@Muhammad:

by Muhammad___: 12:04pm
Ok You Muslims claim, that proof the Koran was from God, is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology before man discovered it for himself.

However, all the information in the Koran regarding Embryology is copied from three sources, 1. A Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. 2. A Jewish doctor named ~~Samuel ha-Yehudi~(?) who lived 150 AD. 3. the Greek father of medicine Hippocrates who lived 400 BC.

My question is: in light of the fact that all the information contained in the Koran was already in print by these three doctors, will you retract the argument on Embryology?

lets look that it from the point that the 3 names you listed did what you said they did and it was established fact by Quran spoke about embryo.

Your problem will be to prove that Muhammad [sa] in isolated Makka and a true scientific illiterate was able to get the materials of these professors and copied them, made it public and no one called him on it that it was plagiarized material? You are talking about an arab illiterate speaking in his pure arabic tongue that this quality of arabic language is now the highest form of arabic. Have you ever translated any material in one language to another and the new material retains the same level of message or even higher, in case of the Quran its higher?

Let us now look that the God that allowed man to have knowledge which the 3 professors demonstrated, unless you dont believe that God played vital in their knowledge? The point therefore is that in either way, whether you believe God or not making the professors writing possible, we have to agree that a makkan who produced something similar which he didnt claim was of his scientific prowess but from God will be at least be respected for not personal humbleness. But no one accused him until the arrival of accusers in the last 2 centuries or just a little more or even less.

The detail has been in the Quran for 14 centuries and more now. So for 12 centuries no one challenged him, while alive and even his death. No one challenged the muslims for 12 centuries. What are reasons or a single reason for the passiveness of the critics, since everyone will have preferred the 3 to be in an exclusive club of their own? Did any of the 3 copied from any of the other 2? so why do you think Muhammad [sa] has to be the one that must copy from any of them? Do you have a valid reason or just throwing darts like all the other people?

If not, will you supply one detail revealed in the Koran about Embryology, that was not already revealed or that was new?

first, if each of the 3 former scientists produced perfect material has need to improvement, the material in the Quran would therefore be revealed so that the each of the 3 earlier scientific findings was a confirmation of the fact that God support this non scientist man who did not take a single credit or say he was a genius in science. Further, if what is in the Quran is not weaker that any of the 3 from the scientists, it is another proof that God is the One Who revealed it to Muhammad [sa]. Further, if what is in the Quran is better than what each of them individually produced, then it is yet another proof that God is the One Who revealed it to Muhammad [sa].

It this uneducated man [sa] was to have copied from the materials of any of the professors of medicine, what he produced should therefore be word for word like what he copied since it will be difficult to edit the highly scientific material, unless you claim now that Muhammad [sa] was a professor and i will now challenge you why he denied this great professorial quality about himself? he could have made money because his people appreciated wealth and he will not be a poor man. Yet he died poor, very poor.


The "chewed up" phenomenon was far better and completely accurate about the stage it represents.

You Muslims claim, that a proof that the Koran was from God is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology, yet in 86:6-7 the Koran says, "man was created from ejected liquid- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believed Fluid originates, from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally out of the body. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317)

we can from this bold eliminate that hippocrates was the one Muhammad [sa] copied hs material because he would have spoken about the brain, too. So we have 2 more professors to throw out so that you will believe Muhammad [sa] was not copying from anyone but received revelation and nothing less.

But let us talk the fluid "ejected liquid which proceeds from between the backbone and the ribs". One thing that you and I will upon is that male fluid does play a role on the female egg that becomes fertilized to produce man. When the two meet and become what will be man, they combination is so small that it may not be visible to the eye of everyone without a microscope. I remember a doctor on nairaland arguing that at some point in the development of the human fetus the organs that finally become involved in the male ejected fluid process are all in the place that Quran says; between the backbone and the ribs. To disprove the Quran, you will have say to us that there was no time that these organs package was not between the backbone and the ribs.

Heck, even if you go further, you will say that the admixture of egg and sper.m was a full man, already if he develops to its fulness.

My question is: do you reject modern science and believe the Koran when it says Fluid originates from the mid-gut section of a man's body.

Modern science mega textbooks to simply explain a one liner in the Quran. Quran is the Syllabus in the hand of the Professor. Modern science is the tutor who helps the student to understand what the professor touch on in the lecture.

Muslims quote an article written in 1957 by the Jehovah's Witnesses who stated there were 50,000 errors in the translation of the King James version. My question is: Even if this were true, (which of course it is not), how does this prove there is corruption in the original Greek MSS from which the King James version was translated?

does it make science that the Obi of Onisha spoke to his people in his palace in Onisha dialect and some guy says he captured it in Ghana's Twi language and says it supersedes what the Obi said in his language? Ironically, the Christian Bible has not settled down with a copy yet, that is good for all 'protestants', if we concentrate only on protestants in this discussion. what we see is Bible with generational revision, edition, etc. its your book and you have live with it and live on it, running your life, at least the spiritual life by what is not firmly formulated, yet. Is that the truth to hold on to the grave?

You Muslims claim, that the many different translations of the English Bible will render a single text with many different words and phrases. You said this was proof the Bible is corrupted and that the Koran reads exactly the same way everywhere in the world in Arabic.

our concern is not the english or other language translations of the bible. we want you to show us the original Bible that Jesus preached in his language. Then we will begin to dialogue. if not we have nothing to talk about.

My question is: Since the many English translations of the Koran also render a single text with many different words, does that proof that the Koran is corrupted?

Quran is in pure arabic only.

Muslims believe the word Allah was used by Jesus when he hung on the cross. The Bible records that Jesus said "Eli Eli lama sabachthani", but you say Jesus really cried out to Allah and said "Allah, Allah lama sabachthani"[/Ellah is what the syriac language says and not Eli, because Eli does not make sense and its a name of the son of Samuel New Living Translation (©2007)
Now the sons of Eli were scoundrels who had no respect for the LORD.

God will not have such as His Name.



[quote]My question is: Would you please explain why you would use this argument when you don't believe Jesus ever hung on the cross?

Because Jesus was not killed or died on the cross is our belief and that is not the reason that whoever was on the cross, if he called on God, he will simply say Ellah, instead of calling Eli the son Prophet Samuel.

And second, since Jesus was quoting Ps 22:1 on the cross, isn't rather unlikely that both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament are wrong using Eli, a Hebrew word, rather than Allah, an arab word?

You can not prove that Psalm 22:1 is evidence for christian take on Jesus unless Jesus was the only one ever on the jewish cross? Eli is not just a hebrew word, its a name of the son of Prophet Samuel. Allah and syriac Ellah are similar and you can get Ellah from Halleluyah. But cant get Yahweh or Jehovah or Eli from it. Yahu Ellah.

You Muslims chide Christians because the earliest complete copies of the Bible were written 300 years after the originals of the first century. Yet Muslim scholars state the earliest copy of the Koran was written no earlier than 150 years after Muhammad died.

No muslim scholarship that its grain of salt will discount the Quran put together as a full physical book during the time of Abu Bakr [ra], few years after the death of the messenger [sa]. Or the Uthman Quran that were produced after the reign of Umar [ra], before the reign of Ali [ra]. All the muslims agree on the present day Quran day Quran called Uthmanu Quran. There is no Bible that all the christians agreed upon. And never will there be such a bible, so 300 years of writing the Bible is irrelevant. The problem is that you do not have anything you can authentically trace back to Jesus. Period.

My question is: in light of this fact, how could the Koran possibly be better than the Bible and would you please state the name and location and date of the earliest Koran you believe to be in existence?

read about Quran made to a book in the time of Abu Bakr because the community was losing large numbers of those who memorize it to enemies of Islam who were killing them.

Both the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul are written in the script style called "Kufic". And not the earlier style known as Ma'il or Mashq. This fact is the reason Muslim scholars date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died.

you have indicated that Ma'il or Mashq is earlier to prove that it must be earlier that 200 years the date you assigned to the Kufic style. What you need to tell us now why was a Ma'il or Mashq except some Quran[s] at least a Quran was written by such a style: Ma'il or Mashq? You defeat your own opinion of argument here.

My question is: leaving aside blind faith and wishful thinking, what evidence do you supply that these MSS were written any earlier?
The British Museum in London has an ancient copy of the Koran written in the Ma'il style of script, but practicing Muslim scholar Martin Lings, who is the former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates this manuscript at 790 AD.

the 790 AD is definitely early than 200 years of the passing of the messenger [sa], who passed in 732. This is less than 60 years and it is not an indication that nothing was written before it, considering that Quran was written as a complete single Book, first during Abu Bakr, then repeated from it 5 Quran[s] in the time of Uthaman Affan. What you call manuscript is A complete Quran whereas you call parchments, leaflets manuscript as well you are talking about the Bible.
Is Complete Book of Quran the same as pieces of leaves, parchments and leaflets of Bible the same?

My question is: Apart from just making the claim, what evidence do you supply that this MSS were written any earlier?

ets just assume for a moment that nothing was written, ever. The muslims memorized it as they do, today. The muslims used the memorized Quran then as they use it today: for prayers, for islamic ceremonies, gathering, etc. It is incumbered on muslims to memorize as much he or she is capable to for personal use everyday. This was the case even during the lifetime of the messenger [sa]. In the lifetime of the messenger [sa], the Quran were written down as soon as any revelation is completed. His scribes were from the community: Ali, his beloved cousin was one of them.

The community write their own so that they can memorize it/them. The scripts you spoke about were developed for the benefit of the wider muslim communty whereas the arabs who were there during revelation didnt need any of the scripts. After all it is their tongue the was coming in and they had they master there who received the revelation, learning directly from him, even as they used it in daily prayers, etc, further making its writing down ok, but not absolutely essential in their case. Again, Uthman burned the earliest parches, pieces from the individual upon arriving at standard text for every community. Oral document that is recited very frequently does not lose its authenticity just because it is not written down.

I have seen many yoruba people writing Harbiorlah, instead of Abiola. Does her grandmother who calls her Abiola everyday need the written down of either version before she knows how to pronounce it and for Abiols the grand daughter to respond to uneducated lady?

The text of the Koran in 37:103 reads "they had both submitted their wills (became Muslims)" while the Arabic text of the Tashkent MSS gives the exact opposite meaning, "they did not submitted their wills" (they did NOT become Muslims.)

if you are talking about Ibrahim and Ismail [as] we know that they were muslim. The recited verses from memory is a sure bet confirming that there is no doubt what they were in faith. Sometime, the printer may not print so clearly. I assure you, the Quran will correct your tongue by stopping you if you say it wrongly meaning yo cant say just what you want, but what is revealed must be said.

My question is: have you actually read the Tashkent MSS for yourself in this passage and how do you explain this textual variation given your comments on the miracle of the perfect Koran?

Quran is oral. That is enough to correct any mistake. If I write Aaabisiola instead of Abiola, the woman will say thats not her name but Abiola is her name.

Qur’an 18:9, makes into real history, the second century myth of 7 Christian youths who were persecuted for their faith and went to sleep in a cave for 300 years and then woke up with no ill effects. In the original myth the hero is a Christian, but in the Koran the hero is a Muslim.

No place it is stated that true followers of Christ have a religion called christianity. Jesus was a muslim [submitting to the Will of God] so his true followers must be muslims too, worshiping and submitting as he did. And since everything is not correctly and accurately recorded in the Bible, what occurs out the Bible may actually individual truth of "myth".

My question is: in the absence of any copyright laws when the Koran was written, are you at least prepared to pay compensation to the living relatives of the author of this myth? If not, would you be in favor of going starting up a charity fund to compensate for damages of copyright infringement?

Even if Muhammad [sa] who could have made a mint if he had claimed it was his own genius mind, while he died a poor man. I proposed to you and those who you are advocating on their behalf that God revealed to Muhammad [sa] what he knew not: The Whole Quran. So if you want to actually act as an advocate for others, with deceit of mind, then petition God and what for His decision on you. If you are sincere and you want to be an advocate for yourself and others in truth, then turn to islam and it is through it you will receive Mercy of God.

Koran 5:116, represents Christians as worshipping Mary which is a historical error. Given the fact that the pagan Arabs did worship Mary’s idol in the Kaba, and that history records no group of Christians had ever worshiped Mary at this time,

What did the pagan arabs did to constitute their worship of Mary? Please describe them/it. Thanks.

My question is would you please name the sect of Christians who worshiped Mary at the time of Muhammad?

Even today, the catholic worship Mary, in similar fashion the Jesus worshipers of today do. I do hope that when you kneel down in from of something and or simply beg it, petition it, it is a worship; the way the idolater do to their idols. If you say you dont worship what you beg or petition, then you are a denying worshiper or ignorant that you worship what everyone else see you worship.

Muslim's reject the doctrine of inherited sin of Adam but teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The reason the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was invented was to remove inherited sin.

the two are not connected and it is only in your idea that you can connect both. While it is true that Mary did not have sex to have a baby, I will not be punished for the mistake of Adam [as] who must have been forgiven by now, or is your God not forgiven oft returning in mercy? Allah is my God.

My question is: since you reject the doctrine of inherited sin and believe all men are born without sin, why do Muslim's teach the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

Its not a doctrine, its an event and we do not hang on it more than an event that brought about Jesus [as] to life from the womb of a believing woman young virgin Mary.

In Koran 7:125, death by crucifixion is stated to exist at the time of Moses in 1500BC. Yet Encyclopedia Britannica, in harmony with all records of history, reports that crucifixion did not exist any earlier than 500 BC.

Maybe you need to research egyptolgy to know that it does exist during the period Moses was struggling with the tyrannical Pharaoh. Its a fact from the records of ancient Egypt.

evidence of crucifixion in OT and even before the israelites settled down

Deuteronomy 21:22-23

New Living Translation (NLT)
Various Regulations

22 “If someone has committed a crime worthy of death and is executed and hung on a tree,[a] 23 the body must not remain hanging from the tree overnight. You must bury the body that same day, for anyone who is hung[b] is cursed in the sight of God. In this way, you will prevent the defilement of the land the Lord your God is giving you as your special possession.

Crucifixion Or 'Crucifiction' In Ancient Egypt?
www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

. . . . CRUCIFIXION IN ANCIENT ASSYRIA

Perhaps one of the best examples of the variation of crucifixion in the form of impaling the enemies comes from the times of the Assyrian ruler Shalmaneser III (859 BCE - 824 BCE). Figures 1 and 2 show people being impaled or suspended by a stake through their private parts and chests, respectively. . . .

. . . HIEROGLYPH FOR CRUCIFYING OR IMPALING A PERSON UPON A STAKE

The first thing to establish is whether there exists any hieroglyph that mentions impaling people on stakes. The best place to start is Die Sprache Der Pharaonen Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch, a concise Egyptian-German dictionary. The hieroglyph depicting impalement on a stake is shown below.[63]. . .

. . .EVIDENCE OF IMPALEMENT IN ANCIENT EGYPT

In order to analyze and interpret the evidence of crucifixion by impaling people on a stake in Egypt, we present a simplified chronology of ancient Egyptian history containing royal names associated with the period for easy reference. Unless otherwise stated, specific dates for particular Dynasties and Kings that we quote within this paper are taken from Nicolas Grimal's book, A History of Ancient Egypt.[66] Please note that the exact Egyptian chronologies are slightly uncertain, and all dates are approximate. The reader will find slightly different schemes used in different books. . .

My question is: to how do you explain this blaring historical error, and do you just disregard the history of the world merely because the Karen says otherwise?

When you go and conduct the research you will know that Quran is correct.

Muslim scholar, Tabbarah, said in his book, The Spirit of Islam, "Moslems do not worship the Black Stone, but only show special reverence and veneration for its dignity and they kiss it only after the example of the Prophet and to keep their Covenant with God to obey His Will and avoid His disobedience." (Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam, p. 173, Muslim).

Focusing on Tabbarah’s key phrase of showing reverence and veneration to the Black Stone,

My question is do you see any difference between the Muslim practice of kissing showing reverence and venerating the Black Stone and the Catholic practice of pope John Paul II kissing the statute of the Virgin Mary with reverence and veneration?

I do not have to kiss the black stone. The catholic can not but praise their popes or kiss whatever they kiss of them.

Informed Christians know there is no passage and the Koran that says the Bible is lost altered or corrupted.

woe to those who have altered the book or change the word from its place so that they gain something by it, yet claim its all from God without man's influence and desire.

My question is would you please list all the passages you know where the Qur'an says the Bible that was in the hands of the Christians at the time of Muhammad had been corrupted?

002.079 YUSUFALI: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

Waste of time

Muhammad___: Ok You Muslims claim, that proof the Koran was from God, is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology before man discovered it for himself.

However, all the information in the Koran regarding Embryology is copied from three sources, 1. A Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. 2. A Jewish doctor named ~~Samuel ha-Yehudi~(?) who lived 150 AD. 3. the Greek father of medicine Hippocrates who lived 400 BC.

My question is: in light of the fact that all the information contained in the Koran was already in print by these three doctors, will you retract the argument on Embryology?

If not, will you supply one detail revealed in the Koran about Embryology, that was not already revealed or that was new?

This is inacurate and can be disproved easily

So what did galen say?

In his book,On Semen Galen states:

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of theanimal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let usdivide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. Thefirst is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection,the form of the semen prevails. At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus;as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, hestill calls it semen.

Galen clearly states that his views are as a result of dissections and abortions, and then goes on to explain that the first stage of human development is in the “form of σπέρματος”. In the 2nd century, which was the period of Galen’s writings, the word σπέρματος meant semen.

This raises a significant contention; if the Qur’an was a summary of Galenic views on embryology then the Arabic word that should have been used to represent this understanding is mani or maniyyan.

The Quran uses another word 'Nutfah' which refers to a drop . Both words are used in the Quran:

Had he not been a sperm (nutfah ) from a semen (maniyyin ) emitted?

This perspective on nutfah highlights how the intended use of this word is not to portray the meaning of semen. Rather, it is a drop or asubstance from semen. In another verse the Qur’an explains how the human being is madefrom an extract (sulaalah) of a liquid disdained (semen).

the quranic view highlights that the nutfah is different from mani , because the Qur’an mentions that it is a drop of semen of which is anextract. This indicates that the nutfah is a pure, subtle or essential part of the semen, and notthe whole semen itself.

Also Galen says semen comes from blood, The Quran does not mention such absurdity

i.why did the Qur’an not mention that the nutfah comes from blood, like the Galenic view?

ii. Why did the Qur’an not mention that the nutfah combined with menstrual blood to create the human fetus?

iii. why did it not use the Arabic word for semen (maniyyan ) to refer to σπέρματος, since this Greek word was also used in the context of the physical form and appearance of the fluid?

2. Galen second stage

But when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver arestill unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarityand considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of thefetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen.Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer callssuch a form semen but, as was said, f
etus…

Another significant contention concerns Galen’s second stage that refers to the embryo as being filled with blood. The key Greek words used are πληρωθη (plee-ro-thee) which means filled and αίματος(eh-ma-tos ) meaning blood. If the Qur’an borrowed Galenic views onthe developing human embryo, the words that should have been used are (mal-at ) which means the manner in which something is filled, and (dam ) which means blood.

the word alaqah is used in the Qur’an.It has a number of meanings,one of which is a clot of blood.. The word in the Qur’an used to describe this stage doesn’t encompass such ameaning, because alaqah, if we assume it to mean blood or blood-clot, does not encompass a fleshy substance filled with blood. Words that can mean fleshy in Arabic, such as mudhgah and lahm, are used todescribe later stages in the Quran.

Strike 2

3. Galen Stage 3

The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible tosee the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, asit were, of all the other parts. You will see the conformation of thethree ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach moredimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form ‘twigs’, as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches.

he Qur’an mentions mudghah as a chewed-like substance and a small piece of flesh. In contrast, Galen discusses the “conformation” of “the three ruling parts”,“silhouettes” and “twigs”, which is most likely in reference to limb bone formation. He details these three ruling parts as being more visible than the stomach and the limbs. However, the Qur’an makes no mention of this, and its mention of limb formation comes atthe next stage.

It is both implausible and impractical, therefore, to suggest that the Qur’an copied the works of Galen as it does not include any of the descriptions provided by Galen at this stage.

It ridiculous in the light of this Stark differences to attribute the Quranic embryology to galen or Hippocrates.... It is just ridiculous...

Ref: http://www.onereason.org/order-materials/downloads/embryology-in-the-quran-pdf/
Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans.Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992), pages 92-95, 101.

You Muslims claim, that a proof that the Koran was from God is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology, yet in 86:6-7 the Koran says, "man was created from ejected liquid- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believed Fluid originates, from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally out of the body. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317)

Nonsense, I have a very detailed response to this:

The correct translation of ‘sulb’ is not backbone, nor does the word ‘tara’ib’ indicate the man’s ribs. Let us review the verse in question:

So let man consider from what he is created. He is created from an emitted fluid that issued from between the sulb and the tara’ib. (86:5-7)

The word ‘tarai’b’—according to the Arabic—is actually referring to a female body part. Much like the English word ‘joystick’ can only be ascribed to a male, the word ‘tara’ib’ can only be applied to a female.

This is not apologetic modernism or revisionism; the classical works of Quranic commentary throughout the last 1400 years confirm this view categorically. In other words, the sulb belongs to the male, and the tara’ib belongs to the female. This is the view of the Muslims since the last fourteen hundred years, and there is consensus (ijma) on this matter, since the time of the Sahabah (the Prophet’s disciples) until today.

Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî of IslamToday.com writes:

The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to Fluid but is used in Arabic for both the Fluid and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one.

[b]Lane’s Lexicon s[/b]ays:
Tara’ib: … most of the authors on strange words affirm decidedly that it (tara’ib) is peculiar to women. (Lane’s Lexicon, p.301)
All of the major commentaries of the Quran confirm that the tara’ib is peculiar to women. Ibn Katheer writes in his tafseer (commentary) of the Quran:

It (fluid) emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer)

Tafseer al-Jalalayn says:
Issuing from between the sulb, of the man, and the tara’ib, of the woman. (Tafseer Al-Jalalayn)

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas says:
That issued from between the sulb of the man and the tara’ib of a woman.

(Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas)

AmericanPregnancy.org says:

Ovulation is assumed to take place on the day a woman has the most amount of wet fluid.

(http://www.americanpregnancy.org/get, ulationfaq.htm)
A medical website, OncologyChannel.com, says:

When a woman is fertile, each month a Graafian follicle travels to the surface of the ovary, bursts, and releases an egg and its fluid contents into a fallopian tube.
(http://www.oncologychannel.com/ovari, er/index.shtml)
The cilia in the fallopian tube push the fluid and the egg forward towards the uterus. It is the fluid which is the main force that causes the cilia to beat and thereby push the egg to its destination. Without the fluid, the egg will most likely not make it. One can read this medical article on the topic:
The Effect of Ovarian Follicular Fluid and Peritoneal Fluid on Fallopian Tube Ciliary Beat Frequency

BACKGROUND: …At ovulation, follicular fluid is released into the peritoneal cavity and enters the Fallopian tube. We hypothesized that this fluid may provide the stimulus for the increase in CBF (Ciliary Beat Frequency) detected after ovulation.

…CONCLUSIONS: The increase in CBF detected after ovulation may aid ovum pick-up and transport along the Fallopian tube. Factor(s) within human follicular fluid and secretory phase peritoneal fluid may be responsible for this increase in CBF.

(http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi, stract/21/1/52)
Reproduction-Online.org confirms this:
Formation of Fallopian tubal fluid:

Fluid produced and secreted by the Fallopian tube provides the environment in which gamete transport and maturation, fertilization and early embryo development occur.

(http://www.reproduction-online.org/c, ract/121/3/339)


As for the proper definition of sulb in the context of this verse, it is ‘loins’ and NOT backbone.

Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî of IslamToday.com writes:
The word “sulb” should not necessarily be translated as “backbone”. This word has many possible meanings and backbone is only one of them. It is also quite commonly used to mean the loins of a man. This is how it is used elsewhere in the Qur’ân. Allah says: “Prohibited to you (for marriage) are…wives of your sons proceeding from your loins (aslâb, the plural of sulb).” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 23] There can be no problem with Fluid coming out from the area of a man's loins.
Pickathal, a translator of the Quran, similarly translates the word ‘sulb’ as ‘loins’.

At this point in time, I think it would be appropriate to define the word ‘loins’, since many people nowadays have weak vocabularies. The word ‘loins’ refers to the Core and pubic area, or the Cores. So if the Quran says that Fluid comes from the Cores (and it does!), then how is this a scientific error?

Arabic-English Dictionaries and Journal Articles

We refer the reader to p.226 of The Concise Oxford English Arabic Dictionary. The English word ‘loins’ is translated as ‘sulb’. (source: http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Oxford, /dp/0198643217 )

We refer the reader to p.231 of Hippocrene Standard Dictionary Arabic-English English-Arabic by John Wortabet, in which once again, the only definition of the word loins is ‘sulb’. (source: http://www.amazon.com/Hippocrene-Dic, 6200382&sr=1-1)

It is a simple matter of driving down to Barnes and Noble or another bookstore to verify these definitions. But if the reader is too lazy to do that, here is an online reference. On p.146 of An English and Arabic Dictionary by Joseph Catafago, notice that the only definition given for the word ‘salbi’ is ‘proceeding from the loins’. (click here to view: http://books.google.com/books?id=42o, =5&ct =result)

Here is another online reference: on p.791 of A Comprehensive Persian English Dictionary: Including the Arabic Words, we see that the first definition of the word ‘sulbi’ is ‘proceeding from the loins’. (click here: http://books.google.com/books?id=knA, um=4&ct=result)

Still not convinced? Here is another online reference, this time from the YemenTimes.com, which translates the word ‘sulb’ as ‘loins’. It should be noted that this article has nothing to do with the verse in question, so the issue of bias cannot be brought up! (It’s a Bohra website, and Bohras are not considered Muslims by us.) We read:
He was succeeded by his brother Imam Husayn (SA), Sayyid al-Shuhada, (Lord of the Martyrs) through whose sulb (loins) the tasalsul to the Imamat has continued and will continue, until the Day of Judgment.
(YemenTimes.com, http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=656&p=report&a=1)

Cambridge University Press published a journal article in which the word ‘sulb’ was similarly translated as ‘loins’:

It is suggested that the Chelebi is derived from the Arabic salb or sulb, “loins,” and that it originally denoted “true born” or “lawful heir”…
(http://www.jstor.org/pss/607751)
The University of California Press published a book, written by Carol Lowery Delaney, in which the word ‘sulb’ was translated as ‘loins’:

The father’s side can be called sulb tarafi (sulb means loins, descendants, seed; spinal column, hard, rigid, firm)….

(The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society, p.158, http://books.google.com/books?id=GjE, =5&ct =result)
In the Persian Translator’s Introduction to Adab al-Suluk, the word ‘sulb’ is defined as ‘loins’. (‘Sulb’ is one of the many Arabic words used in the Persian and Hindu languages.) We read:
…The starting point is the father’s loins (sulb); the second stage is the mother’s womb; the third stage is the physical world; and the fourth stage is that of the grave…

(http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freeb, ritualway.html)
In A Dictionary, Hindustani & English, by Duncan Forbes, we read on p.514:
Sulb: the loins, offspring
(A Dictionary, Hindustani & English, p.514, http://books.google.com/books?id=jLo, m=10&ct=result)

Perhaps the greatest proof is from the Quran itself. The word ‘sulb’ is used in another verse:
Prohibited to you (for marriage) are…wives of your sons proceeding from your loins (aslaab, the plural of sulb). (Surah an-Nisa, 23)
It is also used in the Prophetic sayings (hadeeths). For example, the Prophet [s] was alleged to have said:

…From the loins (sulb) of this (man) will come a man who will fill the earth with fairness and justice…

(At-Tabarani)

Proof from the Bible

The Bible uses the word ‘loins’ in the exact same way, in numerous verses. For example:

And kings shall come out of your loins. (Genesis 35:11.)

You shall not build the house (the Temple); but your son that shall come forth out of your loins, he shall build the house unto my Name. (I Kings 8:19.)

And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: and Joseph was in Egypt already. (Exodus, 1:5)

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence against the Christian Islamaphobes is that the Christians translated the Bible into Arabic, and they translated the word ‘loins’ as ‘sulb’! Exodus 1:5 reads:
Exodus 1:5: And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: and Joseph was in Egypt already. (American Standard Version)
The word ‘loins’ in this verse is rendered as ‘sulb’ by the Christian translators at ArabicBible.com:
5وَكَانَتْ جَمِيعُ نُفُوسِ الْخَارِجِينَ مِنْ صُلْبِ يَعْقُوبَ سَبْعِينَ نَفْسًا. وَلكِنْ يُوسُفُ كَانَ فِي مِصْرَ
(http://www.arabicbible.com/bible/doc_bible.htm)

when the Quran says that a human is created from a father’s sulb, suddenly they accuse the Quran of being inaccurate. Fairness dictates that if the Christians are going to mock the Quran for saying that Fluid comes from the male’s sulb, then they must also mock their Bible which similarly uses the word.

From a linguistic standpoint, the term ‘tara’ib’ means ‘an arch of bones.’ Because of this, some of the early Muslims thought that it could refer to the woman’s rib cage, which encases the uterus. During normal pregnancies, the uterus actually grows underneath and into the rib cage. Dr. William D. McIntosh (M.D.) says to one woman:

…Your uterus is still under your ribs, but the movement is frequently more intense on the right side due to the prescence [sic] of the liver.

(Dr. William D. McIntosh,
http://forums.obgyn.net/pregnancy-bi, 0011/1708.html)

The American Pregnancy Association (APA) writes:
As your baby continues to grow, he/she takes up a larger portion of your uterus. You may not feel that your body can handle your growing baby, but it will compensate by allowing your uterus to extend underneath your rib cage.

(http://www.americanpregnancy.org/weekbyweek/week30.htm)

BeFitMom.com says:
Ribcage

The ribcage expands enormously during pregnancy to help make room for the expanding uterus and to maintain adequate lung capacity. Many pregnant women experience rib discomfort from this expansion, as well as the occasional little foot or knee that might habitually press against the ribs.

(http://www.befitmom.com/discomforts.html)
In other words, the word tara’ib could simply be referring to the woman’s uterus, since the rib cage surrounds it.

Another possible meaning for tara’ib could simply be ‘pelvic arch’, where the ovaries are located. Again, tara’ib literally means ‘an arch of bones’. The ribs form an arch of bones and this is why some of the early Muslims considered the tara’ib to be, but the pelvis certainly looks like an arch of bones as well. This is how Muhammad Asad translated the verse:

(7) issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].*

* The plural noun tarai’b, rendered by me as “pelvic arch”, has also the meaning of “ribs”, or “arch of bones”; according to most of the authorities who have specialized in the etymology of rare Quranic expressions, this term relates specifically to female anatomy. (Taj al-`Arus). (Quran, Ref: 86:7)
Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî confirmed this, saying:

It can apply to any region nearing the ribcage. Therefore, the area of the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, or the uterus can easily fit into the general area that is being indicated by these verses.
The truth is that tara’ib is a very obscure word. Just open up Lane’s Lexicon to see this! We read:

The part of the bosom which is the place of the collar, or necklace : (T, M, K so by the common consent of the lexicologists : (T or the bones of the bosom: (M, A, K or the bones of the bosom that are between the collar-bone and the pap: (8 or the part of the bosom, or chest, that is next to the two collar-bones : or the part that is between the two bosoms and the collar bones :or four ribs of the right side of the chest and four of the left therefore : (M, K or the two arms and two legs and two eyes: (T, M, K ,

(Lane’s Lexicon, p.301)

And the definition goes on! It seems that the word ‘tara’ib’ can refer to quite a few parts on the female body.

The Quran is very much superior to any manmade book. The analogy barely suffices, since the work of man cannot be compared to the Word of God. Nonetheless, fairness dictates that the same principle apply here. If the Westerners will give credit to Shakespeare for using new words, then surely the same should apply to the Quran. In fact, the Quran revolutionized the Arabic language, using words in a way that was never ever seen before. The Quran’s beauty stunned both friend and foe alike.

The Quran could have merely used mundane language and said ‘testes’ instead of sulb, or ‘ovaries’ instead of tara’ib…yet this would have altered the literary flow and epic beauty of the Quranic recitation. We urge the reader to listen to the Quranic verses in Arabic, and see why we say this! Click here to listen to the verse of the Quran that uses the word ‘sulb’ and ‘tara’ib’:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmIUk0Tcgw

Of course, the non-Arabic speaker cannot fully appreciate the eloquence and power of the Quranic recitation. Nonetheless, one can see that it transcends any manmade literature. The Quran had a profound and lasting impact on the Arabic language. There has never been a more beautifully written book, in Arabic or any other language.

Going back to the Shakespeare analogy, we see what effect he had on the English language. About.com says:

The English language owes a great debt to Shakespeare. He invented over 1700 of our common words by changing nouns into verbs, changing verbs into adjectives, connecting words never before used together, adding prefixes and suffixes, and devising words wholly original.

… Shakespeare also invented many of the most-used expressions in our language.

(http://shakespeare.about.com/library, /aa042400a.htm)
Likewise, the Quran invented many words, and used common words in ways that they had never been used before, changing their usage from the mundane to the magnificent.

Why is there a need to invent words? The reason is that the language is not grandiose enough for the writer. Shakespeare invented words because he excelled above the capacity of the English language. He coined many phrases, such as the famous “star-crossed lovers”. The word “star-crossed” had never been used before Shakespeare. Yet, now it is—thanks to Shakespeare—engraved into the English repertoire as one of the most poetic of words. Surely the same effect would not have been conveyed had he simply used the word ‘unlucky lovers’ as opposed to ‘star-crossed lovers.’

Similarly, the Quran invented many words, and used words in a way that Arabs had never used before, thereby transcending the Arabic language and revolutionizing it. Nobody could use language the way God did when he gave us the Quran. If we look at the verse in question (i.e. verse 86:7), it is extremely eloquent and moving in its Arabic language; the words sulb and tara’ib convey a grandiosity that no other words could.

The Quran is quite literally the epitome of beauty.

Conclusion

The very basis of the Islamaphobic argument falls apart. Nowhere was the Quran trying to explain where Fluid comes from. So all these creative titles on the internet such as “Mohammad’s Faulty Science”, “Where Muhammad thinks Fluid comes from”, etc., are all ludicrous. The Quran was not trying to show some random scientific trivia; the fact that Fluid comes from the loins—and that it mixes with the female’s egg in her body—is just common knowledge. It was used to build a spiritual—and not scientific—argument.

The word ‘sulb’ most definitely means ‘loins’, and we have provided definite proof of that, from multiple dictionaries, as well as from the Bible itself! As for the word ‘tara’ib’, then this is an obscure word. At most, the Islamaphobes can hope to criticize the Quran for ambiguity, but they cannot at all pinpoint any specific scientific error. The matter is not black-and-white as the Islamaphobes tried to make it out to be. However, I already explained how the ambiguity in one term does not at all distract from the meaning and purpose of the beautiful verses of the Quran. As a creedal point, Muslims believe that there are words in the Quran that we can never know the meaning of. For example, the famous words Alif Lam Meem have an unknown meaning, and we say that nobody can grasp the power of their meaning!

The rest is garbage: waste of time... Get a life...

tbaba1234 and sweetnecta, God bless you all.
I 'was' an active contributor on this section, its good to see that it is still running, and good people are here to educate others.
God bless you once again.

tbaba1234 and sweetnecta, God bless you both and increase you in knowledge.. Aameen