Embryology in the Quran: Difference between revisions

Apologists often defend their position by claiming that words like alaqa can have several meanings, and each of these meanings applies at the same time. Thus, an alaqa is a leech, looks like a leech if viewed in a certain angle or a clot in another angle, or clings to the endometrium. It is a waste of time to argue such imponderables We will accept each and every one of these definitions because such arguments are futile.

The best method of refuting Qur'anic embryology is by questioning every claim as to their validity, and to make apologists justify every claim. This would include why they chose to make a choice when there are several other equally valid possibilities, why they chose to ignore clearly nonsensical phrases, and why they assume certain phrases to be metaphorical while others to be literal.  

We will ignore the obvious similarities between the embryology prevailing at the time the Qur'an was written and the embryology contained within its pages. This is because Prophet Muhammad’s plagiarizing of ancient Greek and Indian embryology can never be proven one way or the other. Therefore, we will concentrate solely in showing that Qur'anic embryology is made up of incorrect or illogical or unproven assertions.

If, however, the reader is so inclined, they can read a good summary of the apologetic debating technique [{{Reference archive|1=http://web.archive.org/web/20060214032231/http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/embryo.html|2=2011-12-05}} here], and read the relevant sections [http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com here] to see how many of the word definitions used by them are based on misquotes of Arabic dictionaries and are incompatible with how those same Arabic words were used in the hadith (such as the claims that the word alaqah meant a "leech-like substance", that a mudghah is not merely a small piece of meat, but one that has been chewed).