48,466
edits
Embryology in the Quran: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) m (→Conclusion) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
The term ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ could just as easily refer to the sperm-menstrual blood union of Aristotle and the ancient Indian embryologists, or the two sperm hypothesis of Hippocrates and Galen, or even the readily observed mingling of semen and vaginal discharge during sexual intercourse. In other words, the fact the Qur'an does not explicitly state that ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ contains the ovum, together with the existence of other possible explanations, means that it is illogical to assume the former and not the latter. | The term ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ could just as easily refer to the sperm-menstrual blood union of Aristotle and the ancient Indian embryologists, or the two sperm hypothesis of Hippocrates and Galen, or even the readily observed mingling of semen and vaginal discharge during sexual intercourse. In other words, the fact the Qur'an does not explicitly state that ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ contains the ovum, together with the existence of other possible explanations, means that it is illogical to assume the former and not the latter. | ||
The insistence that it explains the former is pure conjecture devoid of evidence, and constitutes the [[logical fallacy]] of equivocation, and its adoption is merely wishful thinking or the Islamic art of 'reinterpretation after the fact.’ | The insistence that it explains the former is pure conjecture devoid of evidence, and constitutes the [[Logical Fallacy|logical fallacy]] of equivocation, and its adoption is merely wishful thinking or the Islamic art of 'reinterpretation after the fact.’ | ||
One might contend that the Qur'an does not claim a role for the ovum at all, or is even ignorant of its existence. | One might contend that the Qur'an does not claim a role for the ovum at all, or is even ignorant of its existence. | ||