resources say 6 lunar months, but you toke the 22 weeks mistake and made a whole argument about it.

Regardless, the claim of six lunar months or 22 weeks as the least period of conception or ‘minimum period for fetal viability’ is unsupported by modern medical science.

Again 6 lunar months are not 22 weeks, nice misleading tho, he quoted a source and I want to quote this:

21 and 22 week premature babies are now supported routinely, and have a good chance of survival. By 24 weeks after conception, premature babies have a 40% chance of reaching adulthood without any major complications. By 28 weeks, the chance is 90%. By 29 weeks, survival is almost definite. (Note: These percentages are from reports written during the late 1980s. Current survival rates are most likely much higher.)

So even your old 1980 source (with broken link) say that 22 week babies have "good chance of survival", but lets give it to you and say it doesn't work.

Note that the link he reference is called abortion info, is that what you end up with Mr Amar Khan? after you left the religion you know it is the right one to follow, but ((It is not the eyes, but the hearts in the chests that are blind. [Quran 22:46]))

lets continue:

Thus, it can be seen that the minimum period of fetal viability has changed, at least in recent history. It was never 22 weeks or 6 lunar months prior to the era of modern medicine, being likely to have been at least 30 weeks. Now, it has shrunk to only 19 weeks in countries with advanced pediatric medicine. I would suggest the minimum period of fetal viability in many third-world countries would still be around 30 weeks. Thus, the QEP proposition of the least period of conception is false.

What a conclusion, as if the survival of the baby depends only on period of conception, I quote from this Wikipedia page:

Historical figures who were born prematurely include Johannes Kepler (born in 1571 at seven months' gestation), Isaac Newton (born in 1642, small enough to fit into a quart mug, according to his mother), Winston Churchill (born in 1874 at seven months' gestation), and Anna Pavlova (born in 1885 at seven months' gestation).

And so this disprove your claim, history has babies that were born early and survived, lets continue and we finally reached the conclusion:

The Quranic Pseudoscience Embryology can be seen to be false due to the following points:

Bring them ^_^:

2. The Quran includes an initial dust stage that cannot be reconciled with modern embryology.

That's from the unknown that we can't confirm scientifically, you may as well think angels don't exist because modern science can't see them -_- next:

3. The missing stages of verse 40:67 contradict the other embryology verses.

Simply because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it contradict with verses that this thing has been mentioned on, for example if I said "I toke a shower yesterday" does this mean I didn't wake up, eat, work, and such? your claim doesn't make sense, Next:

The stage of bone formation is in error, even assuming that izhaam means both bone and cartilage.

The only error was you not knowing a single thing about the Arabic language, Next:

The Quranic view of cell differentiation at the Mudgha stage is incorrect, as modern embryology has discovered cell differentiation occurring before and after the putative ‘Mudgha’ stage.

I hope next time you put a reference to those who told you this claim, and it is wrong, Quran doesn't and didn't say that, Next:

The QEP claim that Quran correctly predicted the beginning of the fetal stage is debunked because the transition between the embryo and the fetus is arbitrary.

Again the Quran didn't say that, Next:

The QEP claim that the Quran correctly states the least period of conception at 24 weeks is in error, as according to modern medical knowledge this period is closer to 21-22 weeks or even less with advanced medical science, and at least 30 weeks without modern medical assistance.

After you flexed your 22 weeks claim for so long, you come to say 24 weeks doesn't work? and then say that 21-22 weeks work?


We are done debunking everything that has to do with this page, as you have read this guy: lied, used claims no one said, used unscientific resources, straw man argument, arguments out of ignorant, harassing and more.

If you still believe on what he said, then I am sorry for you, I can't help people who doesn't have brain, or at least a heart, now lets explain some stuff:

Why the Quran leaves margin for people to get confused?

The Quran answers that:

It is He who has sent down to you the Book. Some of its verses are precise in meaning - they are the foundation of the Book - and others obscure. Those whose hearts are swerving with disbelief, follow the obscure desiring sedition and desiring its interpretation, but no one knows its interpretation except Allah. Those who are well-grounded in knowledge say: 'We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none remember except those who are possessed of minds. [Quran 3:7]

It is so clear now isn't it? those who are filled with disbelief, hatred for Islam, will follow the obscure verses so they get filtered from the believers, whom they believe in what's the Quran even if it was unknown to them, you may say it is a blind believe? I say just look around you, miracles like this one was never known to them, without even a slight confirmation they continued to believe in the Quran, passing it to us after more then 1,450 years, Indeed only the sick hearts disbelieve.

Bonus Miracle

Check this hadith:

‘A’isha reported God’s messenger as saying, “Everyone of the children of Adam has been created with three hundred and sixty joints, so he who declares God’s greatness, praises God, declares that He is the only God, glorifies God, asks forgiveness of God, removes a stone, a thorn, or a bone from people’s path, enjoins what is reputable, or forbids what is objectionable to the number of those three hundred and sixty, will walk that day having removed himself from hell.” [Mishkat al-Masabih 1897 Book 6, Hadith 124, Source]

So 360 joints, is that true scientifically? not only this is true, but this is a miracle in all shapes and forms:

If only adults are considered, there are 360 joints in the adult human body. [Source]
The joints connect bone to bone, and there are 360 joints in our bodies. [Source]
There are 360 joints in the human body. [Source]
A joint is a point where two or more bones meet and there are 360 joints in the human body. [Source]
In the average human body there are 360 joints, 206 bones and about 640 muscles. [Source]

Now you come and try to debunk this ^_^, they are a lot of miracles like this, go check them out!

Closing words

Islam-watch and other anti-Islam sites are still trying hopelessly to take down Islam, while the only thing they do is make it stronger!

As before I made this article, I didn't understood the miracle myself! but thanks to Islam-watch I gain a lot of knowledge to use for guiding people, not to mention I really enjoyed making this article, doing the research that toke me to many different fields from history to science to biology to language and such.

As for now I won't make more Islam-watch articles and focus more on other anti-Islam sites, because Islam-watch is old outdated site that is only believed by fools, and Allah knows.


And they will add, `If we had only listened and tried to understand we would not have been among the inmates of the blazing Fire (this day).' [Quran 67:10]

And Allah knows.