|
Mr Katz, in one of his articles*
has stated that the Qur’an has given contradictory statements regarding
the material from which man was created. He states:
Before we proceed with the main point of Mr. Katz’s objection (that is: ‘What was man created from?’), let us first examine the ‘scientific error’ that Mr. Katz has pointed out: The Arabic word used by the Qur’an which has generally been translated as ‘a clot of blood’, is ‘alaq. The meaning of this word is given by Qamusu’l-Muhit as:
Thus, the real meaning of the word ‘alaq is ‘anything that sticks or hangs’. Now when the Qur’an says: ‘He created man of ‘alaq, it was interpreted by Muslim scholars to imply ‘a clot of blood’. This was not because the word ‘alaq meant ‘a clot of blood’ but because the Muslim scholars felt that in this verse it implied ‘a clot of blood’. If, due to the widening of human knowledge, today we are in a position to know that a child is never ‘a clot of blood’, all that has happened is that we can now safely say that the interpretation of the Muslim scholars was not accurate. If the Qur’an was not available in its original language, as is generally the case with the books, other than the Qur’an, believed to be revealed literature, the Muslims would have had no option but to submit that the Qur’an does have a ‘scientific error’ in it. But the case of the Qur’an is quite different from those other books. It is still in its original language. And the word originally used by the Qur’an (‘alaq) is not used only for a clot of blood. It actually refers to ‘something that sticks’ (like semi-dried blood, mud, unending hatred/love or a leech). From the above discussion, we not only see that what Mr. Katz is quite correctly objecting to is the interpretation of Muslim scholars, not the Qur’an, but we also understand the importance and significance of having a particular piece of literature in its original language. The analysis given above could not have been possible if the original word used by the Qur’an (‘alaq) was not definitely known. Now we turn to the real issue: What was Man Created From? Let us first have a look at the verses which Mr. Katz has objected to, in his article. Mr. Katz has based his objection on the following verses of the Qur’an: (96:1-2), (21:30), (24:45), (25:54), (15:26), (3:59), (30:20), (35:11), (19:67), (52:35), (11:61), (16:4) and (75:37). Before we go into any details regarding the meanings and implications of these verses, I would like to point out an error in Mr. Katz’s translation of one of these verses and also a judgmental error on his part regarding the interpretation a few of these verses. The first error is in the translation of 19:67. Mr. Katz has translated it as: ‘But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?’, whereas, the correct translation of the Arabic words of this verse should be: ‘Does not man call to mind that We created him [while] before that he was nothing?’ Mr. Katz in all probability has depended on the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali, which unfortunately in this case is not very accurate. Thus, one of the objections that Mr. Katz has raised, on Mr. Desmond’s response (posted at the end of Mr. Katz’s criticism) seems to be resolved only by a correction in the translation. The objection is:
Now, after removing these verses, we are left with the following ‘contradictory’ statements of the Qur’an: Man was made from water (21: 30, 24: 45, 25: 54) Man was made from dust/soil (3: 59, 30: 20, 35: 11) Man was made from sounding [extremely dry] clay from black stinking mud (15: 26) Man was raised from the earth (11:61) Besides these verses, 37:11 gives an even different picture, as it says that man was created from such soil that sticks to one’s hands, or sticky soil. I really do not know what is the contradiction in these verses. Anyone with a literary sense can see that these verses are not contradictory. If someone says: ‘ I made a cake from flour (soil)’, and then says: ‘I made a cake from water (water)’, and then says: ‘I made this cake from a solution of flour and water (mud, sticky soil)’, and then says: ‘I made this cake from a dried out solution of flour and water (sounding clay from black stinking mud)’, and then says: ‘I brought the cake out from the oven (raised from the earth)’, a person may say that the statements are contradictory. But it is quite obvious that they are not. These statements inform us of not only the major ingredients of cake (man, in this case), but also give us some information regarding the stages from which these ingredients were made to go through for the ultimate production of the cake. From the referred verses of the Qur’an, the result that Mr. Katz drew was that of raising an objection of contradiction and from these same verses I draw the following conclusions: Two major ingredients in man’s creation are soil and water; the soil and water took the shape of sticky mud; the sticky mud was left to dry out till it became hard (sounding clay); the total process beginning from the mixing of soil and water till man’s birth took place on this planet called earth. At the end of his article Mr. Katz states:
Moreover, ‘Be and it happens’ does not negate the fact that if God wants to create something from water and soil, through a process, He cannot do so. What it means is that if God wants to create something from water and soil, He would have no problems in procuring that water or that soil and nothing shall be able to stop the process that He has planned. Courtesy: Understanding Islam
http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/quran/wwmcf.htm
|
*. http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i015.html
**. http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/quran/qosc.htm |