Re: Anti - Muslim ignorance


forahmad@xxxxxxxxxxx (1MAN4ALL) wrote in message
<news:1135147379.327979.267090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>...
> ...

Apologies for the delay... Between the holidays, the transit strike
here in New York, tonnes of overtime work, and a desire to read Dr.
al-Ghazal's article before responding, I was very much unable to take
the sort of time necessary to type out an adequate response.

> > Let me start with a portion of the discussion that
> > appeared at the end of our respective posts, for
> > the sake of setting the context:
>
> I prefer that you don't do such a thing---change the
> order---in future.

It won't be a common practice, but sometimes it helps. In this case, I
wanted to be more clear about what my position is. I'm taking issue
with the claim that these scientifically informed reinterpretations
demonstrate a divine origin of the Qur'an. In a previous post of mine
that point appeared at the end, so I decided to move it to the
beginning for the sake of keeping it in focus somewhat.

> You need to take my three points that I had made
> earlier and Dr. al-Ghazal's article in front of
> you, and let these two be the "context."

Regarding your "three points," I would accuse them of being straw man
arguments had they not preceded the citing of my article in this
thread. What I mean is, they were somewhat outside the scope of my
approach (particularly the first two). But I'll address them more
thoroughly later in this post.

As for Dr. al-Ghazal's article, let's take a preliminary look at some
of it now. I will say first and foremost that it does not in any way
serve as a potent rebuttal to what I wrote. Let me remind you that when
I recommended the article on my FTMecca site, you responded by citing
Dr. al-Ghazal's article. However, while I had not seen his article
prior to you mentioning it, much of my article can easily serve as a
critique of his approach. But let's examine Dr. Al-Ghazal's article. I
will respond to a few bits and pieces here, and then you and I can
flesh out the article to a greater degree as the thread develops.

He begins with the following:

"it is clear that mankind did not realize that the embryo is created of
a man's sperm mingled with a woman's ovum except in the 18th
century, and only to be confirmed at the beginning of the 20th century.
[...] On the other hand, the Holy Quran and the Prophetic speeches have
confirmed in a very accurate scientific manner the creation of man from
a mingled fluid-drop (nutfa amshaj)"

Right away we are struck by an apparent leap in logic. Does Dr. Ghazal
ever demonstrate, anywhere in his article, that author of the Qur'an
was aware of the existence of the woman's ovum? No. Yet the above gives
the misleading impression that it is obvious that the author of the
Qur'an spoke of such things. He cites a hadith which speaks of the
man's fluid and the woman's fluid, but that is not an example of
knowledge of the ovum. Does Dr. Ghazal believe that no pre-Islamic
thinker believed that both men and women made fluid contributions to
the creation of a baby? If so, he is not at all well informed on the
subject (and even stranger, while I'm not proclaiming the hadith he
cited to be historical, *if* it is, couldn't we conclude that the
anonymous Jew himself had such knowledge?).

Now, maybe something was lost in the translation, but later in the
article he claims that Soorat al-Qiyamat 75:36-37 demonstrates that
"the essence of man is not the whole semen, but only a small part of
it." I was at a loss as to how he derived such an interpretation.

Another portion worthy of note is the following commentary on Soorat
ad-Dahr (al-Insaan?) 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."

It seems rather clear to me that he *PRESUPOSES*, rather than
demonstrates, that the portion of the verse which reads "nutfatin
amshaajin" was intended by the author to refer to a roughly spherical
(i.e. drop-shaped) object (i.e. the zygote) which is a mix of male and
female chromosomes. However, couldn't it possibly just mean
mixed/joined fluid? If he is going to employ this sort of reasoning as
a premise, he has to demonstrate that it is true rather than simply
presuppose its truth. Otherwise he's merely engaging in question
begging.

Another portion reads as follows:

"Has anyone ever thought, before the Quran was revealed, that man's
nutfa, when ejected, is responsible for determining if the embryo will
be male or female? Has this ever occurred to one's mind? The Quran
says [...] That He created the pairs, male and female, from a
fluid-drop sperm as it is emitted. (53: 45-46), confirming that man's
gender as male or female is determined when the sperm drop is emitted."

Again, it seems Dr. al-Ghazal has *ASSUMED*, rather than demonstrated,
that the author of the relevant Qur'anic passage had an understanding
of the role the sperm plays in determining the gender of the child
(whatever that role is). Dr. al-Ghazal asks the following question:

"Who told the Prophet Mohammed that the sperm (nutfa) with one of its
types (Y) or (X) is responsible for determining the sex of the embryo?"

A good counter question would be: When did we agree that Muhammad (or
whomever the author of the relevant verse was) knew that "the sperm
with one of its types (Y) or (X)" is responsible for determining the
sex of the embryo?

Moving on, Dr. al-Ghazal claims that "[t]he stage of Alaqa starts on
the 15th day and ends on the 23rd or 24th day," but I wonder where he
got those numbers from. Does the Qur'an or the secondary literature
provide these figures? Of course the answer is no. Dr. al-Ghazal has
merely assumed that the author of the Qur'an had those days in mind.

Now, I could go on repeating myself since Dr. al-Ghazal makes the same
rough leap in logic over and over again (i.e. he presupposes the
author's intention was for the text to be a reference to the things he
has correlated it with), but I think you get the point (or I at least
hope you get the point). Dr. al-Ghazal's methodology reflects the
approach noted both in my article and Imran Aijaz'. I would recommend
you take more thorough look at those articles. In the mean time, I look
forward to which ever portions of Dr. al-Ghazal's article you feel are
worthy of discussion.

Now, let me get back to the rest of your post...

> > Are you merely claiming that Islam can
> > be brought into harmony with science?
>
> "Brought" into harmony? It already is in harmony!
>
> > If so, I agree! Or are you claiming that the
> > embryology polemic is evidence of the Qur'an having
> > a divine origin?
>
> It's not a "polemic." It's a fact.

Okay. So, if I'm not mistaken, you're claiming that this approach (i.e.
the scientific-hermeneutic approach to embryological statements)
demonstrates or proves the Qur'an is of a divine origin. If I am
correct, then it is fair to say that you have a poor concept of what a
proper argument is (or a proof demonstrating some position). I feel
quite comfortable declaring this to be nothing more than "the miracle
of reinterpretation," but we'll see as this discussion develops.

> I am simply putting forward Dr. Sharif Kaf Al-Ghazal's
> article
>
> http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm
>
> as one of the arguments and providing additional
> information/clarifications on things which you are
> disputing.

So then, in keeping with something I alluded to above, how does Dr.
al-Ghazal's article serve as a proper response to either what I wrote
or what Imran Aijaz wrote?

> Let's first take a look at one of those verses in
> question. I have numbered the sequence in order to
> save myself from repeating them:
>
> A. "then of that fluid-drop (nutfa) We created a
> leech-like clot" (23:14) .
>
> B. "then We changed the Alaqa (leech-like clot)
> into a Mudgha (chewed-like lump)" (23: 14).
>
> C. "And of that clot We made a (foetus) lump." (23: 14).
>
> D. "then We made out of that mudgha (chewed-like
> lump of flesh) bones and clothed the bones with
> flesh; then We developed out of it another
> creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create."
> (23: 14) .
>
> Now, you stated, "First, in Soorat al-Moominoon, the
> Qur'an states bones form first, then flesh. That *seems*
> like a prima facie error..." What you are suggesting
> is a red herring. First of all, Quran is not taking a
> position whether a "mudgha" is "flesh" or not.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind, but I think you missed the point of my
statement. The point wasn't so much that it actually is an error (note
that I emphasized the word "seems" and even employed the words "prima
facie" - i.e. "on the surface" or "upon superficial examination"). The
point was that the text is interpreted as being correct, but if it said
the exact opposite it would still be interpreted to be correct. It was
a point about the power of exegesis (i.e. if you can interpret one
statement as correct, and just as easily interpret its opposite as
correct, then that tells us something about the role hermeneutics can
play). But let me expand on this point with another thought experiment.

Suppose we have a man who believes the following about embryonic
development:

(1) Conception is set by the mixing of semen and menstrual blood.

(2) The mixture of those two contributions becomes a blood clot.

(3) The blood clot becomes a bite-sized-lump with no distinguishing
features.

(4) The lump then becomes a skeleton.

(5) The skeleton is then clothed with flesh.

Now, I am not (*NOT*!) asserting that this is what the author(s) of the
Qur'an believed. However, if this hypothetical person who believed the
above were writing this down in Arabic, could he describe the fluid
mixture as "nutfa amshaaj"? Yes. Could he employ the word `alaqa to
describe the blood clot? Yes. Could he employ the word mudgha to
describe the bite-sized lump? Yes. Could he merely refer to the
skeleton as "bones" and employ the word `izham? Yes.

Now again, I am NOT(!) claiming that the beliefs of this hypothetical
person reflect the beliefs of the author of the Qur'an. Rather I
offered the above thought experiment to set up the most important
question of all: Could the exegesis that types like Dr. al-Ghazal apply
to the Qur'an apply just as easily to the writings of this hypotehtical
person? The answer is yes. The reality is that in such a situation all
the same assumptions could be made and all the same conclusions could
be reached, thus a text that was actually attempting to convey an
erroneous description would be interpreted as being miraculous.

What this thought experiment demonstrates, therefore, is that this sort
of post-hoc exegesis isn't really helpful in demonstrating the
allegedly miraculous (and scientifically accurate) nature of the text.
All we can conclude is that Muslims are able to correlate the text with
the science of their day (as generations before them had done). It
tells us nothing about the intentions of the author of the text (i.e.
what meanings/images he/she/them wished to convey).

> It simply says, that the embryo at this stage C is "a
> chewed-like lump." I was able to get some actual
> images of this stage, at Week 4, (also discussed by
> Dr. al-Ghazal) on this web site:
>
> http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Stage10.htm
>
> My God! What an accurate description Quran has given!
> Unbelievable. Subhanallah!

This seems like a rather gross exaggeration to me. But let me ask you
this: how did you determine that the author intended for this to be
taking place in the fourth week? What is the justification for this
interpretation or the importing of this time frame? As for the accuracy
of the term "mudgha," we'll get to that below.

> Secondly, you then argue that Quran should have used
> the word "cartilage" instead of bones

Funny, I don't recall making any such argument in this thread. What I
did was simply note the sort of exegesis employed by certain Muslims.
Straw man perhaps?

> What Quran is stating is that out of this Mudgha, bones
> begin to form, which is a correct statement! Even the
> following scientific web site (link below) uses the same
> term:
>
> "The Embryo has now begun to form small balls of cells
> along the middle that will make all the muscle and bone.
> The dark line in the middle is the beginning of the
> nervous system."
>
> http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/k12/week4.htm

Could you elaborate here? The portion you quoted seems to be speaking
of cells which will at a later time form into (or play a role in the
formation of) bones and muscles. I don't deny that there is a period
where bone forms inside the embryo. How exactly is it that you think
this is relevant to the discussion?

> > Second, I hardly consider a single word like mudgha to be an
> > obvious reference to what proponents of this approach claim
> > it is in reference to. Mudgha is, quite simply, vague. It
> > refers only to something bitten or chewed (e.g. if I bit the
> > tip of my cigar and spit it on the floor, it can be referred
> > to as mudgha in some sense). To argue that this single word,
> > which can refer to anything bitten or chewed, is an
> > "obvious" description of the appearance of the spinal cord
> > at the beginning of the fourth week is very difficult to
> > accept.
>
> Cigars don't become babies.

This is, with all due respect, a rather childish response. I did not
argue that cigars turn into babies, nor did I argue, for that matter,
that "cigar" was the meaning intended by the author of the Qur'an. The
point was about the vagueness of the word "mudgha". It can refer to
anything which has been chewed or bitten, and even something which is
bite-sized yet hasn't necessarily been chewed or bitten! Therefore it
is far from obvious that this single word is describing what an embryo
looks like in the fourth week!

> Obviously, what is being referred to is something that looks
> like a chewed lump of flesh (for lack of a better
> term), and that looks exactly like this picture:
>
> http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Stage10.htm

Actually, that is not obvious. For example, note that some have
understood it to simply refer to a lump. Why a lump? Because "mudgha"
can refer even to something like that (e.g. imagine a small piece of
food that you are *about* to pop into your mouth). Further more, do you
really believe that the embryo around the fourth week looks like a
chewed piece of a flesh? Have you ever wondered why the picture
comparison all over the net employs gum rather than, say, lamb? If I
were to give people pieces of lamb or beef, have them chew it and then
spit it onto plate, and then I took pictures of the results with a
digital camera, do you believe that these actual mounds of chewed flesh
would resemble the image above?

> Quran does not say anything about the spine.

Okay, see the section in Dr.al-Ghazal's article titled "Al Mudgha
(chewed-like lump of flesh)"...

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm#mudg

....or read the numerous other articles on the subject. They almost all
employ that same image, where a drawing of the embryo at 26 days is
compared to a very specifically chewed piece of a gum. The teeth marks
are being correlated with the beginning traces of the spine which
appear. In other words, the argument is that "mudgha" accurately
describes when the first traces of what will become the spine appear.
Of course, it is silly to think that Qur'anic Arabic did not have the
tools available to say that "at 26 days traces of the spine appear". In
fact, pre-Islamic thinkers claimed precisely that!

> > Third, the main issue is one that you have side stepped:
> > the presupposition that the exegesis being applied to
> > the text is the one intended by the author. Many of your
> > explanations also presuppose that the text was authored
> > by a divine source. That is fine if you're merely
> > trying to demonstrate a harmony between science and
> > Islam, but it is a very bad approach if your goal is to
> > then demonstrate a divine origin for the Qur'an.
>
> As I explained in my three points earlier, which you
> ignored, Quran was never intended to be a science book.

None of your three points address the point above, nor does this
statement you have just made (i.e. immediately above). I did not claim
the Qur'an is a science book or that it has to be. I claimed that those
who try to correlate the embryological statements in the Qur'an with
modern science as a way of demonstrating that the text is from a divine
origin employ a number of presuppositions which make the argument very
problematic.

> But if God is indeed the Author of Quran, His descriptions,
> in easy to understand language, of His signs, which we
> cannot see without a microscope, better be pretty close to
> reality. And they are!

With all due respect, I have not seen any Qur'anic statements that are
that much closer to reality than what we find in Job 10 (cf. my mocking
scientific exegesis of Job in the previously cited article on the
FTMecca site).

> > > > http://www.geocities.com/denis_giron/quran-science.html
>
> > > Your essay is very long, much of it repetitive, and I
> > > believe the three points from my last post in this thread,
> > > quoted above, adequately answer your objections.
>
> I think they *hardly* answer what is found in that essay. But
> I would again ask that you provide specific examples (e.g. a
> portion from the essay and then a portion from your posts and
> show how one answers the other).
>
> Why don't you do it, rather then sending me on some goose chase?

Let's get this straight. First, you claim your three points adequately
respond to the objections raised in the article above. Second, I
disagree but ask you to provide an example of such. Third, you claim
that I'm sending *YOU* on "some goose chase". Are you serious? I get
the rather strong impression that you didn't even read the article. But
if you have reason to believe that your three points adequately answer
the article above, wouldn't that belief be based in you already seeing
the precise (and relevant) portions before you reached that conclusion?
How would it be a "goose chase" for you to merely give the examples
which caused you to conclude that your three points adequately respond
to what is written in the article linked to above? As for your request,
how am I supposed to do this for you? How am I supposed to provide
examples of your three points addressing my article if I don't believe
they actually do such?

While we wait, let me note the following regarding your three points.
(1) I never claimed that the "Quran should be interpreted in the way
that it was originally understood, fourteen hundred years ago,"
therefore I doubt a response to that claim can serve as a response to
me. I feel that Muslims can and should interpret the Qur'an any which
way they feel. However, if they are going to ask that I believe that
the author of the Qur'an intended specifically their interpretation,
then I am going to require evidence rather than mere presupposition.
(2) I don't see why I should just accept your assertion that the "Quran
was revealed not only for our age, but for all ages," much less the
premise that the Qur'an was revealed by God (e.g. that God authored the
text and employed a very specific sort of vague language), especially
not in a sort of exchange where you're being asked to prove (rather
than assume) these things! Imran Aijaz noted this sort of circularity
in his article (which I again recommend). Furthermore, the instances
where I declare a word to be vague are not necessarily instances where
no other possible description could have been employed (e.g. I'm sure
something more explicit than "chewed/bitten/bite-size-lump" could have
been employed to describe what an embryo looks like at 26 days). (3)
Your third point misses what has been argued; it is not whether
interpretations are possible (all the interpretations I connected to
the book of Job are *possible*); the issue is whether they were
actually intended by the author. The tacit assumption in all these
scientific-hermeneutic arguments seems to be that because
interpretation X is possible and fits (or is convenient to my
position!), it is the one intended by the author. But that is precisely
what is supposed to be demonstrated in the first place!

> > > But let me focus on one point that you had raised which
> > > I may not have covered earlier. You stated: "It is quite
> > > telling that in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE these scientific
> > > theories were read into the Qur'an only AFTER they were
> > > proposed in modern times!" My simple answer to that is
> > > that's the way it has to be, the reason being that Quran
> > > was never intended to be a book of science, and,
> > > therefore, chose not to provide necessary, lengthy
> > > details which would be necessary for a scientific theory.
> > > Imagine a situation that I propose a theory based on my
> > > understanding of Quran. That 'theory' cannot be 'scientific'
> > > because there would be no 'science' to support it, and if
> > > there is, my theory would be meaningless. I would also be
> > > making up things which Quran, in its brevity, might not
> > > have intended. For example, let's say, I live in 2nd
> > > century BC. I scribble down an idea that one day there
> > > would be a box in which people would sit and that box
> > > would take them wherever they want to go...WD40
> > > also keeps popping into my head so I write that down too :-)
> > > Many centuries later, somebody invents a car. My
> > > followers (people with a lot of common sense) would argue
> > > that 1man4all had correctly predicted the invention of an
> > > automobile. "Infidels" in jealous rage would argue that a
> > > car is not a "box;" an automobile cannot always take you
> > > wherever you want to go; a box does not have doors and
> > > windows etc. The point that I am trying to make is that if
> > > you set aside silly objections and focus on the 'concepts',
> > > which Quran has described, especially the SEQUENCE of
> > > embryonic development, it is so remarkably accurate that
> > > one has to be a complete idiot to deny it.
>
> > I don't see how this analogy applies at all. Could you elaborate?
>
> Never mind!

Why never mind? I was giving you a change to be more specific with how
your seemingly disanalogous thought experiment was relevant. Do you
believe saying "drop/fluid," then "X" (which could mean "blood clot" or
"leech" or "hanging/sticky thing"), then
"chewed/bitten/bite-sized-lump" in that order (SEQUENCE!) describes the
first four-five weeks of embryonic development is analogous to saying
"one day there will be a box which people will sit in and it will take
them wherever they want to go... oh yeah and WD40" might be a reference
to an automobile? A better example might've been "house," then "oil,"
and concluding that means a car (or maybe even the real-world of the
author Imran N. Hossein visiting my campus when I was an undergrad and
informing us that when a certain hadith speaks of a time in which a man
will say "camels used to drink here, but not any more," that is a
description of how in the future there will be no more gasoline for our
cars). All kidding aside, a more analogous example would be the
scientifically-informed exegesis I employed on Job 10.

> > This is, with all due respect, a rather ridiculous
> > straw man with a subtle attempt to poison the well.
> > Imran Aijaz' argument was that the embryology polemic
> > *FAILS* to actually demonstrate that the Qur'an is
> > of a divine origin (irrespective of whether it actually
> > is of a divine origin or not), and he alludes to the
> > fallacies present in this particular attempt at proving
> > the Qur'an was authored by God.
>
> Okay so you found one Muslim who gave up. It doesn't mean
> that I have to do the same, does it?

Your childish responses continue. Simply waving your hand and declaring
that Imran Aijaz is a "Muslim who gave up" gives the rather strong
impression that you didn't even bother to read his arguments. He did
not "g[i]ve up," rather he laid out an argument for why the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to embryology in the Qur'an is
fallacious, and therefore fails to actually demonstrate the Qur'an is
of a divine origin. I think readers should take note that you have made
no effort to point out any alleged problems with or flaws in his
argument.

> > And please stop with the silly complaint about non-Muslims.
> > You're just poisoning the well. If I were to sincerely
> > recite the shahaadatayn and thereby convert to Islam, not
> > a single thing I have argued in this thread would change.
> > Thus my arguments are not specific to whether or not I
> > think "laa ilaha ilaallaah wa muhamad rasoolullaah" is true.
>
> If you convert to Islam you won't be doing me a favor.

Did you even read what you're responding to? I wasn't trying to argue
that if I converted to Islam I'd be doing you a favor. I was making a
point about your insinuation that not being impressed by the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to Qur'anic embryology is some sort of
distinctly non-Muslim game (not withstanding Muslims like Imran Aijaz,
whom you think "gave up"). My point was that if I converted to Islam,
my arguments in this thread would remain the same, therefore my
arguments have nothing to do with me being a non-Muslim.

> I have spent enough time in this newsgroup to know that "most"
> non-Muslims don't admit their errors even when facts are
> presented to them in this newsgroup.

If you think this statement is relevant to me, then provide examples.
If not, then why did you type this as a response to the above?

.