Yusuf Estes and the lies about embryology

Here's our old friend again, spouting mendacious clap-trap to the good folk at Guide USTV. "Who knew -even a hundred years ago - what the egg inside the mother looks like at the moment it's fertilised? Nobody... because it's microscopic"  And your point is, Yusuf? Ah, here we go... "An' yet, in the Qur'an it's clearly described"  Is it, Yusuf? Is the "egg at the moment of fertilisation" really "clearly described" in the Qur'an?? (You know, sometimes ol' Yusuf just makes it too easy for us, doesn't he?) So...according to brother Estes, this is what is described in the Qur'an in miraculous detail 1400 years before anyone human could possibly know what it looked like.

 Or, if you prefer...this:

or this...

And what is the miraculous passage that "Sheik" Estes wants us to believe describes the microscopic scene above? Well, it all revolves, it seems, around the word "alaqa", which (as followers of the Islamic miracle seekers will know) has three distinct meanings which Estes enumerates: a leech, a blood clot or something that clings. "All three of these are an EXACT description of what a baby looks like AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION", Estes tells his amazed audience.
Now forgive me if I'm being over-picky here, Yusuf...but "exactly like"??? I'm no micro-biologist, but even I can tell that the awe-inspiring pictures that scientific endeavour has allowed us to see have f*ck-all to do with a leech or a blood clot.
Once again, Yusuf Estes, you are lying to an audience of gullible people desperate to have their faith confirmed by whatever means possible.
Once again iERA you are supporting this shameful practice.
Shame on the lot of you.

Embryology in the Qur'an - a challenge to Hamza Tzortzis, iERA and Islam Papers

So let man observe from what he has been created. He was created from a fluid, ejected, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs 

Following the recent correspondence between this blog and the dawah site, Islam Papers, and the suggestion by IP that I put my points relating to the above verse in the Qur'an to Hamza Tzortzis of iERA (Islamic Education and Research Association) I thought it might be enlightening for my readers to see what the iERA said when I did exactly that via the kind offices of a Muslim friend a few months back. Here is the reply he got. Notice that there is NO MENTION of the various translations Hamza is so keen to highlight in his latest article quoted in IP and reproduced at the end of this post.

  The statement “sperm produced from between ribs and backbone?” is inaccurate. The most correct interpretation and translation (see Abdel Haleem’s translation of the Qur’an)  states that it is not the sperm that is produced from the ribs and the backbone but rather that the baby comes from there (in other words the womb). This is the view of the classical scholar al-Razi in his al-Tafsir al-Kabir. The pronoun refers back to man and not to the gushing fluid:
86. THE NIGHT-COMER 5) Man should reflect on what he was created from.6) He is created from spurting fluid, 7) then he * emerges from between the backbone and breastbone **
* *= The Pronoun here is taken to refer to the person rather than the fluid.**=Of the mother, where she carries the baby.

and here is Hamza's latest article in full:

The above verses have been condemned by various critics and commentators as being scientifically inaccurate, and any attempt to salvage an accurate meaning from them has been suggested to be tantamount to textual acrobatics. This evaluation arises from an analysis of the words sulb andtara’ib which have been translated to mean ‘backbone’ and ‘ribs’. Those who maintain the scientific inaccuracy of the Qur’an claim the above translation for the words sulb and tara’ib cannot be reconciled with modern developments in physiology. However, after a lexical analysis of these words it will be seen that these words do in fact concur with modern physiology.The word sulb carries various meanings including hard, firm, solid, stiff and rigid. It also means any portion of the backbone, particularly the lumbar portion and the loins. It is specific to males.[2][3] The word tara’ib means breastbone, the ribs[4] or the pelvic arch,[5] and this word according to most authors refers specifically to women.
With such examinations of the interpretations offered by the Arabic language, it can be inferred that the Qur’an complies with modern physiology as it is well known that the sperm and semen come from an area referred to as the loins, and the ovum comes from the pelvic arch area. Both of which are required for the creation of man, that is to say, the human being. 

So my question to all Muslim miracle seekers, the iERA, Hamza Tzortzis and Islamic Papers is this: Can you please make up your minds what your holy book actually says, because at the moment it looks horribly like you can't tell your sulb from your elbow...

The miracle of embryology and the strange case of the mistranslated verse (according to iERA)

Following on from yesterday's post when I promised my response to the iERA's statement that the translation of 86:5-7 as "sperm produced from between the ribs and backbone" was incorrect...herewith. And tomorrow yet more shocking revelations about the the peculiar extremes some Islamic apologists will go to to extricate the Qur'an from apparent errors and/or contradictions.

Wow - these guys at iREA are amazing!

So the statement “sperm produced from between ribs and backbone?” is inaccurate, is it?

I think they need to let every translator of the Qur'an that I have been able to locate know then, including: Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir, Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D., Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, M Asad (the one who helpfully adds "of man and "of woman", both French translators and the three German and every single Spanish translator (Cortes, Abboud, Halek, Navio, Castellano et al).

BECAUSE NOT ONE OF THEM AGREES. NOT...A...SINGLE...ONE.

Can you ask the guys at iREA why they think Abdel Haleem's is the correct translation (if indeed that is what it does say - I've been unable to check, as it's still in copyright) and everyone else is mistaken? How does that work with the Qur'an being "CLEAR"?
He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages that are clear in and by themselves (3:7)

If the messages from Allah are so clear, why have over 20 separate translators misunderstood it?

And if we do allow the iREA interpretation, then we apparently have the baby emerging from between the backbone and the ribs. Where are these fellas learning their biology?

I'll look at the rest later but it seems to me this is again a pretty desperate attempt to avoid an accusation of plagiarism.

Embryology in the Qur'an, iERA's claims and other non-sequiturs

Having repeatedly debated the topic of the so-called miracle of Allah's detailed knowledge of embryology in the Qur'an, "Kevin" sent me a link to the iERA website which showed the following video:

I felt compelled to respond...
Just watched the video by iERA (Islamic  Education and Research Association) that was on the their website linked in your mail – the one where they corner Prof. Myers and ask him about embryology. Wow!
Quote: "Those stages (the four stages of embryology described in the Qur’an and awkwardly also in Helenic science) are quite specific to the Qur’an. The Qur’an is quite unique in describing those stages. How would a desert nomad know about that?"
Quote: "There’s no empirical or historical evidence for that (that Mohammad had access to this material)"
Quote: "There were only seventeen people in his city who could read and write."
Now remember this is the Islamic EDUCATION and RESEARCH Association. These people are being invited to universities across the country to give talks and THEY ARE LYING or THEY ARE IGNORANT IN THE VERY FIELD IN WHICH THEY PROFESS TO BE EXPERTS.

Embryology in the Qur'an - Letter Pt 3

In a later part of the first letter to X, I tackle the thorny question of the apparent miraculous knowledge of embryology in the Qur'an.
For those new to this debate, Muslims claim that the Qur'an contains references to embryology that it would have been impossible for a 7th century illiterate desert nomad to have known. Maurice Bucaille (see the image on the right) was the first to suggest this in his book. Here is my first attempt to counter these suggestions. (This develops into quite a saga as you will see in later posts...)
EmbryologyYou said in your letter in introducing this subject that you were saving the best ‘til last. From that, I take it you were pleased with the evidence you had found to support the notion that the revelations regarding conception and the early stages of life in the womb in the Qur’an were miraculous or divinely inspired. If this is the case, I am intrigued that you felt the need to add clarification to the surah you first quote in defence of your argument:
The Qur’anic description of human embryology highlights a number of stages in foetal development. These include conception itself in Surah 86:5-7 which states: “Let man, then, observe out of what he has been created. He has been created out of a seminal fluid issuing from between the loins (of man) and the pelvic arch (of woman).”I found the surah you quote in five different translations. None of them had the additions in brackets. Can you explain the justification for adding your clarification?