Atheism vs. the Quran

[downbeatplumb]

Hitler was good to his dog until he tested the cyanide capsule on him that is.

[Rayaan]

This is a variation on the "liar, lunatic or lord" canard that has been offered as "proof" of Christianity.

So what is Muhammad then? A liar or a lunatic? And how do you know this?

And secondly, your picture doesn't relate to Muhammad (pbuh) because never masqueraded as a God. He was only a messenger of God.

To further address the claims of scientific accuracy within the Quran... Embryology in the Quran

Still, there's no good reason to think that Muhammad would plagiarize from Greek writers because (1) he was not able to to read Greek language, (2) there is no report that he went to libraries to find gather all of these scientific information, and (3) why would he lie and fool people into thinking that this is the word of God just to start a whole new religion? I mean, why would he risk his own life by lying? If we assume that he lied, then he would be cursing himself in his own book, and people would've killed him if they found out that he lied. Why? Because there is a verse in the Quran which says:

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: “This is from Allah” to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby." (Surah 2:79)

[Thor]

It's not rudimentary knowedge for people who lived 14 centuries ago ...

"O mankind! If you have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babies, then (foster you) that you may reach your age of full strength." (Surah 22:05)

If the Quran was invented by men who lived in such a primitive age, then, shouldn't there be at least a single scientific error in the verse above?

A single scientific error? I count FOUR!

1) People are not created "out of dust".

2) People are not created "out of sperm". People (and any other creature that reproduces sexually) are created when a sperm and an ovum join. And, actually, this kind of statement is EXACTLY what I would expect from people IGNORANT of how reproduction works! People could see the male ejaculate and assume that this is what produced a baby. They COULDN'T see the ovum! So, your attempt to demonstrate "scientific knowledge" in the Koran actually shows the COMPLETE OPPOSITE!

3) "A leech-like clot"? This describes a developing embryo to you? But a miscarried embryo would certainly look like a clot!

4) Neither a zygote nor a fetus is "a morsel of flesh".

This is your example of "scientific knowledge" in the Koran?

[Lethe]

"O mankind! If you have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babies, then (foster you) that you may reach your age of full strength." (Surah 22:05)

If the Quran was invented by men who lived in such a primitive age, then, shouldn't there be at least a single scientific error in the verse above?

Well, there's the claim that humans are created of dust, and the fact that it's certainly a stretch to translate alaqa to "leech-like clot" as opposed to "clot". Because Muhammad had multiple wives, he undoubtedly was familiar with miscarriages, this would explain why he thought early in development humans were clots, as that's how they appeared, though this is obviously incorrect.

That aside, a zygote isn't made from a single gamete, but from two gametes, sperm and egg. As pointed out in the source I provided earlier, the Quran added no new accurate medical information. To your question as to how he acquired his information:

Given that so much of what the Qur'an says is based upon Galen's beliefs, it is particularly significant that some 26 books of his work were translated into Syriac as early as the sixth century AD by Sergius of Resh' Aina (Ra's al-Ain). Sergius was a Christian priest who studied medicine in Alexandria and worked in Mesopotania, dying in Constantinople in about AD 532 [33]. He was one of a number of Nestorian (Syriac) Christians who translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac; others included Bishop Gregorius, al-Rahawy, al-Taybuti, the Patriarch Theodorus and al-Sabakti [34].

[...]

According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia and al-Qifti [37], the most celebrated early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary of Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." [38]

He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes [39]. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him [40]. He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his "teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [i.e., Muhammed] [41]. "Such medical knowledge as Muhammed possessed, he may well have acquired from Haris bin Kalda [sic], an Arab, who is said to have left the desert for a while and gone to Jundi Shapur to study medicine...On his return Haris settled in Mecca and became the foremost physician of the Arabs of the desert. Whether he ever embraced Islam is uncertain, but this did not prevent the Prophet from sending his sick friends to consult him." [42]

(3) why would he lie and fool people into thinking that this is the word of God just to start a whole new religion? I mean, why would he risk his own life by lying? If we assume that he lied, then he would be cursing himself in his own book, and people would've killed him if they found out that he lied. Why? Because there is a verse in the Quran which says:

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: “This is from Allah” to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby." (Surah 2:79)

Since I've already addressed the first two objections, here goes my thoughts on the third: why did he lie? I can't say for certain. Power, prestige, admiration, lunacy, I don't make any claims of certainty. As to people killing him if they found out he lied, probably, but not because of a then unwritten book preached by a known liar.

"The inability of any person to produce anything like the Qur’an, due to the uniqueness of its language, is the essence of the Qur’anic miracle. A miracle is defined as 'events which lie outside the productive capacity of nature'. The argument posed by Muslim Theologians and Philosophers is that if, with the finite set of Arabic linguistic tools at humanity’s disposal, there has been no effective challenge to try and imitate the Qur'an, then providing a naturalistic explanation for the Qur’an’s uniqueness is not sufficient. This is because the natural capacity of any author is able to produce the varying expressions known in the Arabic language. The development of an entirely unique expression is beyond the scope of the productive nature of any author, hence a supernatural entity, God, is the only sufficient comprehensive explanation."

That sounds awfully familiar to I Corinthians 14:30: "If to anyone something better is revealed, though he be sitting and listening to another in God's Word, then the first, who is speaking, shall hold his peace and give place." This translation was one of Luther's.

As to the Quran's literary merit and supposed depth, there really should be a Law of Fives fallacy, but if there is, I'm unaware. For those who don't get the reference, it's a law contained within the Principa Discordia: The Law of Fives states simply that: All things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to 5. The Law of Fives is never wrong.

[DeistPaladin]

So what is Muhammad then? A liar or a lunatic? And how do you know this?

I don't know Muhammad any more than I know Jesus. That's the first problem I have with the trilemma. We have nothing to go on in our evaluation of the character of either individual except for what amounts to, at best, folklore and, at worst, mythology.

My point is that the trilemma oversimplifies a question about someone's character. It is possible for me to imagine a rascal who lies about being a god or speaking with a god but then utters some words on morality or even acts on occasion with compassion. The movie, "The Road to El Dorado" features a character who is rogue enough to claim to be a god and yet, his idealistic side comes out as the movie progresses and he tries to use his "divine influence" for good ends. It's not hard for me to imagine a possible character like him who continues to lie about being a prophet and yet be idealistic enough to think that influencing things for the better justifies this means.

Just to be understood here, I am not saying that such behavior is good or even justified. I'm saying that the dichotomy that he is either a demon or a saint with no middle ground is a false one.

Similarly, questions of sanity are just as complex as questions of character. Could Muhammad have had an "episode"? Could meditation in a cave by himself for an extended period have had an impact on his psyche that caused an episode (as indeed such things are possible)? When I was a little child, I thought I heard a ghost in our basement. Since we live in a modern age, I can conclude it was just childhood imagination. In a more primitive time, I might still believe in what I thought I heard. Does it mean I'm crazy because I had this one hallucination? Would it mean I am crazy if I lived in a superstitious, more ancient time and continued to believe what I heard was real?

There are also degrees between rock-solid sanity and gibbering-insanity. A prophet might be crazy enough to think he hears the voice of God and yet be sane enough to organize a church and speak some coherent platitudes. Jim Jones and David Koresh were likely crazy but that didn't prevent them from organizing a religion.

The trilemma is basically an effort to work toward a desired conclusion by strawmanning the other possibilities.

And secondly, your picture doesn't relate to Muhammad (pbuh) because never masqueraded as a God. He was only a messenger of God.

Same principle applies.

[Ashendant]

1. Science in the Quran

Once again, how can a man in the 7th century know all these information about the human embryo before the invention of the first electron microscope?

Opening pregnant women, or the other difference opening pregnant animals(since there are many similarities between all types of animal pregnancy and human pregnancy)

2. The inimitable language of the Quran

The Challenge of the Quran: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/648/

So, how is it rational to believe that Muhammad was the author of the Quran if no one else was able to write something that is better than the Quran, let alone the fact that he was illiterate?

You know that Muhammad didn't wrote the quran(you're talking about the prophet right?), also writing something better is a matter of opinion to me, works of fiction are written better when they are stated as a work of fiction so to me the quran sucks

3. The historical information on the Quran

Unlike the other religious scriptures, there are authentic historical information about the compilation of the Quran that the majority of scholars agree with (both Muslims and non-Muslims). To say that such a book is a plagiarism of other sources, you will have to show that this is true by falsifying all the historical facts about the Quran by using other, opposing historical facts (i.e. those which would support the idea that the Quran is work of plagiarism). Recently, I was reading a book entitled "The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments," by Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami. It is a comprehensive and well-researched analysis in which the author responds to many different attacks on the possibility of the Quran being fabricated. He looks at each claim separately and clearly shows how everyone has failed in proving that the Quran is a fabrication.

That's because the original source of the Quran was destroyed right after it was written, and is kept in one single language and didn't migrate, unlike the Bible

4. The beautiful character of Muhammad (pbuh)

Since when Mary Sues are beautiful, they are the most horrible type of character ever designed


[quote='Rayaan' pid='107766' dateline='1291326949']

5. No rational arguments which support that Muhammad is the author of the Quran

If the Quran is not a revelation, then what is it? And secondly, how would you get around all the points that I mentioned above to support your own theory of the Quran? Can you justify it?

The Quran is a book written by followers of the prophet after he died on his deeds, like the bible is the biography of a prophet, with his opinions plastered all over it, interpreted by other people, if either the god or the author as a self glorified painting of itself the book is horrible because it contains a mary sue

[Rayaan]

1) People are not created "out of dust".

1. Scientists have found that there are organic materials present in tiny grains of stardust that are floating in the galaxy. Therefore, it makes sense to say that life came from dust.

2) People are not created "out of sperm". People (and any other creature that reproduces sexually) are created when a sperm and an ovum join. And, actually, this kind of statement is EXACTLY what I would expect from people IGNORANT of how reproduction works! People could see the male ejaculate and assume that this is what produced a baby. They COULDN'T see the ovum! So, your attempt to demonstrate "scientific knowledge" in the Koran actually shows the COMPLETE OPPOSITE!

The correct translation of the word "nutfah" is not actually a sperm, but it is simply a fluid-drop.

In a different verse, it describes the nutfah as a mingled fluid:

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight” (Surah 76:02).

The nutfah (or a fluid-drop) is being described here as mingled fluid (amshaj), which consists of combined mixtures, not just the sperm alone. So, this fits with the scientific finding since the zygote is a mixture of male chromosomes and female chromosomes.

3) "A leech-like clot"? This describes a developing embryo to you? But a miscarried embryo would certainly look like a clot!

If you look under a microscope, yes, that's how an embryo looks like at the initial stages of its development.

The embryo is similar to a leech because the embryo appears to be hanging or sticking onto something as a leech does (hence the word "alaqah" is used, because it means anything which clings or sticks onto something).

4) Neither a zygote nor a fetus is "a morsel of flesh".

Yes, neither a zygote nor a fetus is a morsel of flesh. The Quran doesn't say that.
Rather, the Quran is only saying that the morsel of flesh (which is partly formed) begins to grow after the nutfah (a fluid-drop) and alaqah (leech-like) stages. That's all.

Well, there's the claim that humans are created of dust, and the fact that it's certainly a stretch to translate alaqa to "leech-like clot" as opposed to "clot".

1. Everyone is made of recycled stardust. Even Carl Sagan used to say that we are all "star stuff." And this could be the dust that the Quran is speaking of.

2. The word "alaqa" can be used for anything which has a sticky property. That's the reason why some translators like to put the words "leech-like" before the word "clot."

Here's a clear definition of what "alaqah" means:

"Alaqah is also described in similar terms in Hans Wehr’s Dictionary of Arabic (1961: Ref: 8D) and in the great classical dictionary Lisan Al`Arab (Ref: 4D). So the real meaning of the word, from an analysis of all the meanings stated above, is anything that sticks to or hangs with something else. The word was used for blood, because of the well known property of blood (or Dam in Arabic) being sticky, as soon as its starts to dry out. The word was used for mud, because of its obvious property of sticking to the hands. The word was used for unending hatred or love, because such emotions stick to one's heart. The word was used for a small insect which sucks blood (leech), because it sticks to its prey. The word was also used for that part of the tree, which is in the reach of grazing animals, because the animals stick to that part of it."

Because Muhammad had multiple wives, he undoubtedly was familiar with miscarriages, this would explain why he thought early in development humans were clots, as that's how they appeared, though this is obviously incorrect.

1. How do you know that he was undoubtedly familiar with miscarriages? Are there any such reports from his wives, companions, or anyone else?

2. And it's not incorrect because the word "alaqa" doesn't mean a clot of blood, but anything which is sticky, and that's why some translations of the Quran use the word "clot."

See this for more info:
http://www.thisistruth.org/truth.php?f=CreationOfMan

That aside, a zygote isn't made from a single gamete, but from two gametes, sperm and egg. As pointed out in the source I provided earlier, the Quran added no new accurate medical information.

Yes, a zygote is made from a sperm and an egg. And the Quran doesn't contradict that, because the word "nutfa" simply means a "small amount of fluid" or a "drop of water." So, it could be referring to the sperm, egg, or both. This is supported by another verse in the Quran, which refers to the nutfa as a combination, or a mingling (amshaj), of two or more different things. From this, we know that the word "nutfah" is not referring to the sperm alone.

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight” (Surah 76:02).

To your question as to how he acquired his information:

That is not a conclusive argument at all. There are many differences between the Greek writings and the Quran. The guy who wrote the article is only creating lies about the Prophet (pbuh).

After reviewing the ancient Greek ideas about embryology in more detail, summarising their main features in the above tables, and comparing them with the Qur’an, it becomes perfectly obvious, even to the casual reader, that the embryological works of Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen etc. are completely different to that of the Qur’an.

The fact is that the Qur’an discusses many different aspects of embryology as summarised in Tables 1 & 2 using terms and expression which have no comparison in the other ancient literature. A further point to bear in mind is that the Qur’an has its own unique style. The Arabic language of the Qur’an is very poetic and rhythmic, whereas we do not find the ancient Greeks discussing embryology in any particular form or poetry.

In conclusion, the Qur’an, is totally different in terms of style, subject matter and accuracy. Hence the accusation that the Prophet and Messenger Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) plagiarised ancient Greek ideas is not based on any credible evidence or sound reasoning but is the result of biased and subjective interpretation. The claim is thus utterly refuted.

Full article: http://www.quranicstudies.com/articles/m...ology.html

And a Muslim response: http://www.answering-christianity.com/na...yology.htm

Since I've already addressed the first two objections, here goes my thoughts on the third: why did he lie? I can't say for certain. Power, prestige, admiration, lunacy, I don't make any claims of certainty.

Well, I can say for certain that he didn't do all this just for power and admiration. He had many enemies as well, and many people started to hate him after his prophethood, and he was mocked and ridiculed by the disbelievers (just like many people are doing today). Also, he was financially wealthier before his prophethood. Yet, he didn't ask for money and he still gave charity even though he became poorer. He used to wear simple clothes and he lived in a simple house. He used to eat on the floor with the poor. After knowing this, how is it logical to think that he just wanted power?

The prophet never claimed that he had any special powers of his own. He even warned people not to praise him. Instead, he said that all the praises should be given to God alone.

As to people killing him if they found out he lied, probably, but not because of a then unwritten book preached by a known liar.

1. The Quran was written while Muhammad was still alive. This was done by one of his scribes named Zaid ibn Thabit.

2. Is their anyway statement that he was "known" liar? I mean, was anyone ever able to prove this? Was he ever caught to be lying?

That sounds awfully familiar to I Corinthians 14:30: "If to anyone something better is revealed, though he be sitting and listening to another in God's Word, then the first, who is speaking, shall hold his peace and give place." This translation was one of Luther's.

Sounds somewhat familiar, but not awefully. And either way, similarities do not always entail that one work was plagiarized from the other, does it?

I don't know Muhammad any more than I know Jesus. That's the first problem I have with the trilemma. We have nothing to go on in our evaluation of the character of either individual except for what amounts to, at best, folklore and, at worst, mythology.

The life of Muhammad is recorded in history, it's not mythology nor folklore.

Also, there are a lot more authentic historical facts about Muhammad than about Jesus (peace be upon them). Even google.com knows that.

Similarly, questions of sanity are just as complex as questions of character. Could Muhammad have had an "episode"? Could meditation in a cave by himself for an extended period have had an impact on his psyche that caused an episode (as indeed such things are possible)? When I was a little child, I thought I heard a ghost in our basement.

No, Muhammad could not have had an episode because he was receiving these verses for a span of 23 years. It's not possible for someone to be deluded for so long and yet hear specific words being recited to him in such a poetic fashion as the words in the Quran.

The verses came to him in many different places and times, not only in the cave. He heard these messages when he was at home, when he was praying, when he was fasting, when he woke up from sleep, when he was speaking to a crowd, when he was eating, walking, standing, etc. So the question is, how could he be not sane, if he was doing all these activities without having any problems at all?

Also, here's a passage from an article which shows the absurdity of the idea that Muhammad was delusional or that he had epilepsy:

Other people who reject the Prophethood of Muhammad agree because of the historical evidence of Muhammad’s impeccable character and truthfulness that he would not have deliberately fabricated the Qur’an and his Prophethood, so they allege for some reason that he either had epilepsy or was delusional and actually believed that he was a Prophet.

Firstly, again keeping in mind that Muhammad is perhaps history’s most well documented man, there is absolutely no evidence from his life to support this claim, and all evidence suggests that Muhammad lived a normal and sane life all the way up to his death at about the age of sixty (60). However in spite of that, we will nonetheless demonstrate that this claim is false and malicious.

Secondly, even some Orientalists (non-Muslims who have achieved considerable status as authorities on Islam) have rejected these claims of epilepsy as false and ridiculous. Daniel commenting on the claim of epilepsy said:

“…epilepsy as applied to the Prophet was the explanation of those who sought to amuse rather than to instruct” Khalifa, Mohammad The Sublime Qu’ran and Orientalism p. 13.

Since we live in a modern age, I can conclude it was just childhood imagination. In a more primitive time, I might still believe in what I thought I heard. Does it mean I'm crazy because I had this one hallucination? Would it mean I am crazy if I lived in a superstitious, more ancient time and continued to believe what I heard was real?

Thinking that you heard a ghost in the basement is not the same thing as hearing a stream of clear, distinct words for a span of 23 years. That, is a horribly bad comparison.

Opening pregnant women, or the other difference opening pregnant animals(since there are many similarities between all types of animal pregnancy and human pregnancy).

Muhammad was not a scientist or a doctor that he would open up pregnant women to see how a fetus develops. If he did that, then people would've known this and his mission of prophethood would come to an end once and for all.

You know that Muhammad didn't wrote the quran(you're talking about the prophet right?), also writing something better is a matter of opinion to me, works of fiction are written better when they are stated as a work of fiction so to me the quran sucks.

To you, the Quran sucks. But to knowledgeable people who have studied the Quran, read about it's history, and has looked at its linguistic eloquence, it's a miracle that proves the existence of God. Also, there are many people who read the Quran with an open mind and some of them even converted to Islam after reading it.

That's because the original source of the Quran was destroyed right after it was written, and is kept in one single language and didn't migrate, unlike the Bible.

1. How do you know the original source was destroyed? Where's the evidence?

2. The Quran was originally written in Arabic and now it's also availabe in many other languages. Also, it has migrated to all parts of the world just like the Bible.

The Quran is a book written by followers of the prophet after he died on his deeds, like the bible is the biography of a prophet, with his opinions plastered all over it, interpreted by other people, if either the god or the author as a self glorified painting of itself the book is horrible because it contains a mary sue.

No, it is unanimously agree by all the scholars of Islam that the Quran was completed before the death of the prophet (pbuh). This is a historical fact. If you think that it was written by his followers after his death, then you have to support that statement with historical evidence and/or sources which support that claim.

See this for an introductory lesson on the Quran: http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/b0040p0000.aspx

[DeistPaladin]

Also, there are a lot more authentic historical facts about Muhammad than about Jesus (peace be upon them).

To be generous, here are the sum total of historical "facts" we know about Jesus, although it's controversial among skeptics:

Annals of Tacitus, written in the second century, briefly mentions the founder of Christianity as "the anointed one" (not even naming Jesus) and provides no details except a second hand story of how he was crucified (which Muslims claim isn't even true).

So the bar is pretty low, there.

It's not possible for someone to be deluded for so long and yet hear specific words being recited to him in such a poetic fashion as the words in the Quran.

So artists can't be crazy then?

So the question is, how could he be not sane, if he was doing all these activities without having any problems at all?

If you'd read my post, you'd know I've already said there are different levels of sanity. There are some people who are crazy in specific areas and yet lead normal lives otherwise. Ever seen the story about Harvey, the invisible bunny rabbit?

So how about my musings on whether or not he lied?

[Thor]

1) People are not created "out of dust".

1. Scientists have found that there are organic materials present in tiny grains of stardust that are floating in the galaxy. Therefore, it makes sense to say that life came from dust.

Yeah, I figured you'd respond with this. And I repeat that we are not created out of "dust". We are created by the combination of of two cells which then replicate and grow. Saying we are made out of "dust" is a major oversimplification. If you're going to run with this, you could also say we are made out of water. Or air. Or earth (our bodies contain minerals).

2) People are not created "out of sperm".

The correct translation of the word "nutfah" is not actually a sperm, but it is simply a fluid-drop.

And what is a drop of semen?

In a different verse, it describes the nutfah as a mingled fluid:

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight” (Surah 76:02).

The nutfah (or a fluid-drop) is being described here as mingled fluid (amshaj), which consists of combined mixtures, not just the sperm alone.

Then it's STILL in error. People are not created from a "fluid drop". People are created when the sperm cell joins with the ovum. This is NOT a "fluid drop". Care to try again?

So, this fits with the scientific finding since the zygote is a mixture of male chromosomes and female chromosomes.

Oh, please! Talk about a stretch! You go from a "mingled fluid" to "the zygote being a mixture of male and female chromosomes"?

I'll tell you what, find the word "chromosome" in the Koran. THAT would be scientific knowledge they couldn't have possessed!

3) "A leech-like clot"? This describes a developing embryo to you? But a miscarried embryo would certainly look like a clot!

If you look under a microscope, yes, that's how an embryo looks like at the initial stages of its development.

The embryo is similar to a leech because the embryo appears to be hanging or sticking onto something as a leech does (hence the word "alaqah" is used, because it means anything which clings or sticks onto something).

This is a "leech-like clot" to you?

http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/u...mg0230.jpg

Yes, neither a zygote nor a fetus is a morsel of flesh. The Quran doesn't say that.

This is what you quoted from the Koran: "then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you"

Rather, the Quran is only saying that the morsel of flesh (which is partly formed) begins to grow after the nutfah (a fluid-drop) and alaqah (leech-like) stages. That's all.

That's not what it says, is it? Where does this passage say anything about "beginning to grow"? You're trying to read something into the passage that isn't there.

You want to insist the Koran contains "scientific knowledge" the people of the time couldn't possibly have possessed, and the best you can do is trot out some crap about "leech-like clots" and "mingling fluids"? Show us anything in the Koran that talks about microbiology, nuclear energy, radio waves, aerodynamics, plate tectonics, or the Earth revolving around the sun. Good luck with that.

[Lethe]

Everyone is made of recycled stardust. Even Carl Sagan used to say that we are all "star stuff." And this could be the dust that the Quran is speaking of.

2. The word "alaqa" can be used for anything which has a sticky property.

Grasping at straws much? You're beginning to adopt the techniques of astrologists. If a passage is made vague enough, accurate interpretations become an impossibility because they don't exist.

1. How do you know that he was undoubtedly familiar with miscarriages? Are there any such reports from his wives, companions, or anyone else?

http://pregnancyloss.info/statistics/
And that's in the westernized 21st century.

2. And it's not incorrect because the word "alaqa" doesn't mean a clot of blood, but anything which is sticky.

Just my point.

Yes, a zygote is made from a sperm and an egg. And the Quran doesn't contradict that, because the word "nutfa" simply means a "small amount of fluid" or a "drop of water." So, it could be referring to the sperm, egg, or both. This is supported by another verse in the Quran, which refers to the nutfa as a combination, or a mingling (amshaj), of two or more different things. From this, we know that the word "nutfah" is not referring to the sperm alone.

I could just as easily interpret Chomsky's "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" as "abstract environmentally friendly concepts are lying in wait for application", it must have been a prophecy.

That is not a conclusive argument at all.

Not an argument, just answering your question.

There are many differences between the Greek writings and the Quran.

Different writers, same concepts, same misguided information.

Full article: http://www.quranicstudies.com/articles/m...ology.html

And a Muslim response: http://www.answering-christianity.com/na...yology.htm

These articles didn't address the content similarities at all, they merely danced around and proclaimed the Quran was more poetic. Claims not refuted in the least.

Is their anyway statement that he was "known" liar? I mean, was anyone ever able to prove this? Was he ever caught to be lying?

You just asked if his followers would obey his commands if he had been revealed as a liar.