₦airaland Forum

Given the degree of specificity in these verses, it is difficult not to read these verses literally - that God fetched a mass of sticky clay, and molded a human statue, then granted this statue life.

In such a case, it would be only logical to expect silicon in the elemental make up of man, the offspring of Adam.

The clay or creation process for Adam is even compared with pottery in Qur'an.

55:14
He created man of clay like the potter's.

This clay was sticky and was obtained from mud.

37:11, 15:26
Indeed we created them from a clay sticky. We created man from sounding clay, of altered mud.

23:12
We created man from extract(sulalatin) of clay.

Extract of clay implies clay in its basic or intrinsic nature, pure clay - a mass rich in silicon and other elements. There is no clay without silicon.

Chapter 4 - Adam's creation in the Qur'an.

I'd rather not delve deep into the repetitive and unprofessional exchanges between the posters in the next 2-3 pages. I'll hereby cite relevant verses on the creation of Adam.

Now, suppose a person storms into a Mosque or an Islamic bookshop, tearing and stamping on copies of Qur'an on shelves. This is trespassing and so may be punishable by government. But for the government to punish a man for desecrating his personal copy of the Qur'an, it is unjustifiable.

All in all, there basically is no justifiable reason for blasphemy law unless blasphemous acts constitute tresspassing. It hinders criticism of religion, impede freedom of speech and even interferes with individual privacy.

Suppose, Mr. XZ print out copies of Qur'an from his computer. Then after months of reading them, resolving Qur'an was falsehood, he tosses the copies into his house garbage, and throw out the entire garbage at the end of the week into the neighborhood refuse bin. Is Mr. XZ punishable for desecrating his own Qur'an?

If people want to desecrate religious object that belong them, that is up to them. We could dissuade them, but unless we personally or collectively own the very object that has been desecrated, we have no right to punish any one for desecration.

Continue Below

Is desecrating Qur'an Punishable?

In 2014, a Pakistani mob lynched and burnt a pregnant couple in a kiln for allegedly throwing away copies of Qur'an along with thrash.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/04/pakistan-christian-couple-killed-alleged-blasphemy

In 2012, Pakistani girl of 14 years was arrested and charged for desecrating the Qur'an by burning copies.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/19/pakistan-christian-tensions-quran-burning-allegations

Desecrating Qur'an doesn't fall within freedom of speech, but it is blasphemy. So, is it punishable? To answer this, we cite an example.

Continue Below

"I heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'I wanted to forbid intercourse with a nursing mother, but then (I saw that) the Persians and the Romans do this, and it does not kill their children.'
Sunan Ibn Majah » The Chapters on Marriage

Muhammad had no ability to discern what is Islamically binding. His legislations outside Qur'an were not divine but limited by knowlege, culture and condition of his time. To religiously abide by such legislations today will be polytheistic.

Provided these were indeed the true words of Muhammad, such legislation have nothing to do with Islam and there is no sin on Muslims who disregard them after Muhammad or outside Muhammad's political domain.

After all, the chief's legislation were fallible unlike the messenger's. As Muhammad was limited by the common knowledge and situation of his era or region, he's incapable of legislating in Islam, a religion transcending his era and region. This limitation may be grasped from the hadith below;

Continue Below

The chief's legislation:

As the chief of an heterogeneous religious and tribal community, Muhammad was duty bound to legislate on political and social affairs outside the Qur'an.

The Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) prohibited the eating of every beast of prey with fang, and every bird with a talon.
Sunan Abi Dawud » Book of Foods

Continue Below

The messenger's legislation:

It's been proven that Muhammad on his own cannot legislate in Islam outside Qur'an. For instance;

“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’”
Sunan Ibn Majah » Chapters on Food

Muhammad as the messenger legislate what the Qur'an does. No more than Qur'an, no less.

Continue Below

Muhammad's legislation: The Messenger Vs The Chief

Muhammad's legislation were of two categories, the divine and the political. Ignorance among Muslims lead them to assume all the legislation were divine and thus, everlasting.

Continue Below

Qur'an 86:5-8
But let him look, the Man, from what created. Created from fluid ejected. It comes out from between the loins and the ribs. Surely He over returning him to be Powerful.

This verses as generally translated seem to erroneously indicate semen comes from the abdominal cavity. I'm still looking further into it. It is even more disturbing when one learns that in the 7th century, semen was erroneously thought to emerge from the the abdominal cavity(between the loins and ribs), and this verse may be very likely repetition of the same error.

tinting: And there is problem where the sperm proceed from as mentioned in the Quran.

najib:
Allah is describing the position of your testicles during your infancy so that you'll be taking by awe and fell ashamed and Submit yourself to him.

Alright, stop. OK? Just stop. This is more than enough interpolation to cause an Arabic reader to cringe. "Testicles" and "infancy", really? The Qur'an states it is clear and detailed. It doesn't need words in brackets to be understood.

Make no mistake, I do not diss the Qur'an, but some of what you deem scientific revelations from the Qur'an were beliefs at the time of Muhammad, and some are sloppy re-interpretation of verses, a far cry from the orthodox interpretation before modern science.

As for Muhammad, he wasn't an illiterate. The first revelations(Qur'an 96) to him asked him to Read(Iqra). Which illiterate goes reciting to his people, "Read", whereas he cannot read? This is serious joke.

Secondly, how did you conclude different waters of the world, salt and fresh water do not mix(Qur'an 25:53). I won't delve deep here, but I urge you to research a little, because although a barrier exist between the waters, they in fact mix.

Thirdly, mountain were thought as pegs back in the days before Qur'an. Besides, this idea is really disputable as I've seen scientific evidence to the contrary. Again, I'll leave you to do your own research.

najib continues........

najib: Just like they didn't know about the expansion of the Universe, that the different waters of the world don't mix and also as the mountains serve as pegs to the earth till after several centuries, while Allah revealed it 1400 years ago to an illiterate man in the Arabian desert.

I can't help but divert, this is too many errors for me to overlook. Firstly, how did you conclude that Qur'an reveals the "Expansion of the Universe"? The verse you refer to is 51:47; "And the heaven we constructed it with strength, and indeed we surely siuna".

Research, see how translators differed on this verse. Here is Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.. Also, how many of the earlier scholars or Qur'an exegetes interpreted this verse as "expanding universe"?

tinting: From Biological evolution study, there is no silica in human evolutionary process, this falsify Quran claim.

najib:
No currently science is not advanced to extent of discovering that

Discovering what? The place of silicon in the evolutionary chain or in the current human histology? If you mean the former, I'm pressed to agree with you, ironically though, there is no indication of evolution in the Qur'an.

If you mean the latter, I beg to differ. So many elements have been detected in human cells and tissues, is there something so different about silicon delaying its detection?

tinting: Now let's assume Adam was able to procreate, did his offsprings inherited the clay-gene, if no then how are we related to Adam?

najib:
Yes we did but In a different form, that's why there different race's of men, and uniqueness of characters.

But which form? You're telling me that the clay-gene mutated to something else? Yet we still look like Adam? I really don't see this, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt till the end of this thread.

Chapter 3

tinting: If Adam is created from clay then his body, organs is silicon base, how he was able to procreate is very questionable.

najib:
No it's not, as long as I know atheist scientists always make assumptions on things they don't know of how they originated, because none of them was present when Allah was creating the animals or even Adam take for example the birth of Jesus A.S. scientists will always try to falsify his existence because they cannot explain his birth, science they always claim to know everything despite they knowing that they disbelieve in Allah so that they'll carry out evil experiments and carry out their greedy agenda.

Hey! This is too cynical, not all atheist scientists are mad scientists. It was the falsifiable claims of the scriptures, pertaining to human body or natural phenomena that spur these men to doubt the God of Abrahamic Religion.

Chapter 2

syno: The Qur’an emphatically states that humans (including Adam (AS) ) were created from earth, thereafter; Allah (SWT) gave information with regards to what was used in stages for the creation of Adam (AS). From the Qur’an, we have mention of the following:

1. Earth
2. Dust
3. Water
4. Mud
5. Clay

The above-named materials are composed of different elements, organic and inorganic materials. While we do not have samples from Adam (AS) to analyze and see what he was made up of, our present composition informs us that all what we are made up of can be found in the above listed, then it is foolhardy for one to just pick one element, or one material and start asking why we are not made up of that material, when there happens to be no information on what proportion of what was used or even how it was used or even the composition of these aforementioned materials during creation.

There has to be silicon, if indeed clay is the building block for man. You can't have clay without silicon as you can't have flour - the building block of pastries, without carbon.

IMAliy: I personally keep my science and religion separate, but complementary to one another.

Then find a time machine and go back to the 1180. You can't keep your religion and science separate in the forever, one day you will have to scrutinize your religion with scientific facts. It is happening to many.

Chapter 1

IMAliy: Adam was created from clay
You were created from your father's sperm and mother's egg.

tinting:
So no inheritance?
How biological was Adam made up of silica, how is that even possible talkless of him procreating?

IMAliy: Just cause he was created from clay doesn't mean he is clay.
Like how plastic is made from crude oil but is not crude oil. (A bad analogy. I not good at making proper examples)

Not bad, not bad. Just because table salt is made from acid doesn't mean it is acid. This was my original approach, to validate the Qur'an. This analogy, I soon realize to be poor when I understood Qur'an imply implies "Clay" as building block for man, not a precursor.

Then I turned to the internet, searching for ......."Clay". "Clay" led me to "Clay minerals", "Clay minerals" lead me to "Abiogenesis" and "Evolution Theory". I must confess after my inquiries, I may be staring at dichotomies between the some Qur'an verses and Science.

And there really is no middle path here. And if you wonder why I, a Muslim won't zealously delve to justify "Clay as the building block" of man, to justify the Qur'an - then sit back, for this review would be highly revealing.

Introduction

Here is the original thread I'll be commenting on - https://www.nairaland.com/4856490/allah-created-humans-clay-sand

tinting: How true is this,

That humans are made up of clay/sand/dust?

I sought to answer this question by collecting all Qur'anic verses on the origin of man - Qur'an 15:28-33, 7:10-12, 37:71-72, 51:14 etc.
Qur'an states that man had been created from sticky clay from aged mud -like the potter's clay, shaped and granted consciousness.

From an academic point, nothing is wrong with this cartoon. Whether as satire, parody or ordinary statements, People should be free to air negative observations and constructive criticism of any man, including Muhammad - to whom Muslims themselves have attributed many bad ideas and actions that are unacceptable to any sane mind.

The 5th panel is likely an allusion to Muhammad's open indulgence in sex and virgin according to traditional Islam:

His child bride and consummation of their marriage when she was 9, his recommendation of young girls(virgin) rather than older women to his companions for marriage, his nightly 'sexcapades' with his 11 wives, and permitting of his companions to rape female captives. The list goes on.

Continue Below

The 4th & 7th panels are likely allusions to the 'live by the sword' portrayal of Muhammad by Muslim fanatics throughout history:

The assassination of Asma bint Marwan, the hadith permitting fighting people till they embrace Islam or pay a tribute, Qur'an 9:5 and how it has been interpreted to wage war on non-Muslims, spreading Islam through the middle east, europe and north africa throughout history.

Continue Below

ii. Three panels of the comics.

The 3 panels that must have provoked some Muslims are;

Panel 4 - Muhammad wielding a sword with two masked women behind him.

Panel 7 - Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

Panel 5 - Muhammad calling to his companions, "We're out of virgins".

Are these provoking? May be. Nevertheless, this is simply an observation of Muhammad's life by the satirists. Let's analyze the panels.

Continue Below

I deduce that 2 things about this cartoon provoked Muslim outrage:

i. Visual depiction of Muhammad.

There is the belief among some Muslims that drawing Muhammad is forbidden in Islam. But, regardless of the legitimacy of such belief, Muhammad to non-Muslims is just another historical figure, not an idol, not a messenger. Thus, non-Muslims should be under no restriction from drawing, painting or sculpting Muhammad, just like any other human being.

Continue Below

Why Reject Blasphemy law

Blasphemy law should have no place in an enlightened society, for reasons. Chief of them being that it stifles honest intellectual discourse on religion, by barring any negative observation on religion.

I have uploaded below the panels of Danish Cartoons on Muhammad in 2006 as case study.

Continue Below