Mohamedova aorta: Difference between revisions

Tento článek zkoumá tvrzení, že Mohamed řekl před svou smrtí, že mu byla proříznuta aorta, což bylo předpovězeno v Koránu, že by se stalo pokud by byl falešný prorok.

Arabské slovo pro "aortu" (srdečnici), použité v Koránu je وتين (''wateen''):

Slovo ''wateen'' není použito nikde jinde v Koránu. <ref>http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wtn#(69:46:4)</ref>

'''Řekla: Pokud bys byl prorok, neublížilo by ti to'''; ale pokud bys byl král, zbavila bych lid tebe. Posel Aláhův poté přikázal aby byla zabita. '''Poté řekl při bolesti při které zemřel: Stále jsem cítil bolest z jedu, který jsem jedl u Khaibaru. Teď přišel čas, kdy '''to prořízlo ''' (قَطَعَتْ, ''qata'at'') '''moji srdečnici.''' (أَبْهَرِي, ''abhar-ee'')}}

One apologetic article quotes a 13th century scholar Ibn Athir, who says that ''wateen'' is a part of ''abhar''. The article doesn't deny that according to some dictionaries ''wateen'' is synonymous with ''abhar''.

Az-Zubaydee in his famous Arabic dictionary Taaj al-'Aroos min Jawaahir Al-Qaamoos cites the scholar Ibn Athir as saying:

The Abhar is a vein that originates from the head and extends to the feet.

He then proceeds to say after assigning names to specific veins and their respective locations in the human body:

And it extends to the back and is called al-wateen.

So here we observe that '''al-wateen is actually a part of al-abhar'''. This is why '''al-wateen is sometimes used synonymously with al-abhar in some dictionaries'''. It is because al-wateen is a part of al-abhar, however likewise can't be said vice versa, for Al-abhar doesn't necessarily refer to al-wateen.}}

Firstly, if ''wateen'' is a part of ''abhar'', then it is possible that when Muhammad said his ''abhar'' was cut, he meant the ''wateen'' part. And secondly, there is the question whether the difference in meaning of the words existed in the 7th century?

In conclusion, both the words refer to the same vein. The only difference is that maybe ''wateen'' refers to a smaller part and ''abhar'' refers to a bigger part of the vein. Which is not a big difference.

Cutting aorta could mean "to die", so maybe the Quran said Allah will cut his aorta, but Muhammad said his aorta is being cut only metaphorically.

Here the question is why couldn't the Quran be also metaphorical? Isn't the meaning of the verse that Allah would kill Muhammad? Both cutting ''abhar'' and cutting ''wateen'' can be understood literally and metaphorically.

There is also a claim that "cutting ''abhar''" was a common phrase. But if "cutting ''abhar''" was a common phrase, why couldn't the Quran just paraphrase it with ''wateen''?

If ''abhar'' and ''wateen'' didn't both mean aorta, then how is it possible that so many professional translators translated the words as aorta? Did they not know what they are talking about? Maybe someone who has low knowledge of anatomy could make a mistake, but how could Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, who studied medicine <ref>https://dar-us-salam.com/authors/muhsin-khan.htm</ref>, be unable to translate the word aorta? Muhsin Khan translated both the Quran and Sahih Bukhari and translated both words as aorta:

Here we can see that he used "life artery" and put aorta into brackets. This seems to indicate that the metaphorical meaning of the verse is that Allah would end Muhammad's life. This shows that the apologetic excuse ''"in the hadith it had a metaphorical meaning "to die", while the Quran meant literal cutting of aorta"'' is invalid, because the Quran can be also understood metaphorically.

In the hadiths, Dr. Muhsin Khan translated the word ''abhar'' as aorta:

Other translations of the Quranic verse 69:46: