Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

''Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction''

It appears to me, that I think it's imparting a wise assumption. An assumption that you agree with, surely.

"If there is no incongruity found, it still doesn't mean the text was from God"

I still think that there is fallacy in reasoning here. You are tackling a different issue here. Your sentence is more or less:

"If there is no incongruity found, it still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god difinitively."

The text was not arguing this. It was merely stating that had it been written by man, it would be riddled by mistakes.

Separately to the above, you have listed the alleged contradictions, errors, arguments against the quran/bible which is commendable. A quick google search shows 100's of refutations existing on the internet. Good or bad? I don't know. So whoever is bothered to look into that can go do that. And I've just realised that said person is probably going to do that anyway.

I accept that my reasoning contained a fallacy then, you are right in what the text is arguing - it almost sound as if it's okay if the text have some contradictions.
I must ask Muslims reading this if the Quran perhaps can contain contradictions after all, because if it can then that would make the erroneous verses a moot point.

I'll go ahead and narrow down the initial list and try to focus on as clear verses as possible, and put forth the arguments against them:

86:1 By the heaven and the Morning Star

86:2 - Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is!

86:3 - The piercing Star!

86:4 No human soul but hath a guardian over it.

86:5 So let man consider from what he is created.

86:6 He is created from a gushing fluid

86:7 That issued from between the loins and ribs.

Man is strictly speaking created from an egg cell combined with a sperm cell, if this gushing fluid is meant to be the sperm then the verse is misleading as it ommit the egg cell. And if the gushing fluid is supposed to be sperm then it is incorrect as it is not issued from between the loins and ribs.

7:79 And (Salih) turned from them and said: O my people! I delivered my Lord's message unto you and gave you good advice, but ye love not good advisers.

7:80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?

7:81 Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

"Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?" could possibly only apply to human beings if "creatures" does not include non-human species. If it does include all animals then it sounds incorrect as homosexual behavior are naturally occurring in many species and probably before human beings were evolved.

7:123 Pharaoh said: Ye believe in Him before I give you leave! Lo! this is the plot that ye have plotted in the city that ye may drive its people hence. But ye shall come to know!
7:124 Surely I shall have your hands and feet cut off upon alternate sides. Then I shall crucify you every one.

I cannot find a single source of crucification being used in ancient egypt, and thus question the accuracy of this particular verse.

16:68 And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying: Choose thou habitations in the hills and in the trees and in that which they thatch;

16:69 Then eat of all fruits, and follow the ways of thy Lord, made smooth (for thee). There cometh forth from their bellies a drink divers of hues, wherein is healing for mankind. Lo! herein is indeed a portent for people who reflect.

Really depends on whether or not the language was metaphorical, otherwise incorrect as bees don't eat of fruits.

25:54 And He it is Who hath created man from water, and hath appointed for him kindred by blood and kindred by marriage; for thy Lord is ever Powerful.

96:1 Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth,

96:2 Createth man from a clot.

3:59 Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.

6:2 He it is Who hath created you from clay, and hath decreed a term for you. A term is fixed with Him. Yet still ye doubt!

16:4 He hath created man from a drop of fluid, yet behold! he is an open opponent.

Now here he is speaking of the creation of man(kind) and the creation of individual men, but there are still contradictions as well as inaccuracies regarding how Allah created mankind (96:2, 3:59 and 6:2) and how individual men are created (16:4, we aren't created from a drop of fluid no matter if the drop is referring to sperm or the egg cell )

 

[Shanadeus]

For everything good of course. I think the sentence was misleading, sorry. What I really meant is this...


As for the second point, I already told you that people have the choice, you can go to a mountain trip and stand near an edge of a high place and fall, but you wouldn't have fallen if you didn't go there. So? If you went there and fell, God already knows that and knows your choice, which is: you went by the edge's side and it is written like that by God. It is written like that because God knows what you will choose.

You have the choice to kill, rape, abuse or go anything like that. But did God force you do it? No. You have the choice to do it or not, don't you? But Why did God write our deeds? Because God knows what we will choose.

So, what? God wouldn't punish us (or reward us) if we were forced on our deeds. We have the choice and you are fully aware of that. And God wrote your deeds because he knows your specific choices and that's why they are already written.


It is the belief that God has absolute knowledge. God isn't the source of evil or whatever some people say. God created us with the choice and that's why there are people who believe and others who don't. Don't you have the choice to change your belief now, for example? You can, but you don't want to. I am not trying to preach by the way.

And don't worry. I am not trying to prove you are wrong or anything. I just answered the questions and actually, I appreciate your question.

I hadn't checked through the first page even and found this post, that I have some objections with.

First I have to ask you about the nature of souls, are personalities and our behavior directly linked to the soul and where do souls come from to begin with?

 

[Ashes]

The idea of souls are interesting to me. Where is my soul for instance? is it in my head or heart or what form does it take? And what is it exactly? All of this is conjecture though. I can't touch my soul nor see it.
My personality is basically my thoughts which appear to be neurons firing electrical pulses inside my brain. A number of my impulses are hormonol, and a few other emotions are related in a somewhat more complicated fashion.

 

[jdogmoney]

Can someone explain to me how someone like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-qr6gxIHhQ&feature=related

still has a job preaching?

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention, lots of hate in that link. Be warned.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Does anyone remember that story where this gay guy sued a publisher of The Bible because it's views on homosexuality caused him emotional distress? In hindsight I would loved to have seen him succeed just out of curiosity. Seeing the counter lawsuits against e.g. the Origin of Species for causing distress to Christians and the havoc would have caused would have been great entertainment.

 

[Shanadeus]

Posting all the posts from the agnostic thread here:

On the validity of the Qu'ran:

Of course it changes if some action is logical or not. You might believe that the Quran is evidence god exists with all of your heart, but that doesn't change the fact that it can be shown, objectively, that this is quite unlikely to be the case. It's merely an earlier incident of faith that must be satisfied before you believe in god.

Objectively shown that it's quite unlikely that it comes from God. Let's see that.

This is circular reasoning. I don't even have to consider that it comes from god before you or anyone else provides sufficient evidence to suggest that god even exists, nevermind provides us with information.

Huh you're totally copping out here!

I said that my evidence is the Quran. You said
that it can be objectively shown that it's quite unlikely the Quran came from God. I asked
to see this objective information and you respond with you don't need to show anything. What? Lol.

Are we having a discussion here or what?

I'm satifsying your requirements for logic. The Quran proves the existence of God maybe not to you but it does to me. Therefore my logic is sound. Now for me to convince YOU to believe requires me to convince you that the Quran comes from God. For you to convince me you need to show that the Quran does NOT come from God.

Ironically your job is a hell of a lot easier. So
why run away from it?

I cannot convince you that the Qu'ran doesn't come from Allah, but I can point to certain verses that sound incorrect - thus invalidating the infallibility which is one of the arguments for the book being from God (an argument which I do not accept as there are other explanations more likely then the book being created by God):

86:1 By the heaven and the Morning Star

86:2 - Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is!

86:3 - The piercing Star!

86:4 No human soul but hath a guardian over it.

86:5 So let man consider from what he is created.

86:6 He is created from a gushing fluid

86:7 That issued from between the loins and ribs.

Man is strictly speaking created from an egg cell combined with a sperm cell, if this gushing fluid is meant to be the sperm then the verse is misleading as it ommit the egg cell. And if the gushing fluid is supposed to be sperm then it is incorrect as it is not issued from between the loins and ribs.

7:79 And (Salih) turned from them and said: O my people! I delivered my Lord's message unto you and gave you good advice, but ye love not good advisers.

7:80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?

7:81 Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

"Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?" could possibly only apply to human beings if "creatures" does not include non-human species. If it does include all animals then it sounds incorrect as homosexual behavior are naturally occurring in many species and probably before human beings were evolved.

7:123 Pharaoh said: Ye believe in Him before I give you leave! Lo! this is the plot that ye have plotted in the city that ye may drive its people hence. But ye shall come to know!
7:124 Surely I shall have your hands and feet cut off upon alternate sides. Then I shall crucify you every one.

I cannot find a single source of crucification being used in ancient egypt, and thus I question the accuracy of this particular verse.

16:68 And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying: Choose thou habitations in the hills and in the trees and in that which they thatch;

16:69 Then eat of all fruits, and follow the ways of thy Lord, made smooth (for thee). There cometh forth from their bellies a drink divers of hues, wherein is healing for mankind. Lo! herein is indeed a portent for people who reflect.

Really depends on whether or not the language was metaphorical, otherwise incorrect as bees don't eat of fruits.

25:54 And He it is Who hath created man from water, and hath appointed for him kindred by blood and kindred by marriage; for thy Lord is ever Powerful.

96:1 Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth,

96:2 Createth man from a clot.

3:59 Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.

6:2 He it is Who hath created you from clay, and hath decreed a term for you. A term is fixed with Him. Yet still ye doubt!

16:4 He hath created man from a drop of fluid, yet behold! he is an open opponent.

Now here he is speaking of the creation of man(kind) and the creation of individual men, but there are still contradictions as well as inaccuracies regarding how Allah created mankind (96:2, 3:59 and 6:2) and how individual men are created (16:4, we aren't created from a drop of fluid no matter if the drop is referring to sperm or the egg cell )

I appreciate you taking the time to do this. I apologize that I don't have the time right now to respond to each thing i'm actually on vacation right now and responding to things on my iPhone. But if you don't mind waiting a few days I will respond back to your quotes.

Overall though I'll tell you that these are probably the weakest examples of inconsistency I've seen someone use in this kind of debate. I've seen WAY more challenging examples before so overall it's obviously not going to change my mind. In the future I'd save yourself the effort unless you have something REALLY good and challenging. Taking a few translated verses
and saying the not exact words were used is a bit simple.

Again I appreciate the effort you actually responded to my question which is more than I can say for the others. So I promise that I will give you an actual response when I can don't want you feeling that I'm avoiding your points.

That's quite alright, my purpose with these posts is really to test your faith and make you think over your reasons for aligning yourself with Islam - you can take whatever time you need to respond to the quotes.

And the reason I could not find plenty of scientifically inaccurate verses in the Qu'ran is simply because there are almost none, almost all verses are unverifiable and phrased in a very fuzzy manner - lacking many details and often being subjective statements. The only verses you could actually argue about where the ones I put forth above, which makes claims about basic biology that anyone can find out for themselves.

That's also the reason I avoid bringing up evolution as an argument against the verses claiming God created mankind from a single man, because if you believe in the Qu'ran you will most likely not believe in evolution and no matter how many facts I present as support for it you will probably dismiss them.

Now if you take your time to refute these verses I've put up, I'd like to ask you to provide some verses making scientific statements which people of that time couldn't possibly have known and I will in turn read them and tell you what I feel about their validity in this discussion.

Kharvey and Sieb you guys still are not understanding my argument. Well Sieb you do somewhat though your counter arguments are pretty lame false equivalences.

It's quite easy to objectively show that it's quite unlikely that lucky charms are a proof of leprechauns and that the Zombie Survival Guide is proof of zombies.

Let's deconstruct zsg. The whereabouts of the author were well known and in a time with good records and as far as I know no records
of realy zombies exist in that authors life in the time and places he lived. Therefore he got his ideas from himself, divine guidance, or some kind of alternate universe experience. Divine guidance is unlikely since all prophetic messages revolve around believing in one God and doing good on Earth. Alternate dimension... Well if that actually happened I doubt he'd be writing about zombies same thing for seeing/experiencing the future. So that really leaves his own imagination.

So you are saying because the Qu'ran is old and it is hard to really place the Author, it is suitable evidence? I mean, lets ignore the fact that the word of God would probably be a lot more perfect than the Qu'ran, which is rife with Scientific inaccuracies and vague promises, if there was anything just wrong in the Qu'ran, wouldn't it then just prove it was not the word of God? For example, the creation of sperm!

86:6-7 He is created from a drop emitted - proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

So sperm comes from between the backbone and the ribs? Does that seem right to you? I mean there are plenty of Islamic apologists who try their hardest, who flail about in their attempt to smooth over this poor-mans science, but they are all easily shot down by men much smarter than me. In fact, you can probably even see where the auther of the Qu'ran got the idea from:

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.

I mean, does this speak to you as something that should be used as proof of something so monumental as the creation of all life - a supreme deity demanding from us our entire lives? You need something better my man, then a flawed book too old to keep up.

I think you need to remove some assumptions.

1) evolution vs religion is such a crock. In my beliefs evolution has no bearing whatsoever
on the existence of God. For me evolution is an interesting science just like chemistry. It's nothing more than that.

2) my belief in the Quran as the word of God isn't based on science signs in the Quran itself. So your challenge again doesn't apply to me.

1) Then that's quite fine, and I know there are plenty of ways to incorporate evolution into the creation of man so that's also why I didn't bring it up.

2) Well I honestly cannot see any merit in a verse or text which speaks of subjective things such as how you should treat your parents or similar - that's all a matter of opinion and of no interest in the discussion of the validity of the Qu'ran. Which is why I've only focused on the parts of the Qu'ran which are making claims about reality, and which can be verified and invalidated.

But there's no need to proceed for me if you accept that some verses in the Qu'ran are incorrect yet still have no bearing on the the argument of whether or not it comes from God.

Now we're talking.

The problem I have with the link you posted is that it doesn't discredit the verse itself but the interpretation and current understanding of the verse. Which is obvious because that's all these guys have to go on.

Here's the fundamental problem with this line. The interpretations and currents understandings of that verse could all be wrong and from that link it sounds like they are. So the interpretations have been disproven but that has no bearing on the book itself. You probably find this a cop
out but I argue that there are many verses in the Quran that to this day don't have an explanation. I mean the very fact that there even existed seven alternative explanations for the link you gave shows that the verse isn't well understood.

Well I have some other explanations.

1. The verse is rooted in that Greek idea of sperm coming out from around your kidneys, it sounds very similar and was popular and well known in the days of Mohammed, sounds about right if you ask me.

2. There are 7 different explanations shows not that it was poorly understood, but that of course many many different religious scholars see the fault in this line and are trying their best in their own individual ways to smooth it over.

3. If God was all knowing and all powerful, he would have obviously known that wording it this way would have caused this mixup/confusion - and it would have been within his power to word in a way that would be impossible to misunderstand. So obviously, he either made it incorrect on purpose to fuck with us, is not all knowing, or all powerful. Or you know, is inexistent.

On the origin of monotheism

I just came up with a fresh idea on this whole
topic and would like to challenge people with a thought experiment.

So if we assume that the God of Islam exists
then it's pretty easy to see how history of the abrahamic religions played out. I can go into this into more depth but the actions and approach that God uses to guide humanity is all very consistent and logical. The purpose behind our lives, worshiping etc all make logical sense.

Now if we look at what I consider man-made religions. Greek mythology, native animism, etc you'll find a common thread that the deities are man and animals, essentially the elevation of things we experience in everyday life. And notice the man made deities have quite human traits.

So there's really two questions here. If there is no God at all then why is there this pretty distinct difference between abrahamic and non-Abraham religions? Why did the middle east really have monotheism as a central
thing? (though middle east did have similar kinds of man-made idol religions if you remember the story of Abraham and Mohammed)

Similar to that second question if there was no
God then why and how did the abrahamic religions come about as they did? Why is there this common element of a prophet with a message? Why are the beliefs so similar but follow a logical evolution? Why did the prophecies stop?

Atheists claim that science can explain everything. Anthropology is a science. So, what is the scientific explanation and reasoning for the details of how abrahamic
religions came to be?

I think that is something that would make me question some things. If there was a completely valid, thorough and exhaustive scientific model that answered all of those questions and more without the need for God.

Where is the science of religion?

1. First, Atheists don't claim that Science can explain everything - even militant Atheists - at most they'll say just because something is still unexplained, does not mean it has a supernatural explanation.

2. The monotheistic deity of Abraham has plenty of manlike traits - not physical, but emotional and mental. Why would an all powerful all knowing deity have feelings like jealousy, and anger and a whole slew of emotions that are considered flaws and shortcomings of humans? I mean he is plenty human, the only thing the religions of Abraham do is making his physicality inexistent. And even then, some Christian sects paint Jesus as his physical manifestation.

3. There are hundreds of religions that have popped up since men could make them up, all of them have some pretty crazy and unique ideas. Just because some new ones have different ideas doesn't mean that they are in actuality divinely inspired, originality does not come from God.

4. The Religions of Abraham are essentially -one- religion that split off over the years. Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam. It's obvious why they have similar elements from an Anthropological, hell even a common sense standpoint.

There are plenty of religious and atheist people that wouldn't dare to make the claim that science can explain everything, what science can do is explain everything that's not unverifiable. That does not mean that we'll have all the answers today, tomorrow or in a hundred years even - scientific progress can be slow in some areas. Psychology, and anthropology, are relatively new to the scientific method and haven't really been found as important as physics or chemistry - which is why we have no thorough and exhaustive scientific "model" explaining your questions. I'm sure plenty of people will dismiss your questions but I'll give it a shot and a quick google led me to this:

The concept sees a gradual development out of notions of henotheism (worshiping a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities) and monolatrism (the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity).

In the Ancient Near East, each city had a local patron deity, such as Shamash at Larsa or Sin at Ur. The first claims of global supremacy of a specific god date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten (speculatively connected to Judaism by Sigmund Freud in his Moses and Monotheism).

Currents of monism or monotheism emerge in Vedic India in the same period, with e.g. the Nasadiya Sukta. Philosophical monotheism and the associated concept of absolute good and evil emerges in Judaism, later culminating in the doctrines of Christology in Early Christianity and finally (by the 7th century) in the tawhid in Islam.

Austrian anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt in the 1910s postulated an Urmonotheismus, "original" or "primitive monotheism."

Historically, some Ancient Near Eastern religions from the Late Bronze Age begin to exhibit aspects of monotheism or monolatrism.

This is notably the case with the Aten cult in the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, but also with the rise of Marduk from the tutelary of Babylon to the claim of universal supremacy.

In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda appears as a supreme and transcendental deity. Depending on the date of Zoroaster (usually placed in the Early Iron Age), this may be one of the earliest documented instances of the emergence of monism in an Indo-European religion. Also in Indo-Iranian tradition, the Rigveda exhibits notions of monism, in particular in the comparatively late tenth book, also dated to the Early Iron Age, e.g. in the Nasadiya sukta.

BONUS:

I'm probably going to get flamed for this post nevertheless I hope you'll read it Jibril. The descriptions of hell in Islam that I've read are really terrifying. I completely believe in there being an afterlife. But even if there was only a 1% chance of an afterlife being true I wouldn't live my life believing that it doesn't exist. I mean if your wrong then you're screwed for eternity in the afterlife. If you're right then you've gotten to live life without feeling guilty about your sins for 50-70 years. The upside of not believing in the afterlife just pales in comparison. On the subject of "feeling guilty": I know its easier said than done but trying to sin less often does makes it so you feel guilty about yourself less often. There's this whole thing in Islam about this world being a prison for a believer and heaven for someone who doesn't believe. People who leave Islam refuse to live a life that has restrictions and that's their choice. Speaking for myself here, I just think that this world is a crappy "heaven" so to speak. I mean if the extremely rick can't find happiness with all the pleasures of this world that they can afford/participate in then something must be wrong. Personally, I choose to take a leap of faith in believing that there is a Jannah. I have plenty of friends/acquaintances who have fallen off the "Islam" horse so to speak and have since gotten back on it. Whether it be feeling guilty/getting too attached with hooking up with girls, getting addicted to porn or just being heedless about their iman. I find that this analogy really sums up what I try to get across to them: if this life is a game of football, you are a player and your iman is the actual football. Even if you fumble along the way, make sure that you have the ball when you get the the end zone (when you die). Because dying in a state of disbelief, just like getting in the endzone without the ball doesn't earn you much.

This sound like Pascal's wager. I'll just add in Richard Dawkins "anti-Pascal wager":

Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc.

And then of course there is the possibility that the God that exist prefers honesty and critical thought over believing with doubts and without skepticism, or as Richard Carrier put it:

Suppose there is a God who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.

 

[SmokyDave]

3. If God was all knowing and all powerful, he would have obviously known that wording it this way would have caused this mixup/confusion - and it would have been within his power to word in a way that would be impossible to misunderstand. So obviously, he either made it incorrect on purpose to fuck with us, is not all knowing, or all powerful. Or you know, is inexistent.

And with that few sentences Kinitari sums up my problem with the Qur 'an perfectly.

 

[soul creator]

yeah, I've always found it interesting that the most important text you could ever read, and a text that's supposedly inspired by the all powerful loving creator of the universe, is vague and always open to interpretation and requires all sorts of "study" in order to make sense of it.

Lowly human beings can write far clearer and easier to interpret messages, so is it so wrong to have higher standards for our creator?


VVVV

see! Flowery language and poetry is beautiful and wonderful (and expected) if we're just treating it as another regular book written by human beings. But if my eternal soul depends on it, and if the mysteries of the universe are supposedly answered in it, then be a bit more direct please :lol

 

[Zapages]

And with that few sentences Kinitari sums up my problem with the Qur 'an perfectly.

Here's the rebuttal to this. The Holy Quran is written in very flowery language... But what you are reading is a translation of it, which means to fully understand the Holy Quran that you need to have great knowledge of Arabic and Ancient flowery Arabic that is used in it.

yeah, I've always found it interesting that the most important text you could ever read, and a text that's supposedly inspired by the all powerful loving creator of the universe, is vague and always open to interpretation and requires all sorts of "study" in order to make sense of it.

Lowly human beings can write far clearer and easier to interpret messages, so is it so wrong to have higher standards for our creator?

Its vague as the text needs to be able to be applied to all times aka different times on Earth.

 

[soul creator]

Its vague as the text needs to be able to be applied to all times aka different times on Earth.

Then a more clear way to approach would be having a chapter for each country and time period. Or having frequent updates directly from god himself.

If Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo can provide regular firmware updates, why is the divine creator of the universe stuck with the same story for hundreds of years, incapable of change?

And of course, considering that god can supposedly telepathically communicate with any person at any time, why resort to such an inefficient means of communication in the first place?

 

[SmokyDave]

Here's the rebuttal to this. The Holy Quran is written in very flowery language... But what you are reading is a translation of it, which means to fully understand the Holy Quran that you need to have great knowledge of Arabic and Ancient flowery Arabic that is used in it.

Here's the rebuttal to that, the perfect word would need neither translation nor interpretation, it would not age nor would it change. It would be perfect.

It doesn't really matter, I'm a pretty staunch non-believer of all religions but it's the biggest obstacle to me taking islam seriously. Well, that and the 100 lashes for Adultery thing. Actually quite a few things but let's start with 'the perfect word'.

 

[Shanadeus]

Here's the rebuttal to that, the perfect word would need neither translation nor interpretation, it would not age nor would it change. It would be perfect.

It doesn't really matter, I'm a pretty staunch non-believer of all religions but it's the biggest obstacle to me taking islam seriously. Well, that and the 100 lashes for Adultery thing. Actually quite a few things but let's start with 'the perfect word'.

You are better off focusing and showing Muslims that the text isn't 100% correct by highlighting claims about reality which are false.
From there you can then argue the more subjective verses, what is right and what is wrong, and easier adapt Islam to the modern world just as Christianity has.

 

[Zapages]

Then a more clear way to approach would be having a chapter for each country and time period. Or having frequent updates directly from god himself.

If Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo can provide regular firmware updates, why is the divine creator of the universe stuck with the same story for hundreds of years, incapable of change?

Video games business practices can not be applied to religion... :lol

A religion is not for specific country, time period, or people. Its for everyone. Therefore, every place has its own culture, which of course blends in with the religion. God tried before Prophet Muhammad PBUH. We believe each nation was sent a prophet, but the message was changed from the original meaning. If a nation was not given a prophet then at the time of judgement they can decide to believe in one God or go to the path of hell.

There about 124000 prophets that came to Earth to teach humans the right path... Each time the message was altered... Then God sent Prophet Muhmmad PBUH as the last prophet to humans.

As well as the Prophet Muhammad - Other renowned prophets of Islam include Adam, Nuh (Noah), Musa (Moses), Harun (Aaron), Ibrahim (Abraham), Lut (Lot), Ismail (Ishmael), Is'haq (Isaac), Yacoob (Jacob), Yousef (Joseph), Daud (David), Sulaiman (Soloman), Yahya (John the baptist - though this isn't his role in Islam) & Isa (Jesus).
Others who are less known include Idris (Enoch*), Salih (Shaloh*), Hud (Eber*), Ayoub (Job), Zakariah, Shoaib (Jethro*), Dhulkifl (Eziekiel), Alias (Elijah), Alyasa (Elisha) & Yunus (Jonah)
The following are mentioned in hadith or known from Oral tradition; Ishaia (Isaiah), Sheeth (Seth), Uzair (Ezra), Danyal (Daniel), Armya (Jeremiah) & Samuel.
Dhul-Karnain, Joshua (Assistant to Moses), Imran (Father of Mary), Khidr & Luqman are all mentioned as great men but their prophethood hasn't been specified, so they may have just been great pious individuals favoured by Allah.

and the family tree of the prophets:

 

[Zapages]

Here's the rebuttal to that, the perfect word would need neither translation nor interpretation, it would not age nor would it change. It would be perfect.

It doesn't really matter, I'm a pretty staunch non-believer of all religions but it's the biggest obstacle to me taking islam seriously. Well, that and the 100 lashes for Adultery thing. Actually quite a few things but let's start with 'the perfect word'.

It is perfect as it unaltered... The floweriness of the language is there on purpose as it made for human interruption and for all times... So people in different times of can interrupt the source material from their own knowledge.

Here's something about the laws. During the Caliphate the leaders brought in laws that were compliant to the Shar'ia but were not as severe as those bad deeds. But the Wahabi nature of Islam brought that back as to purify Islam, but it became something totally else as in what we see in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Shanadeus]

Man I miss the Muslims who've been banned, no one is trying to explain the incorrect verses I've posted.

 

[Mgoblue201]

This just sounds like another variation of the argument that the text is obviously clear once you know the correct way to interpret it. I can't speak for the Quran, though I'm sure it's very similar, but the Bible is a complete organizational mess. It would have been easy to organize all Messianic prophecies in one place and clear, timeless laws of morality in another place. But instead, we have to argue about the very nature of these things.

A few weeks ago I had a very similar argument with DeusTrinitas about a Messianic prophecy. There is no indication that the rabbis considered one verse in Psalm to be a Messianic prophecy, and yet Peter in the book of Acts considers it to be a prophecy. Okay, if any verse in retrospect can take on Messianic significance, then we can just pick and choose, and none of it worth anything. On the other hand, if it was all in the same spot and clearly arranged, then there is much less of a chance of fraud, and the evidence would be so much more powerful. I just can't believe that any god would be so careless. And the argument that it would suddenly be obvious if you knew how to interpret it is always fraudulent because there is seldom any criteria for evaluation. Learning how the book was written isn't suddenly going to make it clearer because there are still major arguments amongst experts in the theological field of interpretation.

By the way, that family tree of prophets is impossible. We know that man couldn't have descended from a single couple because of the genetic evidence. There was no Adam.

 

[Shanadeus]

This just sounds like another variation of the argument that the text is obviously clear once you know the correct way to interpret it. I can't speak for the Quran, though I'm sure it's very similar, but the Bible is a complete organizational mess. It would have been easy to organize all Messianic prophecies in one place and clear, timeless laws of morality in another place. But instead, we have to argue about the very nature of these things.

A few weeks ago I had a very similar argument with DeusTrinitas about a Messianic prophecy. There is no indication that the rabbis considered one verse in Psalm to be a Messianic prophecy, and yet Peter in the book of Acts considers it to be a prophecy. Okay, if any verse in retrospect can take on Messianic significance, then we can just pick and choose, and none of it worth anything. On the other hand, if it was all in the same spot and clearly arranged, then there is much less of a chance of fraud, and the evidence would be so much more powerful. I just can't believe that any god would be so careless. And the argument that it would suddenly be obvious if you knew how to interpret it is always fraudulent because there is seldom any criteria for evaluation. Learning how the book was written isn't suddenly going to make it clearer because there are still major arguments amongst experts in the theological field of interpretation.

By the way, that family tree of prophets is impossible. We know that man couldn't have descended from a single couple because of the genetic evidence.

Which was why I tried to stay rather topical and only mention verses that specifically state something about our biology and the nature of things, statements which anyone can verify.

Kinitari posted an extremely useful link that argued very strongly on the topic of sperm in the Quran, and no matter what interpretation you have you end up with the conclusion that the text was wrong:

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Quran_and_Semen_Production

And these are all the transliterations they take up and do a great job at disproving all interpretations regarding them.

Transliteration - Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ibi
Literal - It emerges/appears from between the spine and the rib bones.

Yusuf Ali - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
Pickthal - That issued from between the loins and ribs.
Arberry - issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.
Shakir - Coming from between the back and the ribs.
Sarwar - which comes out of the loins and ribs.
Khalifa - From between the spine and the viscera.
Hilali/Khan - Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,
H/K/Saheeh - Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.
Malik - that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.[7]
QXP - That issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.
Maulana Ali - Coming from between the back and the ribs.
Free Minds - It comes out from between the spine and the testicles.
Qaribullah - that issues from between the loins and the ribs.

George Sale - issuing from the loins, and the breast-bones.
JM Rodwell - Which issue from the loins and breastbones:

Asad - issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Quran_and_Semen_Production

Kinitari posted:

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.

And I completely agree.

 

[GT500]

Shanadeus, I don't see anything wrong or incorrect. It is actually a straightforward verse, the fluid (sperm) is the first step and pregnancy wouldn't be possible without it, except in Jesus's case which was a miracle from God and Jesus spoke as a baby to prove it (we talked about Jesus miracles in Islam earlier). There are more verses about the creation (read from 23:12 to 23:16). After that, you are born with a soul, or "consciousness" as you atheists call it.

 

[Shanadeus]

Shanadeus, I don't see anything wrong or incorrect. It is actually a straightforward verse, the fluid (sperm) is the first step and pregnancy wouldn't be possible without it, except in Jesus's case which was a miracle from God and Jesus spoke as a baby to prove it (we talked about Jesus miracles in Islam earlier). There are more verses about the creation (read from 23:12 to 23:16). After that, you are born with a soul, or "consciousness" as you atheists call it.

It's straightforwards except that fluid doesn't spring forth from either of these places:

86:5 So let man consider from what he is created.

86:6 He is created from a gushing fluid

86:7 That issued from between the loins and ribs.

And all interpretations/translations I could find of 86:6:

Yusuf Ali - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
Pickthal - That issued from between the loins and ribs.
Arberry - issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.
Shakir - Coming from between the back and the ribs.
Sarwar - which comes out of the loins and ribs.
Khalifa - From between the spine and the viscera.
Hilali/Khan - Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,
H/K/Saheeh - Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.
Malik - that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.[7]
QXP - That issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.
Maulana Ali - Coming from between the back and the ribs.
Free Minds - It comes out from between the spine and the testicles.
Qaribullah - that issues from between the loins and the ribs.

It is created in the testicles, and it come forth from the tip of the penis.
I suggest you check this page for all the possible interpretations and explanations Islamic scholars have put forth - and the disproving of every single one.

I will explain why I wondered about whether or not God created to soul later maybe, it's a rather long and winded argument that I have difficulties explaining when I'm tired.

 

[RustyNails]

Shanadeus, I asked about this earlier. Isn't the fluid that becomes semen ultimately comes from different glands inside the body, all in the lower regions? The seminal vesicles produce majority of the fluid that becomes semen that gets stored in testes. The prostrate gland produces the rest of the fluid. Both these glands are located between the backbone and abdomen. And finally, isn't the emission of the fluid directly controlled by the "parasympathetic nervous system" (PNS), which is attached to the spinal cord?

Ejaculation is a motor function which cannot take place if the particular nerves and parts of the spinal cord that control ejaculation are injured. The ability to ejaculate is controlled by nerves, which originate in the lowest part of the spinal cord; that is, segments T-12 to L-2, and sacral levels, 2, 3, and 4.

http://calder.med.miami.edu/pointis/ejaculation.html

It is created in the testicles, and it come forth from the tip of the penis.

I think only the sperm is created inside the testes, not the liquid. Sperms are micro-organisms that would die out without semen fluid to swim around in.

 

[GT500]

I read the Qur'an in Arabic and it says Al-sulb and Al-tara'eb which mean the lower area of the body and what is between the lower part of the body respectively. Don't forget the Qur'an is a holy book words like "testicles" or "nuts" would be inappropriate.

 

[Shanadeus]

Shanadeus, I asked about this earlier. Isn't the fluid that becomes semen ultimately comes from different glands inside the body, all in the lower regions? The seminal vesicles produce majority of the fluid that becomes semen that gets stored in testes. The prostrate gland produces the rest of the fluid. Both these glands are located between the backbone and abdomen. And finally, isn't the emission of the fluid directly controlled by the "parasympathetic nervous system" (PNS), which is attached to the spinal cord?

http://calder.med.miami.edu/pointis/ejaculation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatogenesis
Quite so.

Spermatogenesis takes place within several structures of the male reproductive system. The initial stages occur within the testes and progress to the epididymis where the developing gametes mature and are stored until ejaculation. The seminiferous tubules of the testes are the starting point for the process, where stem cells adjacent to the inner tubule wall divide in a centripetal direction—beginning at the walls and proceeding into the innermost part, or lumen—to produce immature sperm. Maturation occurs in the epididymis and involves the acquisition of a tail and hence motility.

And it is true that the fluid that becomes semen ultimately comes from the seminal vesicles, which are located here:

The seminal vesicles secrete a significant proportion of the fluid that ultimately becomes semen. Lipofuscin granules from dead epithelial cells gives the secretion its yellowish color. About 60% of the seminal fluid in humans originates from the seminal vesicles, but is not expelled in the first ejaculate fractions which are dominated by spermatozoa and zinc-rich prostatic fluid. The excretory duct of each seminal gland opens into the corresponding vas deferens as it enters the prostate gland. Seminal vesicle fluid is alkaline along with the prostatic fluid, resulting in human semen having a mildly alkaline pH.[2] The alkalinity of semen helps neutralize the acidity of the vaginal tract, prolonging the lifespan of sperm. Acidic ejaculate (pH <7.2) may be associated with blockage of seminal vesicles.

Now semen itself, the fluid that these verses refer to is created in the ball area so to say - before that has occurred it'd be dishonest to call it semen as it by any definition isn't.

It's like saying that saliva comes from the parotid glands (where the serous fluid which partly make up the saliva come from) rather than the submandibular gland - where saliva is produced and later enter the oral cavity via wharton's ducts.


But this argument has been refuted already by people knowing more about the Qu'ran than me:

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Quran_and_Semen_Production

Badawi must assume that "gushing fluid poured forth" refers to the aorta which according to a book cited by him, Clinical Anatomy, supplies the testes and ovaries with the necessary nutrients and this is what the Quran refers to.[5]

Dr. Badawi’s proposition is debunked with the same explanation given for Naik’s blood circulation proposition.

Lastly, Naik’s explanation of the nerve, blood and lymphatic circular from the abdominal aorta is irrelevant and constitutes the logical fallacy of the red herring. This is because verses 85:6 speak about ‘a drop emitted’, commonly taken to mean semen and semen only as this drop is directly responsible for human reproduction, something which cannot be claimed for nerve signals, blood or lymph. Further, circulation and nerve supply do not correlate with embryonic origin. For example, the blood supply, lymphatics and nerve supply of the lower limbs originate in the abdomen and pelvis. Does that mean the lower limbs embryonically originated in the abdomen and pelvis? No it does not.

 

[Karram]

Shanadeus, you forgot to add errors like how the milk is produced and saying that the moon emits light not reflecting it.

 

[Shanadeus]

I read the Qur'an in Arabic and it says Al-sulb and Al-tara'eb which mean the lower area of the body and what is between the lower part of the body respectively. Don't forget the Qur'an is a holy book words like "testicles" or "nuts" would be inappropriate.

Actually, the Qu'ran seem to repeatedly refer to the sexual parts of human beings without censoring itself.
This argument has also been raised and subsequently refuted rather sucessfully I'd say:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/semenproduction.htm

Learner also proposes an alternate theory regarding the meaning of S. 86:5-7. The Learner claims that the reference to "the back and the ribs" is a euphemism referring to the male sexual organ. The Learner explains why the Quran doesn't simply explicitly refer to the male sexual organ in unambiguous terms:

As far as the first question is concerned, it is obvious that the Qur'an, as any decent and sober literature would do, has only avoided direct reference (in words) to the male sexual organ. Through the words that it has used, the Qur'an has made a complete euphemistic reference to the point of emanation of the sperm, while successfully avoiding naming it. Naming it would definitely have negatively affected the literary value of the Qur'an. As far as the objection that the euphemistic style of the Qur'an, in this case, has negatively affected the clarity of the message and has resulted in confusion regarding the implication of the verse is concerned, in my opinion, it seems quite out of place. The mere fact that the previous verse had referred to 'the fluid gushing forth' (semen), which is followed by the words 'which emanates from...', brings to mind the source of the 'gushing forth' of the fluid, without much difficulty. Furthermore, one should not forget that even if the male sperm was actually formed within the two stipulated points, the mention of this source of formation of the male sperm had absolutely no pertinence with the message of the Qur'an and the information would have been of absolutely no relevance to the Arabs of old - the direct addressees of the Qur'an. The mere realization of the point that the Qur'an does not refer to any such information, even if it is true, that has no relevance to its basic message, guides one to the simple physical (non-scientific and uncomplicated) interpretation of the verse under consideration. (bold emphasis ours)

And the rebuttal:

The only problem behind the Learner's reasoning is that the Quran does in fact explicitly refer to the sexual parts of a human, specifically the sexual areas of a woman, in rather vulgar fashion. For instance, in narrating the virginal conception and birth of Jesus the Quran unashamedly refers to Mary as one that guarded her sexual organ:

And (remember) her who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic-farjahaa): We breathed into her from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all people. S. 21:91

And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic-farjahaa) and We breathed INTO IT of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). S. 66:12

Another rather explicit reference to a woman's sexual area includes:

"Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards, and maidens of SWELLING BREASTS (kawa'ib), like of age, and a cup overflowing." S. 78:33

Shanadeus, you forgot to add errors like how the milk is produced and saying that the moon emits light not reflecting it.

I haven't heard about the milk, but the moon verse isn't incorrect.
It is a light after all, even if it doesn't emit light itself.

 

[RustyNails]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatogenesis
Quite so.



And it is true that the fluid that becomes semen ultimately comes from the seminal vesicles, which are located here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Male_anatomy_en.svg/500px-Male_anatomy_en.svg.png[IMG]



Now semen itself, the fluid that these verses refer to is created in the ball area so to say - before that has occurred it'd be dishonest to call it semen as it by any definition isn't.

It's like saying that saliva comes from the parotid glands (where the serous fluid which partly make up the saliva come from) rather than the submandibular gland - where saliva is produced and later enter the oral cavity via wharton's ducts.


But this argument has been refuted already by people knowing more about the Qu'ran than me:

[url]http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Quran_and_Semen_Production[/url][/QUOTE]
I would like to point out that I came to this conclusion myself, and not through hearing Dr. Jamal Badawi and Dr. Naik. Secondly, I want to mention that wikiislam is ran by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Freedom_International"]faithfreedom[/URL] organization, which is run by loons like Ali Sina.
[QUOTE]Obama is often compared to Hitler and other mass-murderers by Ali Sina and others on his site[18][19][/QUOTE].

Finally, I fail to see how the "argument is refuted". Is the semen not produced in the glands between abdomen and backbone? Is the fluid not directly emitted with the help from PSNS? Hell, if Quran mentioned that semen is produced in testes, I'd have no doubt in my mind that people like Ali Sina would (rather correctly) point out no, it is not created inside the testes but in fact, it is created in glands between the abdomen and backbone so Quran is wrong.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Which was why I tried to stay rather topical and only mention verses that specifically state something about our biology and the nature of things, statements which anyone can verify.

Right, people are trying to argue about the timelessness and veracity of holy books by taking knowledge that we have now and retrofitting it. But these mistakes are exactly what we'd expect if we use the argument that the knowledge of these writers was constrained by their contemporary understanding. They weren't receiving information from a timeless god; they were just applying their own limited knowledge about anatomy and nature. But if these holy books were true, then we would not expect these elementary mistakes, and we should not have to do mental contortions to explain them away. It makes more sense to dismiss them outright.

 

[RustyNails]

Actually, the Qu'ran seem to repeatedly refer to the sexual parts of human beings without censoring itself.
This argument has also been raised and subsequently refuted rather sucessfully I'd say:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/semenproduction.htm

One thing more thing....all of the questions mentioned in answering-islam.org are replied in answering-christianity.org
They are juvenile, tit-for-tat "my dick is bigger than yours" responses rather than scholarly debates. Hence, it is the reason why I avoid those websites all together.

Now semen itself, the fluid that these verses refer to is created in the ball area so to say - before that has occurred it'd be dishonest to call it semen as it by any definition isn't.

I thought the micro-organisms called Sperm are created in the testis, not the fluid itself. Hence the reason why men who are impotent are still able to ejaculate.

 

[Kinitari]

One thing more thing....all of the questions mentioned in answering-islam.org are replied in answering-christianity.org
They are juvenile, tit-for-tat "my dick is bigger than yours" responses rather than scholarly debates. Hence, it is the reason why I avoid those websites all together.


I thought the micro-organisms called Sperm are created in the testis, not the fluid itself. Hence the reason why men who are impotent are still able to ejaculate.

The line refers to the drop in which all men come from - fluid from the body would not be that drop, that would be in the testes.

And to further that, it only highlights the the fact that Apologists have to go out of their way to make sense of incorrect information in the Qu'ran, when it could be easily explained today "Semen is made up of things from the body, but sperm - where man comes from, originates from the testicles". Done - no one could contest that, no one could have problems with misunderstandings and mistranslations. No, the information is kept purposefully vague for reasons just like these so apologists have something to work with - and even in this case, they were far to specific - when they mention the drop that all men come from, you can't think of anything BUT sperm, to do otherwise is to delude yourself.

 

[Shanadeus]

I would like to point out that I came to this conclusion myself, and not through hearing Dr. Jamal Badawi and Dr. Naik. Secondly, I want to mention that wikiislam is ran by faithfreedom organization, which is run by loons like Ali Sina.

Had no idea who precisily ran the site, but if it's made by ex-muslims then that explains the excellent refutations.

Finally, I fail to see how the "argument is refuted".
Is the semen not produced in the glands between abdomen and backbone

Is the fluid not directly emitted with the help from PSNS? Hell, if Quran mentioned that semen is produced in testes, I'd have no doubt in my mind that people like Ali Sina would (rather correctly) point out no, it is not created inside the testes but in fact, it is created in glands between the abdomen and backbone so Quran is wrong.

Here are all the translations I could find of verse 85:6:

Transliteration - Khuliqa min ma-in dafiqin
Literal - He was created from water pouring/flowing forcefully.

Yusuf Ali - He is created from a drop emitted-
Pickthal - He is created from a gushing fluid
Arberry - he was created of gushing water
Shakir - He is created of water pouring forth,
Sarwar - He has been created from an ejected drop of fluid
Khalifa - He was created from ejected liquid.
Hilali/Khan - He is created from a water gushing forth
H/K/Saheeh - He was created from a fluid, ejected,
Malik - He is created from an emitted fluid[6]
QXP - He has been created from a turbulent water. (21:30), (24:25).
Maulana Ali - He is created of water pouring forth,
Free Minds - He was created from water that gushes forth.
Qaribullah - He was created from ejaculated water

George Sale - He is created of seed poured forth,
JM Rodwell - He was created of the poured-forth germs,

Asad - he has been created out of a seminal fluid

Lastly, Naik’s explanation of the nerve, blood and lymphatic circular from the abdominal aorta is irrelevant and constitutes the logical fallacy of the red herring.

This is because verses 85:6 speak about ‘a drop emitted’, commonly taken to mean semen and semen only as this drop is directly responsible for human reproduction, something which cannot be claimed for nerve signals, blood or lymph.

Further, circulation and nerve supply do not correlate with embryonic origin. For example, the blood supply, lymphatics and nerve supply of the lower limbs originate in the abdomen and pelvis. Does that mean the lower limbs embryonically originated in the abdomen and pelvis? No it does not.

And nor are the fluids from fluids from the seminal vesicles, the prostate, and the bulbourethral glands.

And then some information about what semen is from wikipedia:

During the process of ejaculation, sperm passes through the ejaculatory ducts and mixes with fluids from the seminal vesicles, the prostate, and the bulbourethral glands to form the semen. The seminal vesicles produce a yellowish viscous fluid rich in fructose and other substances that makes up about 70% of human semen. The prostatic secretion, influenced by dihydrotestosterone, is a whitish (sometimes clear), thin fluid containing proteolytic enzymes, citric acid, acid phosphatase and lipids. The bulbourethral glands secrete a clear secretion into the lumen of the urethra to lubricate it.

So before the sperm has in the ejaculatory ducts mixed with the various fluids coming from several places in the body - there is no semen to speak of. And the verses cannot refer to the various constituencies of semen as they are referring to the fluid which fertilizes the woman - which require the sperm component which isn't added until it reaches the ejaculatory ducts.

 

[RustyNails]

The line refers to the drop in which all men come from - fluid from the body would not be that drop, that would be in the testes.

Yusuf Ali says "drop emitted", Pickthall says "gushing fluid" and Shakir says "water pouring" to describe that one verse. Its all one and the same thing.

And to further that, it only highlights the the fact that Apologists have to go out of their way to make sense of incorrect information in the Qu'ran, when it could be easily explained today "Semen is made up of things from the body, but sperm - where man comes from, originates from the testicles". Done - no one could contest that, no one could have problems with misunderstandings and mistranslations. No, the information is kept purposefully vague for reasons just like these so apologists have something to work with - and even in this case, they were far to specific - when they mention the drop that all men come from, you can't think of anything BUT sperm, to do otherwise is to delude yourself.

But Sperm is not a drop. If you read the Quran in Arabic, it does not mention the Arabic word for Sperm. Its not a medical expose with a dissertation on human reproductive systems. There are no different words for male sperms and female eggs in Arabic. A poetic line captures the basic production of the fluid and that's it. Maybe if Quran was revealed in English, all the confusion would've been sidestepped

 

[soul creator]

this has been an interesting page of replies :lol

 

[Kinitari]

Yusuf Ali says "drop emitted", Pickthall says "gushing fluid" and Shakir says "water pouring" to describe that one verse. Its all one and the same thing.

And for all of them, the full line refers to the origin of men. You said yourself, you can still produce that 'gushing fluid' without being potent fertile.

 

[Shanadeus]

this has been an interesting page of replies :lol

Yeah, we're discussing the production of sperm in a religion thread.
Quite fun :lol

 

[Kinitari]

When it comes to Semen, me and Shanadeus sure know how to tag team.

 

[RustyNails]

So before the sperm has in the ejaculatory ducts mixed with the various fluids coming from several places in the body - there is no semen to speak of. And the verses cannot refer to the various constituencies of semen as they are referring to the fluid which fertilizes the woman - which require the sperm component which isn't added until it reaches the ejaculatory ducts.

Your passage is correct, but it does not explain where the fluid is generated.

 

[Shanadeus]

When it comes to Semen, me and Shanadeus sure know how to tag team.

No homo.

And I realized that I've been complicating the matter a lot and done plenty of mistakes writing my unnecessarily long posts. The verses refer to sperm, as this is what creates men (you only need one tiny sperm to make someone pregnant), and thus it cannot spring forth from any other place except the balls - which wouldn't even sound dirty if you just said the groin.

Your passage is correct, but it does not explain where the fluid is generated.

And that's because that is a red herring, where the fluid is generated cannot be answered.
The fluid in question is generated from several places, one of them laying in the ball sack, and thus invalidate all these translations:

Yusuf Ali - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
Pickthal - That issued from between the loins and ribs.
Arberry - issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.
Shakir - Coming from between the back and the ribs.
Sarwar - which comes out of the loins and ribs.
Khalifa - From between the spine and the viscera.
Hilali/Khan - Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,
H/K/Saheeh - Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.
Malik - that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.[7]
QXP - That issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.
Maulana Ali - Coming from between the back and the ribs.
Free Minds - It comes out from between the spine and the testicles.
Qaribullah - that issues from between the loins and the ribs.

It really honestly makes more sense when you consider that age's misconceptions regarding sperm, pregnancies and so on.

 

[soul creator]

Method Man would like to comment on this post

 

[RustyNails]

And for all of them, the full line refers to the origin of men. You said yourself, you can still produce that 'gushing fluid' without being potent fertile.

The only way for sperm to travel is through semen though. In the end, babby is still formed with the help of gushing fluid.

 

[Shanadeus]

The only way for sperm to travel is through semen though. In the end, babby is still formed with the help of gushing fluid.

Artificial insemination mang.

 

[Kinitari]

Your passage is correct, but it does not explain where the fluid is generated.

The problem isn't the explaining of where the fluid comes from, even before Islam there were people who thought that it came from your midsection, the problem is the idea that this fluid includes sperm - which the passage clearly is saying - where all men come from.

 

[Shanadeus]

The problem isn't the explaining of where the fluid comes from, even before Islam there were people who thought that it came from your midsection, the problem is the idea that this fluid includes sperm - which the passage clearly is saying - where all men come from.

Precisely, it makes a lot of sense when you consider:

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.

 

[RustyNails]

Artificial insemination mang.

Haha. This I can get behind

 

[RustyNails]

The problem isn't the explaining of where the fluid comes from, even before Islam there were people who thought that it came from your midsection, the problem is the idea that this fluid includes sperm - which the passage clearly is saying - where all men come from.

But the Quran doesn't use the Arabic word for sperm! That's what I've been saying. It uses the word Nutfa, which means intermingled fluids. Verse 38 on the other hand, mentions the "extract" from the semen that is used for formation.

SHAKIR: Then He made his progeny of an extract, of water held in light estimation.

Edit: blah double post. Sorry.

 

[SmokyDave]

Shanadeus, I don't see anything wrong or incorrect. It is actually a straightforward verse, the fluid (sperm) is the first step and pregnancy wouldn't be possible without it, except in Jesus's case which was a miracle from God and Jesus spoke as a baby to prove it (we talked about Jesus miracles in Islam earlier). There are more verses about the creation (read from 23:12 to 23:16). After that, you are born with a soul, or "consciousness" as you atheists call it.

I just wanted to nip in and say that things aren't that black and white. I'm an agnostic athiest but I believe in the concept of a soul, separate from our consciousness. I also think this soul is maintained by our consciousness and that when we die, we lose both. I'm quite happy to accept I may be completely wrong. You can't pigeonhole athiests as having certain beliefs when all you know is that they have one non-belief.

 

[Shanadeus]

But the Quran doesn't use the Arabic word for sperm! That's what I've been saying. It uses the word Nutfa, which means intermingled fluids. Verse 38 on the other hand, mentions the "extract" from the semen that is used for formation.


Edit: blah double post. Sorry.

How could have the Qu'ran used the arabic word for sperm before sperm itself had even been discovered?
And in the verses I've been arguing, 86:5-7, do not mention Nutfa.

Transliteration - Khuliqa min ma-in dafiqin
Literal - He was created from water pouring/flowing forcefully.

Yusuf Ali - He is created from a drop emitted-
Pickthal - He is created from a gushing fluid
Arberry - he was created of gushing water
Shakir - He is created of water pouring forth,
Sarwar - He has been created from an ejected drop of fluid
Khalifa - He was created from ejected liquid.
Hilali/Khan - He is created from a water gushing forth
H/K/Saheeh - He was created from a fluid, ejected,
Malik - He is created from an emitted fluid[6]
QXP - He has been created from a turbulent water. (21:30), (24:25).
Maulana Ali - He is created of water pouring forth,
Free Minds - He was created from water that gushes forth.
Qaribullah - He was created from ejaculated water

George Sale - He is created of seed poured forth,
JM Rodwell - He was created of the poured-forth germs,

Asad - he has been created out of a seminal fluid

So whatever fluid they are talking about here, it must be the fluid which create men - which must be semen (as they were unaware of sperm back then).

 

[Karram]

I haven't heard about the milk, but the moon verse isn't incorrect.
It is a light after all, even if it doesn't emit light itself.

In verse 25:61 it says "Blessed be He Who hath placed in the heaven mansions of the stars, and hath placed therein a great lamp and a moon giving light!"
Also you can see the milk verse and other errors right here. link

 

[Shanadeus]

In verse 25:61 it says "Blessed be He Who hath placed in the heaven mansions of the stars, and hath placed therein a great lamp and a moon giving light!"
Also you can see the milk verse and other errors right here. link

Regarding the moon:

Transliteration - Tabaraka allathee jaAAala fee alssama-i buroojan wajaAAala feeha sirajan waqamaran muneeran

Literal - Blessed (is) who made/put in the sky/space constellations and He made/put in it a lamp (light) and a luminous moon .

Yusuf Ali - Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;

Pickthal - Blessed be He Who hath placed in the heaven mansions of the stars, and hath placed therein a great lamp and a moon giving light!

Arberry - Blessed be He who has set in heaven constellations, and has set among them a lamp, and an illuminating moon.

Shakir - Blessed is He Who made the constellations in the heavens and made therein a lamp and a shining moon.

Sarwar - Blessed is He who has established constellations in the sky and made therein a lamp and a shining moon.

Khalifa - Most blessed is the One who placed constellations in the sky, and placed in it a lamp, and a shining moon.

Hilali/Khan - Blessed be He Who has placed in the heaven big stars, and has placed therein a great lamp (sun), and a moon giving light.

H/K/Saheeh - Blessed is He who has placed in the sky great stars and placed therein a [burning] lamp and luminous moon.

Malik - Blessed is the One Who has decked the sky with constellations and placed in it a lamp and a shining moon.

QXP - Blessed is He (the Beneficent) Who set up in the sky great constellations, and put therein a radiant Lamp, and a Moon giving light.

Maulana Ali - Blessed is He Who made the stars in the heavens and made therein a sun and a moon giving light!

Free Minds - Blessed is the One Who made towers in the universe and He made in it a beacon and a shining moon.

Qaribullah - Blessed be He who has set the constellations in the heaven, and set amongst them a sun, and an illuminating moon.

George Sale - Blessed be He who hath placed the twelve signs in the heavens; and hath placed therein a lamp by day, and the moon which shineth by night!

JM Rodwell - Blessed be He who hath placed in the Heaven the sign of the Zodiac! who hath placed in it the Lamp of the Sun, and the light-giving Moon!

Asad - HALLOWED is He who has set up in the skies great constellations, and has placed among them a [radiant] lamp and a light-giving moon. [See 10:5, where the sun is spoken of as "a [source of] radiant light", explained in the corresponding note. For my rendering of buruj as "great constellations", see note on 15:16.]

It's not really that much of an issue and more of an interpretation question, which is why I didn't mention it.

 

[RustyNails]

How could have the Qu'ran used the arabic word for sperm before sperm itself had even been discovered?
And in the verses I've been arguing, 86:5-7, do not mention Nutfa.



So whatever fluid they are talking about here, it must be the fluid which create men - which must be semen (as they were unaware of sperm back then).

Eh. Arabic speakers can correct me on this, but there is a word for sperm in Arabic, called "haywaan-something something". It is the same word used to refer to female eggs.

As for Surah 86, you are correct it does not use "Nutfa", but uses the "gushing fluids" term, which does in fact originate from the internal abdominal glands, whose ejaculation is assisted by PSNS in the spinal cord. The Nutfa part is the fluid-drop, which comes after the whole thing is constituted. Here's clarification about all the terms and verses.

Edit: I think I'm done talking about jizz for now. Good God!

 

[Ashes]

The bigger problem here seems to not be science, as two people are standing in direct opposition to each other. The bigger problem is dissecting poetry and exposing scientific matter from it. The matter in the line is inconclusive to me. I can't honestly settle on one side nor the other. And regardless of what side you sit, why then go on to subject science on such matters-meaning of which at the very least you have to accept that it is being debated on- is... oh leave it... Why subject this to my self even? It's free discussion board, carry on if you like...

I used to ask people what do they think would have happened had their diety specifically spoken in the scientific lexicon we used today, like for example said:

For future reference, know that E=MC(2).

(the E=MC (2) is not important thing by the way. Just anything very very very spefic)

This one guy had the best answer:

Well people would have wondered about this for centuries. One side will say, the future is always around the next corner. Possibly religious mathematicians/scientist of that religion will have made it so that something or the other becomes that exact thing. Or people will say it is merely a coincidence; how can you argue against that?
In any way you spin it, it become pretty useless -religion wise- unless as a god you wanted to merey influence or push man in some way or another.

And another said:

In another universe, it could have dementing effects.
(this person went to explain it, and at the time it made sense to me, but I can't recall the explanation. It was a complicated one I'd have to say.)

 

[Shanadeus]

Eh. Arabic speakers can correct me on this, but there is a word for sperm in Arabic, called "haywaan-something something". It is the same word used to refer to female eggs.

The important thing is when this word was first used, since sperm itself wasn't known until quite a bit later.

As for Surah 86, you are correct it does not use "Nutfa", but uses the "gushing fluids" term, which does in fact originate from the internal abdominal glands, whose ejaculation is assisted by PSNS in the spinal cord. The Nutfa part is the fluid-drop, which comes after the whole thing is constituted. Here's clarification about all the terms and verses.

I'll have a look at this later, pasting it in so I won't forget it :

Reflections and comments on related Quranic verses:

“Nutfa” in Arabic means “very little water” or “a drop of water”. This coincides with man’s water which contains sperms as part of its components. The sperm or (spermatozoon) is reproduced from the despised lowly water (nutfa) and looks like a long-tailed fish (this is one of the meanings of Sulalah). Allah the Almighty says;

( &#1575;&#1604;&#1617;&#1614;&#1584;&#1616;&#1610; &#1571;&#1614;&#1581;&#1618;&#1587;&#1614;&#1606;&#1614; &#1603;&#1615;&#1604;&#1617;&#1614; &#1588;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1569;&#1613; &#1582;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615; &#1608;&#1614;&#1576;&#1614;&#1583;&#1614;&#1571;&#1614; &#1582;&#1614;&#1604;&#1618;&#1602;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1587;&#1614;&#1575;&#1606;&#1616; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606; &#1591;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1613; . &#1579;&#1615;&#1605;&#1617;&#1614; &#1580;&#1614;&#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614; &#1606;&#1614;&#1587;&#1618;&#1604;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606; &#1587;&#1615;&#1604;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1614;&#1577;&#1613; &#1605;&#1617;&#1616;&#1606; &#1605;&#1617;&#1614;&#1575;&#1569; &#1605;&#1617;&#1614;&#1607;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1613; ) (&#1575;&#1604;&#1587;&#1580;&#1583;&#1577; :7-8)

“He It is Who created all things in the best way and began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid (Sulalah)” (32: 7-8)

The other meaning of Sulalah is "extract", means the essential or best part of something . By either implication, it means "part of a whole" indicating that the origin of creation is from only part of man's fluid and not all of it (which contains many components as shown above) .

Clarifying the role of the nutfa in creation, He the Almighty says;

( &#1601;&#1614;&#1604;&#1618;&#1610;&#1614;&#1606;&#1592;&#1615;&#1585;&#1616; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1587;&#1614;&#1575;&#1606;&#1615; &#1605;&#1616;&#1605;&#1614; &#1582;&#1615;&#1604;&#1616;&#1602;&#1614;. &#1582;&#1615;&#1604;&#1616;&#1602;&#1614; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606; &#1605;&#1617;&#1614;&#1575;&#1569; &#1583;&#1614;&#1575;&#1601;&#1616;&#1602;&#1613 (&#1575;&#1604;&#1591;&#1575;&#1585;&#1602; 5-6)

“So, let man consider of what he was created. He was created of gushing water” (86: 5-6)

and also says;

( &#1582;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1587;&#1614;&#1575;&#1606;&#1614; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606; &#1606;&#1617;&#1615;&#1591;&#1618;&#1601;&#1614;&#1577;&#1613; &#1601;&#1614;&#1573;&#1616;&#1584;&#1614;&#1575; &#1607;&#1615;&#1608;&#1614; &#1582;&#1614;&#1589;&#1616;&#1610;&#1605;&#1612; &#1605;&#1617;&#1615;&#1576;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1612; ) (&#1575;&#1604;&#1606;&#1581;&#1604; : 4)

“He has created man from a sperm (fluid-drop) and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer.” (16: 4).

The Quran tells us also that the essence of man is not the whole semen, but only a small part of it. this is explained in the Quran :

( &#1571;&#1614;&#1610;&#1614;&#1581;&#1618;&#1587;&#1614;&#1576;&#1615; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1587;&#1614;&#1575;&#1606;&#1615; &#1571;&#1614;&#1606; &#1610;&#1615;&#1578;&#1618;&#1585;&#1614;&#1603;&#1614; &#1587;&#1615;&#1583;&#1611;&#1609; &#1548; &#1571;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1605;&#1618; &#1610;&#1614;&#1603;&#1615; &#1606;&#1615;&#1591;&#1618;&#1601;&#1614;&#1577;&#1611; &#1605;&#1617;&#1616;&#1606; &#1605;&#1617;&#1614;&#1606;&#1616;&#1610;&#1617;&#1613; &#1610;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1609; ) &#1575;&#1604;&#1602;&#1610;&#1575;&#1605;&#1577; 36-37

"Does man think that he will be left uncontrolled (without purpose)? Was he not once a fluid-drop of ejected semen?" (75:36-37)

As we have seen, the Quran informs us that man is made not from the entire semen, but only a small part of it. That the particular emphasis in this statement announces a fact only discovered by modern science is evidence that the statement is divine in origin. The divine statement also reiterates that man’s characteristics are determined and decreed in the nutfa stage, as He says

( &#1602;&#1615;&#1578;&#1616;&#1604;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1587;&#1614;&#1575;&#1606;&#1615; &#1605;&#1614;&#1575; &#1571;&#1614;&#1603;&#1618;&#1601;&#1614;&#1585;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615; . &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1618; &#1571;&#1614;&#1610;&#1617;&#1616; &#1588;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1569;&#1613; &#1582;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615; . &#1605;&#1616;&#1606; &#1606;&#1617;&#1615;&#1591;&#1618;&#1601;&#1614;&#1577;&#1613; &#1582;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615; &#1601;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614;&#1583;&#1617;&#1614;&#1585;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615; ) ( &#1593;&#1576;&#1587;17-19)

“Woe to man! What has made him reject (Allah)? From what stuff has He created him? From a nutfa (fluid-drop) He has created him, and then moulds him in due proportions.” (80: 17-19).

And Allah says:

(&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1617;&#1614;&#1575; &#1582;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1602;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1575; &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1587;&#1614;&#1575;&#1606;&#1614; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1618; &#1606;&#1615;&#1591;&#1618;&#1601;&#1614;&#1577;&#1613; &#1571;&#1614;&#1605;&#1618;&#1588;&#1614;&#1575;&#1580;&#1613; &#1606;&#1614;&#1576;&#1618;&#1578;&#1614;&#1604;&#1616;&#1610;&#1607;&#1616; &#1601;&#1614;&#1580;&#1614;&#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1575;&#1607;&#1615; &#1587;&#1614;&#1605;&#1616;&#1610;&#1593;&#1611;&#1575; &#1576;&#1614;&#1589;&#1616;&#1610;&#1585;&#1611;&#1575; ) (&#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1606;&#1587;&#1575;&#1606;:2)

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight.” (76:2).

The mingled nutfa in this verse reveals the Quran miraculous nature. Nutfa, in Arabic, is a single small drop of water, but it was described here as (amshaj) , which means its structure consists of combined mixtures . This fits with the scientific finding, as the zygote is shaped as a drop, and is simultaneously a mixture of male fluid chromosomes and female ovum chromosomes.

I've also supplied all the translations I could find of all the above mentioned verses for anyone interested in taking a look at the above and compare:

32: 7:

Transliteration - Allathee ahsana kulla shay-in khalaqahu wabadaa khalqa al-insani min teenin

Literal - Who bettered every thing He created it, and He started/began the human's/mankind's creation from mud/clay .

Yusuf Ali - He Who has made everything which He has created most good: He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay,

Pickthal - Who made all things good which He created, and He began the creation of man from clay;

Arberry - who has created all things well. And He originated the creation of man out of clay,

Shakir - Who made good everything that He has created, and He began the creation of man from dust.

Sarwar - It is He Who created everything in the best manner and began the creation of the human being from clay.

Khalifa - He is the One who perfected everything He created, and started the creation of the human from clay.

Hilali/Khan - Who made everything He has created good, and He began the creation of man from clay.

H/K/Saheeh - Who perfected everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay.

Malik - It is He Who has given the best form to everything that He has created. He originated the creation of man from clay;

QXP - Who created everything in perfect balance. Thus He initiated the creation of man (kind) from hydrated inorganic matter.

Maulana Ali - Who made beautiful everything that He created, and He began the creation of man from dust.

Free Minds - The One who perfected everything He created and He began the creation of the human from mud.

Qaribullah - who perfected everything He created. He originated the creation of the human from clay,

George Sale - It is He who hath made every thing which He hath created exceeding good; and first created man of clay,

JM Rodwell - Who hath made everything which he hath created most good; and began the creation of man with clay;

Asad who makes most excellent everything that He creates. [I.e., He fashions every detail of His creation in accordance with the functions intended for it, irrespective of whether those functions can be understood by us or are beyond the reach of our perception. In the text, the passage comprising verses 7-9 is in the past tense; but since it relates to a continuous act of creation, it signifies the present and the future as well as the past, and may, therefore, be suitably rendered in the present tense.] Thus, He begins the creation of man out of clay; [Cf. note on 23:12. In view of the next verse, this "beginning" of man's creation seems to allude to the basic composition of the human body as such, as well as to each individual's pre-natal existence in the separate bodies of his parents.]

32: 8:

Transliteration - Thumma jaAAala naslahu min sulalatin min ma-in maheenin

Literal - Then He created/made his off spring/descendants from descendent/strain/gene/progeny from humiliated/degraded water.

Yusuf Ali - And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:

Pickthal - Then He made his seed from a draught of despised fluid;

Arberry - then He fashioned his progeny of an extraction of mean water,

Shakir - Then He made his progeny of an extract, of water held in light estimation.

Sarwar - He made His offspring come into existence from an extract of insignificant fluid,

Khalifa - Then He continued his reproduction through a certain lowly liquid.

Hilali/Khan - Then He made his offspring from semen of worthless water (male and female sexual discharge).

H/K/Saheeh - Then He made his posterity out of the extract of a liquid disdained.

Malik - then automated the creation of his progeny by an extract of a despicable water;

QXP - Then He made him to be reproduced out of the essence of a humble fluid. (The inorganic matter was hydrated and from its extract life was initiated. Eventually, the evolution reached a point when procreation with male and female gametes was established (37:11)).

Maulana Ali - Then He made his progeny of an extract, of worthless water.

Free Minds - Then He made his offspring from a structure derived from a lowly liquid.

Qaribullah - then He made his offspring from a clot of weak water (semen).

George Sale - and afterwards made his posterity of an extract of despicable water;

JM Rodwell Then ordained his progeny from germs of life, from sorry water:

Asad - then He causes him to be begotten [Lit., "He caused [i.e., as pointed out in note on verse 7 above, "He causes"] his procreation [or "his begetting"] to be out of...", etc.] out of the essence of a humble fluid;

86: 5

Transliteration - Falyanthuri al-insanu mimma khuliqa

Literal - So the human/mankind should look/see from what he was created.

Yusuf Ali - Now let man but think from what he is created!

Pickthal - So let man consider from what he is created.

Arberry - So let man consider of what he was created;

Shakir - So let man consider of what he is created:

Sarwar - Let the human being reflect that from what he has been created.

Khalifa - Let the human reflect on his creation.

Hilali/Khan - So let man see from what he is created!

H/K/Saheeh - So let man observe from what he was created.

Malik - Let man consider from what he is created!

QXP - Let the human being, then, consider out of what he has been created. (And realize the common origin of all mankind. Has there not passed over man an era when he was not even worth mentioning? 76:1)

Maulana Ali - So let man consider of what he is created.

Free Minds - So let man see from what he was created.

Qaribullah - Let the human reflect of what he is created.

George Sale - Let a man consider, therefore, of what he is created.

JM Rodwell - Let man then reflect out of what he was created.

Asad - LET MAN, then, observe out of what he has been created:

86: 6

Transliteration - Khuliqa min ma-in dafiqin

Literal - He was created from water pouring/flowing forcefully.

Yusuf Ali - He is created from a drop emitted-

Pickthal - He is created from a gushing fluid

Arberry - he was created of gushing water

Shakir - He is created of water pouring forth,

Sarwar - He has been created from an ejected drop of fluid

Khalifa - He was created from ejected liquid.

Hilali/Khan - He is created from a water gushing forth

H/K/Saheeh - He was created from a fluid, ejected,

Malik - He is created from an emitted fluid

QXP - He has been created from a turbulent water. (21:30), (24:25).

Maulana Ali - He is created of water pouring forth,

Free Minds - He was created from water that gushes forth.

Qaribullah - He was created from ejaculated water

George Sale - He is created of seed poured forth,

JM Rodwell - He was created of the poured-forth germs,

Asad - he has been created out of a seminal fluid

86: 7

Transliteration - Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ibi
Literal - It emerges/appears from between the spine and the rib bones.

Yusuf Ali - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

Pickthal - That issued from between the loins and ribs.

Arberry - issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.

Shakir - Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Sarwar - which comes out of the loins and ribs.

Khalifa - From between the spine and the viscera.

Hilali/Khan - Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,

H/K/Saheeh - Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.

Malik - that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.

QXP - That issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.

Maulana Ali - Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Free Minds - It comes out from between the spine and the testicles.

Qaribullah - that issues from between the loins and the ribs.

George Sale - issuing from the loins, and the breast-bones.

JM Rodwell - Which issue from the loins and breastbones:

Asad - issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].

16: 4

Transliteration - Khalaqa al-insana min nutfatin fa-itha huwa khaseemun mubeenun

Literal - He created the human/mankind from a drop/male's or female's secretion/little water, so then he (the human/mankind) is (a) clear/evident disputer/adversary .

Yusuf - AliHe has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

Pickthal - He hath created man from a drop of fluid, yet behold! he is an open opponent.

Arberry - He created man of a sperm-drop; and, behold, he is a manifest adversary.

Shakir - He created man from a small seed and lo! he is an open contender.

Sarwar - He created the human being from a drop of fluid but the human being openly disputes His Word.

Khalifa - He created the human from a tiny drop, then he turns into an ardent opponent.

Hilali/Khan - He has created man from Nutfah (mixed drops of male and female sexual discharge), then behold, this same (man) becomes an open opponent.

H/K/Saheeh - He created man from a sperm-drop; then at once, he is a clear adversary.

Malik - He created man from a drop of semen, yet he is an open contender.

QXP - He created the human being out of male and female gametes. They should be humble before their Creator's Messages instead of being contentious.

Maulana Ali - He created man from a small life-germ, and lo! he is an open contender.

Free Minds - He created man from a seed, but then he becomes clearly in opposition.

Qaribullah - He created mankind from a sperm drop, yet he is a clear adversary.

George Sale - He hath created man of seed; and yet behold, he is a professed disputer against the resurrection.

JM Rodwell - Man hath He created from a moist germ; yet lo! man is an open caviller.

Asad - He creates man out of a [mere] drop of sperm: and lo! this same being shows himself endowed with the power to think and to argues

75: 37

TransliterationAlam yaku nutfatan min manayyin yumna
Literal - Did he not be a drop/male's or female's secretion from sperm/semen , semen being ejaculated/ discharged ?

Yusuf Ali - Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?

Pickthal - Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth?

Arberry - Was he not a sperm-drop spilled?

Shakir - Was he not a small seed in the seminal elements,

Sarwar - Was he not once just a drop of discharged sperm.

Khalifa - Was he not a drop of ejected semen?

Hilali/Khan - Was he not a Nutfah (mixed male and female discharge of semen) poured forth?

H/K/Saheeh - Had he not been a sperm from semen emitted?

Malik - Was he not once a drop of emitted semen?

QXP - Was he not gametes that moved to join?

Maulana Ali- Was he not a small life-germ in sperm emitted?

Free Minds -Was he not a seed from sperm put forth?

Qaribullah - What, was he not an ejaculated drop (of sperm)?

George Sale - Was he not a drop of seed, which was emitted?

JM Rodwell - Was he not a mere embryo?

Asad - Was he not once a [mere] drop of sperm that had been spilt,

80: 18

Transliteration - Min ayyi shay-in khalaqahu
Literal - From what thing He created him?

Yusuf Ali - From what stuff hath He created him?

Pickthal - From what thing doth He create him?

Arberry - Of what did He create him?

Shakir - Of what thing did He create him?

Sarwar - From what has God created him?.

Khalifa - What did He create him from?

Hilali/Khan - From what thing did He create him?

H/K/Saheeh - From what substance did He create him?

Malik - Out of what Allah has created him?

QXP - Out of what thing has He created him?

Maulana Ali - Of what thing did He create him?

Free Minds - From what did He create him?

Qaribullah - From what did He create him?

George Sale - Of what thing doth God create him?

JM Rodwell - Out of moist germs.

Asad - [Does man ever consider] out of what substance [God] creates him?

80: 19

Transliteration - Min nutfatin khalaqahu faqaddarahu

Literal - From a drop/male's or female's secretion He created him, so He predestined/evaluated/estimated him.

Yusuf Ali - From a sperm-drop: He hath created him, and then mouldeth him in due proportions;

Pickthal - From a drop of seed. He createth him and proportioneth him,

Arberry - Of a sperm-drop He created him, and determined him,

Shakir - Of a small seed; He created him, then He made him according to a measure,

Sarwar - He created him from a living germ. He determined his fate

Khalifa - From a tiny drop, He creates him and designs him.

Hilali/Khan - From Nutfah (male and female semen drops) He created him, and then set him in due proportion;

H/K/Saheeh - From a sperm-drop He created him and destined for him;

Malik - Out of a semen-drop! Allah created him and then fashioned him in due proportion,

QXP - From the male and the female gametes He created him, and then fashioned him in due proportion.

Maulana Ali - Of a small life-germ. He creates him, then proportions him,

Free Minds - From a seed He created him and moulded him.

Qaribullah - From a (sperm) drop He created him and then determined him,

George Sale - Of a drop of seed doth He create him; and He formeth him with proportion;

JM Rodwell - He created him and fashioned him,

Asad - Out of a drop of sperm He creates him, and thereupon determines his nature,

76:2

Transliteration - Inna khalaqna al-insana min nutfatin amshajin nabtaleehi fajaAAalnahu sameeAAan baseeran

Literal - That We, We created the human/mankind from a drop/male's or female's secretion mixtures (of secretions), We test him, so We made/created him hearing/listening, seeing/knowing .

Yusuf Ali - Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight.

Pickthal - Lo! We create man from a drop of thickened fluid to test him; so We make him hearing, knowing.

Arberry - We created man of a sperm-drop, a mingling, and We made him hearing, seeing.

Shakir - Surely We have created man from a small life-germ uniting (itself): We mean to try him, so We have made him hearing, seeing.

Sarwar - We created the human being from the union of sperm and egg to test him. We gave him hearing and vision.

Khalifa - We created the human from a liquid mixture, from two parents, in order to test him. Thus, we made him a hearer and a seer.

Hilali/Khan - Verily, We have created man from Nutfah drops of mixed semen (discharge of man and woman), in order to try him, so We made him hearer, seer.

H/K/Saheeh - Indeed, We created man from a sperm-drop mixture that We may try him; and We made him hearing and seeing.

Malik - Indeed, We have created man from the sperm drop, so that We may test him. Therefore, We gave him the faculties of hearing and sight.

QXP - Behold, it is We who have created the human being from marked out cells, male and female gametes, that joined. Then We passed him through subtle changes. And then We made him a being endowed with Hearing and Sight.

Maulana Ali - Surely We have created man from sperm mixed (with ovum), to try him, so We have made him hearing, seeing.

Free Minds - We have created the human from a seed that is mixed, We test him, so We made him hear and see.

Qaribullah - We have created the human from a (sperm) drop, a mixture, testing him; We made him to hear and see.

George Sale - Verily we have created man of the mingled seed of both sexes, that We might prove him: And We have made him to hear and to see.

JM Rodwell - We have created man from the union of the sexes that we might prove him; and hearing, seeing, have we made him:

Asad - Verily, it is We who have created man out of a drop of sperm intermingled, 3 so that We might try him [in his later life]: and therefore We made him a being endowed with hearing and sight.

I will tomorrow try explain why that site you linked me to is pure hogwash.

And an internet cookie to anyone that read through all the translations.