There are many misconceptions that exist within the field of Islam one being the topic of women. Unfortunately due to ignorance and lack of knowledge of some people and the ever growing propaganda and Islamaphobia that exist today, including the ever growing media agenda’s that govern the way people think and act, women are deemed as being unequal to men in Islam.
We are all aware that women and men are not alike so I don’t understand when someone makes the statement that Islam should practice equality, what do you mean by equality??? This word – equality – which many thinkers in both the east and the west advocate in various fields of life is a word which is based on deviation and a lack of understanding, especially when it is attributed to the religion to Islam. One of the things that people misunderstand is when they say that “Islam is the religion of equality�. What they should say is that Islam is the religion of justice.
Here we should note that there are some people who speak of equality instead of justice, and this is a mistake. We should not say equality, because equality implies no differentiation between the two. Because of this unjust call for equality, people start to ask, what is the difference between male and female?’ So they made males and females the same. We are all aware that the Male is not like the female.
God says in the Quran:
“And the male is not like the female�[Quran Aal ‘Imraan 3:36] The male is different from the female in many ways, in his strength, in his body, in his toughness and roughness, whereas women are soft and gentle. Women are like men in some aspects and they differ from them in others. Most of the rulings of Islam apply to men and women equally.
In cases where a distinction is made between the sexes, the Muslim regards that as a mercy from God and a sign of His knowledge of His creation, but the arrogant people see it as oppression and injustice, so he stubbornly insists on claiming that men and women are the same. So let him tell us how a man can carry a foetus and breastfeed it? He stubbornly ignores the weakness of women and how they bleed during their monthly period, and he stubbornly refuses to accept reality.
But the Muslim is still at peace with his faith, surrendering to the command of God. “Should not He who has created know? And He is the Most Kind and Courteous (to His slaves), All Aware (of everything)� [Quran al-Mulk 67:14 ]
Misconceptions about Islam:
Moderator: Moderators
Post #681
@ A Troubled Man
QUOTE: "Then, whoever wrote that in the Quran is not of their right mind or uses common sense"
ANSWER: It is understandable that such translations are made.
QUOTE: "The sun does indeed catch up to the moon, that's how we get eclipses. Looks like the Quran is wrong again.Â
It is daytime at the North Pole for some weeks, no night whatsoever. Again, the Quran is wrong."
ANSWER: How does the sun catch up to the moon?
QUOTE: "Yasbahuna literally means "swimming" in Arabic, not rotating on it's axis"
ANSWER:Â The word "swim" in the above verse is expressed in Arabic by the word "sabaha" and is used to describe the movement of the Sun in space. The word means that the Sun does not move randomly through space but that it rotates around its axis and follows a course as it does so. The fact that the Sun is not fixed in position but rather follows a specific trajectory.
QUOTE: "That is a curved path an object takes around a point in another object"
ANSWER: ok so how is it meant to go around a flat object??Â
QUOTE: "No, the sun and the moon are not part of the earth. Duh."
ANSWER: Exactly so that's how stupid it is to suggest that the verse is implying that the earth is flat, lol he he
QUOTE: "Then, whoever wrote that in the Quran is not of their right mind or uses common sense"
ANSWER: It is understandable that such translations are made.
QUOTE: "The sun does indeed catch up to the moon, that's how we get eclipses. Looks like the Quran is wrong again.Â
It is daytime at the North Pole for some weeks, no night whatsoever. Again, the Quran is wrong."
ANSWER: How does the sun catch up to the moon?
QUOTE: "Yasbahuna literally means "swimming" in Arabic, not rotating on it's axis"
ANSWER:Â The word "swim" in the above verse is expressed in Arabic by the word "sabaha" and is used to describe the movement of the Sun in space. The word means that the Sun does not move randomly through space but that it rotates around its axis and follows a course as it does so. The fact that the Sun is not fixed in position but rather follows a specific trajectory.
QUOTE: "That is a curved path an object takes around a point in another object"
ANSWER: ok so how is it meant to go around a flat object??Â
QUOTE: "No, the sun and the moon are not part of the earth. Duh."
ANSWER: Exactly so that's how stupid it is to suggest that the verse is implying that the earth is flat, lol he he
-
A Troubled Man
- Guru
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #682
That is what appears to be occurring from our frame of reference on earth, which is the same frame of reference used by those who claimed the sun is not permitted to catch up to the moon.HaLi8993 wrote: ANSWER: How does the sun catch up to the moon?
That is a lie, it is used to describe the motion of the Sun based on the reference frame on earth and has nothing to do with rotations or velocity. That is a complete fabrication.The word means that the Sun does not move randomly through space but that it rotates around its axis and follows a course as it does so. The fact that the Sun is not fixed in position but rather follows a specific trajectory.
What flat object? Something doesn't have to be round in order for something else to orbit it. It only requires gravity.ANSWER: ok so how is it meant to go around a flat object??Â
No, that's how dishonest it is to imply your holy book has anything to do with science.ANSWER: Exactly so that's how stupid it is to suggest that the verse is implying that the earth is flat, lol he he
-
A Troubled Man
- Guru
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #683
That is because the Quran teaches us to beat our wives based on the words written there.HaLi8993 wrote: ANSWER: The Quran does not mean beat your wife the way you are referring too, it tells me that you have a lack of understanding of Islam, we have discussed this matter however you are still persisting on your denial that it means you can violently beat your wife.Â
Isn't the Quran your Gods laws? Yes, Muslim men beat their wives, they even throw acid in their faces on many occasions.No we don't follow our own sense because a true Muslim doesn't beat his wife, we follow God's laws.
Ah yes, the 'translation' excuse, sorry, that doesn't hold water.One must look at the Arabic word used in the verse and the context it is being used in, in order to understand it's meaning, as mentioned before one word can have many meanings.
Sure, and then it tells them too beat their wives, too.Islam teaches the Muslim men how they should live with their wives in kindness and love and to not intimidate them or upset them on a general basis according to the commands of God Almighty and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Beat means beat, and that is exactly the context it was used. Blatantly lying about it doesn't help your argument.If you want to interpret it as beating your wife, that's fine but you cannot claim that Islam accepts such a thing without any evidence apart from just saying you believe it means beat.
-
Autodidact
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3014
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm
Post #684
Did someone put you in charge of deciding what the qu'ran means?@ A Troubled Man
QUOTE: "Yes, common sense says don't beat your wife. The qu'ran says beat your wife. What does that tell you about the qu'ran?Â
So, you follow your own sense, not God's word? Interesting"
ANSWER: The Quran does not mean beat your wife the way you are referring too, it tells me that you have a lack of understanding of Islam, we have discussed this matter however you are still persisting on your denial that it means you can violently beat your wife.Â
As I have now said around five times, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NON-VIOLENT BEATING. Beating, by definition, is violent.
There are two choices:
(1) The qu'ran says to beat your wife.
(2) The qu'ran does not mean what it says.
There are no other choices.
That's odd. Because God's law says for husbands to beat their wives.No we don't follow our own sense because a true Muslim doesn't beat his wife, we follow God's laws.
So you're saying that all the translators are wrong? Why, are they evil or stupid? Or is the qu'ran impossible to translate correctly?One must look at the Arabic word used in the verse and the context it is being used in, in order to understand it's meaning, as mentioned before one word can have many meanings.
Yes, well as we have established, it is clearly contradictory.Islam teaches the Muslim men how they should live with their wives in kindness and love and to not intimidate them or upset them on a general basis according to the commands of God Almighty and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
[qutoe]If you want to interpret it as beating your wife, that's fine but you cannot claim that Islam accepts such a thing without any evidence apart from just saying you believe it means beat.[/quote] You mean if I want to claim that "beat your wife" means "beat your wife?" Call me crazy, I think "beat" means "beat."
As I have said, if you're reduced to the point where you have to argue that "beat" doesn't mean "beat" and "slave" doesn't mean "slave," you're in Wonderland, where words mean anything you like. You're now in nonsense-land, and have lost any sense of anything.
-
A Troubled Man
- Guru
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #685
Notice that the Islamic propagandist has not done their homework and must now eat their own fabrications and disinformation.HaLi8993 wrote: ANSWER: 1) Quran proves the earth is round not flat, the greeks got it wrong it is not a sphere.
2) Seperation of the waters: there is no way this could have been known through common sense, have you any proof that the greeks new of such a thing
3) Embryology: Greeks knew of this but not to that extent and detail. Can you give me an example of what they knew and the Quran is in agreement with.
Early Islamic astronomers got ALL of their information from the works of Aristotle and Ptolemy. They NEVER came up with the spherical concept themselves, they stole it like they stole everything else when the conquered the world back then.
The Quran plagiarized the work of Galen in 150AD regarding embryo development. Muhammad, who had many wives, knew only to well what miscarriages looked like, which is why he mistakenly labeled embryo's as "alaqa" which translates to 'clots' which is what a miscarriage would look like.
Post #686
Hal,
Perhaps I am not explaining myself corretly. Or you are just ignoring what I am stating.
I have shown you numerous verses that state the earth is a like a carpet. This would imply a flat earth.
There does not exist one verse in the Quran which states the earth is round. Nothing. it mentions nowhere that the earth is egg shaped as you claim. If there is, please present it.
Once again you are taking scripture from the Quran and adding things that are not there.
The claim is that the Quran is refering to two bodies of water, each meeting but not mixing due to their different compositions.
Here are the two verses.
He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)
He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Quran, 25:53)
Neither states anything about the waters actually touching. All it states is that there is a barrier between them.
Most likely its refering to land. If that is the case, this is common sense. Nothing miraculous about it. Humans knew the seas were salty and the inland springs and lakes were not.
If its refering to the different density and/or salinity, again, the Quran is wrong. They do mix. So either the scripture is refering to land, which is not a miracle or the Quran is wrong. Pick one.
As for the Greeks....
"This is rendered more remarkable by springs of fresh water bubbling out as if from pipes on the sea shore. In fact, the nature of water also is not deficient in marvels. Patches of fresh water float on the surface of the sea, being doubtless lighter. Consequently, also sea water being of a heavier nature, gives more support to objects floating upon it. But some fresh waters too float on the surface of others; cases are the river carried on the surface of Lake Fucino, the Adde on the lake of Como, the Ticino on Maggiore, the Mincio on Garda, the Ollio on Lago d'Iseo, the Rhone on the Lake of Geneva (the last North of the Alps, but all the rest in Italy), after a passing visit that covers many miles, carrying out their own waters only, and no larger quantity than they introduced. This has also been stated in the case of the river Orontes in Syria and many others."
Pliny, Naturalis Historia, Book II, CVI, 224, as per, H. Rackham (trans.), Pliny: Natural History, (Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. I, p.353
Notice how much more precise and indepth the Greeks are compared to the Quran.
Here is Aristotle again:
The drinkable, sweet water then, is light and all of it is drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind, but not in its proper place. The place which we see the sea filling is not its place but that of water. It seems to belong to the sea because the weight of the salt water makes it remain there, while the sweet, drinkable water which is light is carried up."
The Greeks win again. No miracle for the Quran.
As for embrology.
You said: "The Quran: "Verily We created man from a product of wet earth, then placed him as a drop of seed in a safe lodging, then We fashioned the drop a clot (‘alaqa), and of the clot (‘alaqa) We fashioned a lump, and of the lump We fashioned bones, and We clothed the bones (with) meat. Then We produced it as another creation."
There isnt any blood clot involved in the creation of the fetus. Notice the world "cling" isnt in the translation. Why? Bc the word "cling" is not found in the verse. It was again, only after 1971 did the word "cling" suddenly appear. Find me a translation before 1971 that states otherwise.
Did you look up Galen? His version is IDENTICAL to the one found in the Quran, the exact order given by Mohammed.
So again, you have yet to present a single amazing find in the Quran.
You said: Honestly if these things are not proof enough then I don't know what is, there are plenty of books that talk about the scientific discoveries in the Quran, my suggestion is that you do your own research.
So far, not one iota of proof have you given. In fact, the Greeks in all three instances utterly destroy the Quran is description of scientific events. Heck, the Greeks measured the earth!
Lets move on. Since you insist that miracles are found in the Quran. Find me three.
Three statements in the Quran that are precise. Now, I dont want you adding to the scripture. Find me verses that are so precise, unamiguous and clear that you do not need to go into sentence after sentence trying to explain what is being said.l. Use only what is stated in the Quran.
Notice earlier how your explanations take hundreds of words, yet the Quran only mentions a few. The Quran, if miraculous should not need hundreds of words to explain a few. It should be self contained in the verses what it is trying to convey.
Give me three. Three of your best scientific finds in the Quran.
Thanks.
Perhaps I am not explaining myself corretly. Or you are just ignoring what I am stating.
I have shown you numerous verses that state the earth is a like a carpet. This would imply a flat earth.
There does not exist one verse in the Quran which states the earth is round. Nothing. it mentions nowhere that the earth is egg shaped as you claim. If there is, please present it.
Once again you are taking scripture from the Quran and adding things that are not there.
The claim is that the Quran is refering to two bodies of water, each meeting but not mixing due to their different compositions.
Here are the two verses.
He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)
He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Quran, 25:53)
Neither states anything about the waters actually touching. All it states is that there is a barrier between them.
Most likely its refering to land. If that is the case, this is common sense. Nothing miraculous about it. Humans knew the seas were salty and the inland springs and lakes were not.
If its refering to the different density and/or salinity, again, the Quran is wrong. They do mix. So either the scripture is refering to land, which is not a miracle or the Quran is wrong. Pick one.
As for the Greeks....
"This is rendered more remarkable by springs of fresh water bubbling out as if from pipes on the sea shore. In fact, the nature of water also is not deficient in marvels. Patches of fresh water float on the surface of the sea, being doubtless lighter. Consequently, also sea water being of a heavier nature, gives more support to objects floating upon it. But some fresh waters too float on the surface of others; cases are the river carried on the surface of Lake Fucino, the Adde on the lake of Como, the Ticino on Maggiore, the Mincio on Garda, the Ollio on Lago d'Iseo, the Rhone on the Lake of Geneva (the last North of the Alps, but all the rest in Italy), after a passing visit that covers many miles, carrying out their own waters only, and no larger quantity than they introduced. This has also been stated in the case of the river Orontes in Syria and many others."
Pliny, Naturalis Historia, Book II, CVI, 224, as per, H. Rackham (trans.), Pliny: Natural History, (Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. I, p.353
Notice how much more precise and indepth the Greeks are compared to the Quran.
Here is Aristotle again:
The drinkable, sweet water then, is light and all of it is drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind, but not in its proper place. The place which we see the sea filling is not its place but that of water. It seems to belong to the sea because the weight of the salt water makes it remain there, while the sweet, drinkable water which is light is carried up."
The Greeks win again. No miracle for the Quran.
As for embrology.
You said: "The Quran: "Verily We created man from a product of wet earth, then placed him as a drop of seed in a safe lodging, then We fashioned the drop a clot (‘alaqa), and of the clot (‘alaqa) We fashioned a lump, and of the lump We fashioned bones, and We clothed the bones (with) meat. Then We produced it as another creation."
There isnt any blood clot involved in the creation of the fetus. Notice the world "cling" isnt in the translation. Why? Bc the word "cling" is not found in the verse. It was again, only after 1971 did the word "cling" suddenly appear. Find me a translation before 1971 that states otherwise.
Did you look up Galen? His version is IDENTICAL to the one found in the Quran, the exact order given by Mohammed.
So again, you have yet to present a single amazing find in the Quran.
You said: Honestly if these things are not proof enough then I don't know what is, there are plenty of books that talk about the scientific discoveries in the Quran, my suggestion is that you do your own research.
So far, not one iota of proof have you given. In fact, the Greeks in all three instances utterly destroy the Quran is description of scientific events. Heck, the Greeks measured the earth!
Lets move on. Since you insist that miracles are found in the Quran. Find me three.
Three statements in the Quran that are precise. Now, I dont want you adding to the scripture. Find me verses that are so precise, unamiguous and clear that you do not need to go into sentence after sentence trying to explain what is being said.l. Use only what is stated in the Quran.
Notice earlier how your explanations take hundreds of words, yet the Quran only mentions a few. The Quran, if miraculous should not need hundreds of words to explain a few. It should be self contained in the verses what it is trying to convey.
Give me three. Three of your best scientific finds in the Quran.
Thanks.
Post #687
@ A Troubled Man
QUOTE: "That is what appears to be occurring from our frame of reference on earth, which is the same frame of reference used by those who claimed the sun is not permitted to catch up to the moon."
ANSWER: So how does the sun catch up to the moon according to our framework??
QUOTE: "That is a lie, it is used to describe the motion of the Sun based on the reference frame on earth and has nothing to do with rotations or velocity. That is a complete fabrication"
ANSWER: Everything I say is either a lie or fabrication according to you. Lol
QUOTE: "What flat object? Something doesn't have to be round in order for something else to orbit it. It only requires gravity"
ANSWER: If people believed the earth was flat and had no idea about the concept of gravity back then, then how can you assume that they could use the word orbit???Â
QUOTE: "No, that's how dishonest it is to imply your holy book has anything to do with science."
ANSWER: There is no doubt there are scientific facts in the Quran.
QUOTE: "That is what appears to be occurring from our frame of reference on earth, which is the same frame of reference used by those who claimed the sun is not permitted to catch up to the moon."
ANSWER: So how does the sun catch up to the moon according to our framework??
QUOTE: "That is a lie, it is used to describe the motion of the Sun based on the reference frame on earth and has nothing to do with rotations or velocity. That is a complete fabrication"
ANSWER: Everything I say is either a lie or fabrication according to you. Lol
QUOTE: "What flat object? Something doesn't have to be round in order for something else to orbit it. It only requires gravity"
ANSWER: If people believed the earth was flat and had no idea about the concept of gravity back then, then how can you assume that they could use the word orbit???Â
QUOTE: "No, that's how dishonest it is to imply your holy book has anything to do with science."
ANSWER: There is no doubt there are scientific facts in the Quran.
Post #688
@ A Troubled Man
QUOTE: "That is because the Quran teaches us to beat our wives based on the words written there."
ANSWER: Nope sorry!Â
QUOTE: "Isn't the Quran your Gods laws? Yes, Muslim men beat their wives, they even throw acid in their faces on many occasions."
ANSWER: Yes it is God's laws, yes some men do but it has nothing to do with Islam.
QUOTE: "Ah yes, the 'translation' excuse, sorry, that doesn't hold water"
ANSWER: There is no excuse, just your misunderstanding or maybe denial lol, it's not a cup!
QUOTE: "Sure, and then it tells them too beat their wives, too"
ANSWER: Nice Try!
QUOTE: "Beat means beat, and that is exactly the context it was used. Blatantly lying about it doesn't help your argument."
ANSWER: The word is in Arabic so how do you know what it means??Â
QUOTE: "That is because the Quran teaches us to beat our wives based on the words written there."
ANSWER: Nope sorry!Â
QUOTE: "Isn't the Quran your Gods laws? Yes, Muslim men beat their wives, they even throw acid in their faces on many occasions."
ANSWER: Yes it is God's laws, yes some men do but it has nothing to do with Islam.
QUOTE: "Ah yes, the 'translation' excuse, sorry, that doesn't hold water"
ANSWER: There is no excuse, just your misunderstanding or maybe denial lol, it's not a cup!
QUOTE: "Sure, and then it tells them too beat their wives, too"
ANSWER: Nice Try!
QUOTE: "Beat means beat, and that is exactly the context it was used. Blatantly lying about it doesn't help your argument."
ANSWER: The word is in Arabic so how do you know what it means??Â
Post #689
@ Autodidact
QUOTE: "Did someone put you in charge of deciding what the qu'ran means?Â
As I have now said around five times, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NON-VIOLENT BEATING. Beating, by definition, is violent.Â
There are two choices:Â
(1) The qu'ran says to beat your wife.Â
(2) The qu'ran does not mean what it says.Â
There are no other choices.Â
ANSWER: Nope, wrong again!
Of course there isn't considering the fact that we are not talking about a violent beating to begin with.
The way I see it there are two choices:
1) You deny the truth by rejecting the intended meaning of the word.
2) you accept what I say taking into account all the evidence I have provided and move on.Â
QUOTE: "That's odd. Because God's law says for husbands to beat their wives"
ANSWER: Wrong Again!Â
QUOTE: "So you're saying that all the translators are wrong? Why, are they evil or stupid? Or is the qu'ran impossible to translate correctly?"
ANSWER: Not at all, they are not evil or stupid, not sure if it's impossible but it doesn't give it it's due meaning.
QUOTE: "Yes, well as we have established, it is clearly contradictory"
ANSWER: Not at all.
QUOTE: "As I have said, if you're reduced to the point where you have to argue that "beat" doesn't mean "beat" and "slave" doesn't mean "slave," you're in Wonderland, where words mean anything you like. You're now in nonsense-land, and have lost any sense of anything."
ANSWER: If your reduced to argue the meaning about what beat and slave mean in Islam all this time, then I could say the same thing.
No they don't mean anything we like, words have meanings like every other word, but you fail to acknowledge the context of the word.
QUOTE: "Did someone put you in charge of deciding what the qu'ran means?Â
As I have now said around five times, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NON-VIOLENT BEATING. Beating, by definition, is violent.Â
There are two choices:Â
(1) The qu'ran says to beat your wife.Â
(2) The qu'ran does not mean what it says.Â
There are no other choices.Â
ANSWER: Nope, wrong again!
Of course there isn't considering the fact that we are not talking about a violent beating to begin with.
The way I see it there are two choices:
1) You deny the truth by rejecting the intended meaning of the word.
2) you accept what I say taking into account all the evidence I have provided and move on.Â
QUOTE: "That's odd. Because God's law says for husbands to beat their wives"
ANSWER: Wrong Again!Â
QUOTE: "So you're saying that all the translators are wrong? Why, are they evil or stupid? Or is the qu'ran impossible to translate correctly?"
ANSWER: Not at all, they are not evil or stupid, not sure if it's impossible but it doesn't give it it's due meaning.
QUOTE: "Yes, well as we have established, it is clearly contradictory"
ANSWER: Not at all.
QUOTE: "As I have said, if you're reduced to the point where you have to argue that "beat" doesn't mean "beat" and "slave" doesn't mean "slave," you're in Wonderland, where words mean anything you like. You're now in nonsense-land, and have lost any sense of anything."
ANSWER: If your reduced to argue the meaning about what beat and slave mean in Islam all this time, then I could say the same thing.
No they don't mean anything we like, words have meanings like every other word, but you fail to acknowledge the context of the word.
Post #690
@ A Troubled Man
QUOTE: "Notice that the Islamic propagandist has not done their homework and must now eat their own fabrications and disinformation.Â
Early Islamic astronomers got ALL of their information from the works of Aristotle and Ptolemy. They NEVER came up with the spherical concept themselves, they stole it like they stole everything else when the conquered the world back then.Â
The Quran plagiarized the work of Galen in 150AD regarding embryo development. Muhammad, who had many wives, knew only to well what miscarriages looked like, which is why he mistakenly labeled embryo's as "alaqa" which translates to 'clots' which is what a miscarriage would look like."
ANSWER: Forward your evidence so we may have a look.
We don't say it's a sphere we say it's more like an egg which is Oblate spheroid.
The Quran clearly refers to the embryo as leech-like. Aristotle, Ptolemy nor Galen had no such description of the embryo. Human beings could not have observed the leech-like shape of the embryo, no other pre-modern sources apart from the Quran has referred to this fact.
Furthermore Quran's account of the embryological development is totally different from that of Galen, so how could it have been copied??Â
Unless you show me clear evidence, then these allegations count for nothing.
QUOTE: "Notice that the Islamic propagandist has not done their homework and must now eat their own fabrications and disinformation.Â
Early Islamic astronomers got ALL of their information from the works of Aristotle and Ptolemy. They NEVER came up with the spherical concept themselves, they stole it like they stole everything else when the conquered the world back then.Â
The Quran plagiarized the work of Galen in 150AD regarding embryo development. Muhammad, who had many wives, knew only to well what miscarriages looked like, which is why he mistakenly labeled embryo's as "alaqa" which translates to 'clots' which is what a miscarriage would look like."
ANSWER: Forward your evidence so we may have a look.
We don't say it's a sphere we say it's more like an egg which is Oblate spheroid.
The Quran clearly refers to the embryo as leech-like. Aristotle, Ptolemy nor Galen had no such description of the embryo. Human beings could not have observed the leech-like shape of the embryo, no other pre-modern sources apart from the Quran has referred to this fact.
Furthermore Quran's account of the embryological development is totally different from that of Galen, so how could it have been copied??Â
Unless you show me clear evidence, then these allegations count for nothing.
