The height of Prophet Adam

 بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

There has been a book written by shaykh Muntasir Zaman on the height of Prophet Adam (alaihi al-salam). The book is called "The Height of Prophet Adam: At the Crossroads of Science and Scripture".

It raises various concerns and valid points but missed some important things that affect his main argument. In brief, they are:

1) Various Hadiths, including the Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, describe the height of Prophet Ibrahim in the afterlife as very tall. In Sahih al-Bukhari, the Arabic text describes the height of Prophet Ibrahim in afterlife as طَوِيلٌ لاَ أَكَادُ أَرَى رَأْسَهُ طُولاً فِي السَّمَاءِ i.e. his head can almost not be seen, as it reaches the sky (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7047).

We know from another Hadith that people will enter Jannah in form of Prophet Adam (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3326). This supports Hadith about Prophet Adam (as) being 60 cubits.

2) The Hadith that Muntasir criticised in Sahih al-Bukhari is reported via Hammam bin Munabbih from Abu Hurayra (ra). This is from the Sahifa of Hammam ibn Munabbih, which is actually one of the earliest written Hadith collections that are extant (https://shamela.ws/book/7776/60) i.e. recorded by the student of Abu Hurayra. This makes the chances of error as very slim.

Therefore, the criticisms of Muntasir against the height of Prophet Adam (as) are not valid. The way to reconcile the Hadith with science is to argue that perhaps his height of 60 cubits was in Jannah and was lowered when he was sent to Earth. This explains why people go from a normal height in Earth to 60 cubits when they go to Paradise.

Allahu a'lam.

Are “Scientific miracles” open to various interpretations? Part of the "Scientific miracles in Islam" series

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الصلاة والسلام على رسول الله

This brief article continues the discussion around "scientific miracles in the Qur'an" from an intellectual perspective. This article critically analyses the frequent claim that "scientific miracles are not possible because there can be various interpretations ". This claim has been considered as a "major argument" against "scientific miracles".

As is well known to any Muslim scholar who looks at prophecies in the Qur'an and Hadiths, they are often (not always) open to various interpretations, such as the famous prophecy in Surah Rum. Despite this fact, scholars normally claimed that these are miracles and proofs of Islam being from Allah Most High. This is especially the case where the correct interpretation has become clear once the prophecy has come true or a sound exegetical methodology is applied. Furthermore, not every interpretation is correct or plausible. Thus, the possibility of multiple valid and sound interpretations of a text doesn't negate it being a miracle.

It is a famous principle in tafsir (a principle expounded by the Sahaba and various other mufassirs like al-Mawardi and al-Shawkani), that multiple meanings and interpretations can be intended by a Qur’anic verse.(1) There can also be one primary meaning and multiple secondary meanings intended by a verse. Part of the miracle of the Qur'an is that it contains the most eloquent wordings that suit various contexts. This includes choosing words that have various suitable meanings that cater for different audiences, times, and places. Thus, a verse about nature can give a meaning understood to a bedouin in the 7th century, and a different meaning to a scientist in the 21st century with new scientific discoveries. If the wrong wording was chosen, and a scientific discovery disproved the previous understanding of nature, then the Qur'an would be falsified. However, the Qur'an chose the best words to accommodate different meanings according to the needs of people that Allah Most High deemed relevant. The fact that there are so many instances of these eloquent wordings that encompass modern scientific facts shows that such wordings were deliberately chosen by Allah Most High to include such facts within its meanings. Let me provide an example outside of scientific meanings: if multiple prophecies come true, it increases the epistemic assurance that the person is receiving knowledge from a supernatural source, until we achieve certainty of it.

An example of a scientific meaning is seen in the Qur'anic discussions on the embryo, including the word "Alaq" (علق) and its various linguistic possibilities that accommodate new scientific discoveries. The Qur'an could have just used the various terms in vogue according to Greek and Arab medical knowledge (including the various terms by Aristotle) and which turned out to be wrong about embryology, yet the Qur'an did not make that error but used precise and eloquent wordings as part of its balagha. Considering that “Alaq” is mentioned in the first set of verses revealed to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), and a chapter is named after it, the importance of scientific tafsir in understanding the Qur’an is clearly shown. The fact that modern Muslims understand “Alaq” to refer to something that “clings”, looks like a “leech” and like a “chewed substance” and is not a meaning invented in modern times nor is from Greek medicine is the fact that Niketas of Byzantium (using a 9th century Greek translation) understood it to mean a leech and condemned it (he didn’t know that it looked like a leech).(2)

Furthermore, sometimes various interpretations may be offered by scholars of a verse about natural phenomena based on their ijtihad and the sciences of their time, but because the science was limited, they may have not encompassed all suitable meanings. Despite the literal meaning being the default meaning according the standard tafsir methodology (unless other evidence, like Allah's dissimilarity requires a metaphorical meaning), scholars sometimes adopted a metaphorical meaning because they couldn't conceive how it could be literal. Due to new scientific discoveries, a meaning that fits the verse better can appear. It would be a grave injustice to the Qur'an to refuse to consider new scientific knowledge on matters discussed in the Qur'an. An example is the meaning of the term "al-Tariq" (الطارق) in the Qur'an where the mufassirs had different opinions over which celestial object it referred to, whether it was for the genus or individual star etc. Now that we know a lot more about different planets and stars etc, we can understand another meaning that is more suitable. An investigation should be carried out to see how the linguistic descriptions fit with black holes or neutron stars. (3)

As for the cases where someone can clearly show that the primary meaning of particular words in the Qur'an refers to phenomena identified by modern science (i.e. no other meaning can be taken as the primary meaning, especially when the literal is preferred over the metaphorical), these obviously don’t fall under the objectors claim of negating "scientific miracles". Of course, we can make similar points when the definition of science is non-Eurocentric and includes sciences like theology and Hadiths.  Therefore, claims about "all scientific miracles having multiple interpretations " are gross generalisations because has the claimant analysed each claim and claimed to encompass the knowledge of Allah Most High? Indeed, Allah Most High commands us in the Qur'an to reflect on the signs, be they of the Qur'an itself or of the world and the scholars of the past used the theories at their disposal for interpreting the Qur'an. Imam al-Ghazali has a chapter on scientific knowledge in the Qur’an and examples of verses which can’t be understood unless one has certain scientific knowledge. In summary, he mentioned “in the Qur’an lies the confluence [merging] of the sciences of the ancients and the moderns."(4)

Footnotes:

1)     For further details, see “The Lights of Revelation and the Secrets of Interpretation: Hizb One of the Commentary on the Qurʾan by al-Baydawi” by Dr Gibril Fouad Haddad

2)     See http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/did-the-prophet-muhammad-plagiarise-hellenic-embryology/

3)     The claims in the following video should be investigated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx94yXhpEak

4)     See Imam al-Ghazali’s “Kitab Jawahir al-Qur'an”

Is the Qur'an a book of science? Part of the "Scientific miracles in Islam" series

 

بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

The phrase “the Qur’an is not a book of science but is a book of guidance” is often used to argue against understanding certain Qur’anic verses as including scientific miracles. This statement should be critically analysed as part of the discussion about “scientific miracles in the Qur’an”.

Whilst the statement is true, it can be argued that “the Qur’an is not a book of law” because it rarely gives detailed legal rulings (e.g. it doesn’t mention 5 prayers or the amount of raka’ats or the details of the Azan etc), and therefore the legal scholars (fuqaha) have been incorrect in deducing fiqh (through simple and complex interpretations) per such an proponent. According to some scholars, the Qur’an only has around 500 verses that include legal matters, which is less than the 700+ verses that include matters of nature (i.e. science). I have never come across anyone who has been consistent in the implications of this claim and this shows how irrational and emotional the discussion about “scientific miracles in the Qur’an” has become. For example, one academic even condemned a tafsir scholar for simply mentioning that there are 700+ verses relating to nature!

The Qur’an is a book of guidance but is a miracle and from the Lord of the worlds, Allah Most High. He can mention whatever He wants in His Books. It is natural to expect that He would describe His creation in order for people to ponder over them, realise that the Qur’an is miraculous and from Allah Most High, and to accept Islam (i.e. be guided). One also expects that since He created and sustains the universe, then the universe would not contradict the Qur’an i.e. the “Work of Allah Most High” and the “Words of Allah Most High” agree with each other. None of the major mufassirs (tafsir scholars) argued that Allah Most High cannot or does not talk about the natural world. It is a modern bid’a (innovation) to argue that He cannot or does not and amounts to trespassing over the limits of Allah Most High by arrogating oneself to judge over what Allah Most High “can or cannot do”. In fact, there are numerous clear verses in the Qur’an that talk about nature (hence science).

Does science change? Part of the "Scientific miracles in Islam" series

بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Unfortunately the discourse around “scientific miracles in the Qur’an” lacks intellectual rigour. In sha Allah, I will critically analyse various arguments on the topic in different short articles. During discussions on the topic, one often hears the phrase “science changes”, a phrase betraying a Eurocentric, high-school understanding of science. It is so broad that it is like saying “philosophy or history changes” to discount the use of reason or history in religion. How many philosophical ideas and historical “facts” have changed as a result of new perspectives and new evidences? One only needs to ask a few simple questions and the “science changes” phrase breaks down:

1)     What is science?

2)     Is all science the same?

3)     Does all science change?

Science has many different definitions and they differ according to its history (e.g. pre-modern vs modern), the philosophy adopted (e.g. Popperian vs Kuhnian views), practitioners (e.g. ID theorists vs materialists), location (e.g. Europe vs China), its fields (e.g. physics vs economics), and theory vs practice. Often the practitioners of the “hard sciences” have very mythical definitions of science. A short course in the history and philosophy of science can clarify this matter. The debates over whether certain social sciences are “science” show how there are different definitions of science. Therefore, whose definition is adopted impacts the discussion in terms of “Islam and science” and “scientific miracles”. For example, one definition would include Hadith science within the definition of science but does that mean that Hadiths cannot be used in tafsir because it is science? (1)

Furthermore, science is not a monolithic group but there are many fields within it and not all knowledge is the same within science. There is some scientific knowledge that is epistemically certain, and there are others that have lower epistemic values. Also, scientific knowledge obtained through one type of science can be of a different epistemic value compared to another.

The above implies that there is some scientific knowledge that will not change, thus refuting the myth that “science changes”. For example, the scientific knowledge that the “earth is not flat”, or that “at least some tectonic plates can move”, or that “humans have DNA” will not change and is epistemically certain. In fact, there are many scientific facts that have not changed over the centuries, and will not change. For example, the scientific knowledge that “blood circulates around the body” has not changed for many centuries and will not change. On the other hand, scientific ideas about “multiverse universes” are low in epistemic value, can change, and are arguably unfalsifiable.

The myth of “science changing” may have arisen because its holders have confused the process of science with the results of science. The process of science allows its results to theoretically change, even if it will practically not change. For example, if we get observations about the earth being flat, then our scientific knowledge of that will change. However, we will not actually get any observations that show that the earth is flat because we have epistemic certainty on the matter. The myth is also propagated by those who devalue scientific knowledge in order to advance illogical beliefs.

An additional point of history (which is well known) is that, in tafsir, many Muslim scholars have used reports from the Isra’iliyyat and other nations in order to provide explanations for natural phenomena or historical events in the Qur’an, and often such scholars deemed those to be the true interpretations, not caveating their interpretations with phrases like “this is one possible interpretation”. Many of these reports have turned out to be false but no one argues that the “Qur’an is disproven”. Thus, the use of fields that may change is not unknown in tafsir and Islamic history. Even if scientific knowledge that can change is used in tafsir, it is not something without precedence in scholarship and amongst the Sahaba. In fact, many major tafsirs, such as those of al-Baydawi and al-Razi, have famously used the sciences of their times to explain the Qur’an.

Whilst explaining certain Qur’anic verses through science is not the same as claiming “scientific miracles”, precautions should be taken in tafsir in general because the reader can take any tafsir (such as relating to science or history etc) as the “one true view” and have their faith shaken if that interpretation is refuted by someone else or other knowledge. How many times have tafsirs included weak historical reports (such as gross anthropomorphism) and not distinguished them from the sound, causing people to doubt Islam!

I have seen the myth of “science changing” propagated from normally clever Muslims who have PhDs in order to tirade against the notion of “scientific miracles”. I have not found a single one of such people apply their principles consistently e.g. to criticise the use of history in tafsir. If someone insists on the myth that “science changes” and “something that changes cannot be applied to the Qur’an”, then that person should abandon using science in explaining any natural phenomena mentioned in the Qur’an (even if they are not “scientific miracles”) or using historical reports. I hope that this short article will stop Muslims from repeating the essentialising myth that “science changes”. I may go into more details in the future if there is a need.

Footnotes:

1)     See the series “The Cambridge History of Science” for more about the changing definitions of science.

Raw milk example

Udderly Controversial



NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J., May 3 – Mrs Khan does what many may consider irresponsible parenting.



Every morning, she whips out three glasses from her cupboard and fills them to the top with unpasteurized milk.



One glass is for her, and the other two are for her 3- and 4-year-old daughters.
It is the only milk her youngest daughter, Zahrah, is able to tolerate.
“If she drinks regular, pasteurized milk, she throws up,” said Khan. “She can’t keep any of that stuff down.”

Unpasteurized milk, also known as raw milk, has been a topic of debate for some time now.
Because it is illegal for sale in New Jersey, many New Jersey residents, like Khan, go out
of their way to travel to New York or Pennsylvania where unpasteurized milk is permitted to be sold.



Proponents of raw milk praise it for its nutritional benefits, while adversaries warn it may be infested with harmful bacteria.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declared anything containing unpasteurized milk unsafe to consume.
“Raw milk can harbor dangerous microorganisms that can pose serious health risks to you and your family,” said the FDA.

The FDA cited a study done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which founded that between 1993 and 2006, more than 1,500 people in the U.S. became sick from drinking raw milk or eating cheese made from raw milk.

“That kind of makes me unsure about raw milk,” said Rutgers University junior Alyson Escalona. “I don’t think I would want to take the risk.”
            But any food can make you sick, argues a soil scientist at Rutgers University, Dr. Joseph Heckman.
            “There is no food that is perfectly safe,” said Heckman. “The assumption is made that the pasteurization process is done to guarantee safety, but the fact is, well-recorded in scientific record, that people have gotten sick and died from pasteurized milk.”

In 2007, as reported by the Journal of American Medical Association, three men in Massachusetts died from Listeria which came from pasteurized milk.



There was an outbreak in the 1980s, as well, in which over 160,000 became sick with salmonella from pasteurized milk. Since then, there have been at least 40 outbreaks caused by pasteurized milk over the decades , said Heckman.



That is not to say that some individuals do not get sick from raw milk, but it is a fact that
the numbers of individuals getting sick due to raw milk consumption have not been as high as the numbers of individuals getting sick from the consumption of pasteurized milk, said Heckman.
           It might also be noteworthy to add in that no one has ever died of drinking raw milk in the last few decades, either.
“Sometimes people do get sick by raw milk but it has to do with how it is produced,” said
Heckman. “If it is carefully produced, it has a pretty darn good safety record.”



Pasteurization, applauded as one the greatest achievements by the food industry, was
essential in the 18th century when the U.S. did not have the safety procedures and the technology to ensure the production of safe milk



“Pasteurization was developed as a solution for an old problem that we have moved far
beyond,” said Heckman. “At one time there were cows that were sickly, people milking by hand,
sneezing in milk buckets, and there was no refrigeration.”



Mechanical milkers, refrigeration, good sanitary practices, and knowing how to check for
pathogens have been advancements in the public health arena to ensure the production of clean
milk.



            If raw milk, intended for human consumption, is just as safe as pasteurized milk, why
then single out raw milk and the risks associated with it?

“Because they want to make money off of your fears,” said Rumana Abbasi.

Abbasi, a N.J. resident, has been purchasing raw milk from New York since December 2012.



“Raw milk is as safe as pasteurized milk if the farmer produces it carefully,” said Abbasi.
“And it’s better for you, too.”



Studies have shown benefits in raw milk, such preventing asthma and allergies, that cannot be found in pasteurized milk.
Khan claims her youngest daughter used to suffer from eczema, but it went away after switching to raw milk.
“Zahrah’s eczema went away with raw milk. That is to say, raw milk caused her eczema to go away,” said Khan. “I firmly believe that.”



            Khan says she won’t be turning back to pasteurized milk anytime soon, and will continue to make those drives out-of-state every week to get raw milk.



But that brings up a larger issue: how long will New Jersey residents continue going to other states to buy raw milk?



Should we not be allowed to choose the foods we wish to consume?



Many nations, and many states within the U.S., give people the choice of buying pasteurized milk or raw milk, but not New Jersey.



Heckman  hopes for Jersey residents to one day be given the choice to buy pasteurized milk or raw milk, without having to go to great lengths such as driving out-of-state every weekend.



“I’m not an advocate for raw milk,” said Heckman. “I’m an advocate for informed choice. I just want people to have the choice and I want them to make a well-informed choice.”

(Written by a friend)

Hadith on Genetics Dominance

There is an excellent analysis of genetics hadiths that I found elsewhere and I confirmed with a hadith scholar who agreed with it. The word "dominant" (and similar meanings), is precisely the word used by geneticists.


The main point to notice, is that the correct translation of the hadith is that the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said
"...When they get together, if the semen of the man is dominant over the semen of the woman, the child is male, by the permission of Allah, and if the semen of the woman is dominant over the semen of the woman, the child is a female by the permission of Allah."

Hadeeths touched the topic under discussion:
1-- وَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاءُ الرَّجُلِ مَاءَ الْمَرْأَةِ نَزَعَ الْوَلَدَ، وَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاءُ الْمَرْأَةِ نَزَعَتْ
http://sunnah.com/urn/41620
This talks about the resemblance due to father/mother.

 2- وَأَمَّا الشَّبَهُ فِي الْوَلَدِ فَإِنَّ الرَّجُلَ إِذَا غَشِيَ الْمَرْأَةَ فَسَبَقَهَا مَاؤُهُ كَانَ الشَّبَهُ لَهُ، وَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاؤُهَا كَانَ الشَّبَهُ لَهَا ‏"
http://sunnah.com/urn/31100

3-  وَهَلْ يَكُونُ الشَّبَهُ إِلاَّ مِنْ قِبَلِ ذَلِكِ إِذَا عَلاَ مَاؤُهَا مَاءَ الرَّجُلِ أَشْبَهَ الْوَلَدُ أَخْوَالَهُ وَإِذَا عَلاَ مَاءُ الرَّجُلِ مَاءَهَا أَشْبَهَ أَعْمَامَهُ ‏ ‏
http://sunnah.com/muslim/4#37

In the first 2 hadeeths the word is "Sabaqa" سبق which means
1- precede -outrun.
2- win - defeat - overpower (which also means to "dominate").
In the third hadeeth the word is "alaa" علا which means:
overpower/take over/be superior (which also means to "dominate")..
e.g:
http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=%2823:91:17%29
Translation:
the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Let her ask, for i resemblance happens because of it. when her water/discharge is dominant, the born child resembles his maternal family but if water/discharge of the man was dominant, the born child should resemble his paternal family."

The content of this narration is reported in other narrations as well and despite the slight difference of words, all narrations include the highlighted words.
They key words of this hadeeth are:
a- water [i.e. liquid] of women
b-water of men(semen)
c- dominance
d- resemblance
The topic of this hadeeth is about resemblance.

This narration goes along with the genetic science that resemblance of children is explained through the theory of dominance where only superior genes appear on the child. [This can be one of the interpretations and understanding...]
Water/discharge of women !

One major point that may cause all this confusion about this hadeeth and hence some people find it problemtic is because they tend to immeditaly understand the word "water of women" to mean ejaculated fluid that happens due to intimicay or arousing.

If we pay attention to the words used in this hadeeth we will find outstanding findings i.e. He صلى الله عليه وسلم used the word "water" in reference to the liquid of women and he did not specify it any further.
Well, there is no one better to explain one narration except the one who said it.

For this reason, let's know first what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم meant with "water of women" since he did not specify it. Well, true that he did not specify it but he actually described it when he said in another narration " the water" of women is yellow and thin. So, what is that fluid that has such description?Simple, it is known that ejaculated discharges due to arousing or intimiacy are white.

The only liquid that is yellow is actually called "Follicuar Fluid" that is discharged at ovulation without being related to copulation or being aroused and it is directly related to preganacy. It comes out with a thin layer called follicle of which inside there is a small egg that supposed to combine with the men sperm during fertilization in order for a child to be created.

Finally, I would like you to understand that these narrations came in response to questions about why? and not to answer a question of how? In other words neither the questioner nor answerer [i.e. the Prophet] intended to explain the howness of this process. Rather, he wanted to explain why children sometimes resemble their fathers and some other times resemble their mothers.

This is proven and well explained in the other hadeeth when the Prophet clearly state that resemblence is a pure genetic when a woman delivered a black boy and the man doubted that his wife may have slept with another man as none of the family was black. When he explained it to the man he told him that a genetics of great grandfather may effect grand children. From this you know that it is obvious that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) acknowledged that determining the howness was left for us to discover but the hadeeth only provided us with the key, which is the answer to why this happen.
Allah knows the best !

"The Main Principles:
a- Quran and Sunnah must be understood according to Arabic langauge after gathering all narrations together as one narration may explain another.
b- In case a hadeeth or an Ayah is proven authentic then we find it contradicting a fact or a sensible event that is agreed on, we reconsider our understanding of the text because an authentic text cannot contradict a fact or agreed on truth.
Scientific Facts:
a. The egg is always the carrier of the X chromosome (X).
b. The spermcell of a man is the carrier of X and Y chromosomes. [i.e. It carries man and women chromosome].
c. a. Determining the gender of children depends solely on the chromosome of the spermcell of the man.
d. The combination of the "X" chromosome of the woman with the chromosome "Y" of the man creates a boy(xy). However, if the "X" chromosome of the woman combine with the chromosome "X" of the man creates a girl (xx).
e. "Y" is manly while X is womanly.

The other hadeeth
" ماء الرجل أبيض وماء المرأة أصفر . فإذا اجتمعا، فعلا مني الرجل مني المرأة ، أذكرا بإذن الله . وإذا علا مني المرأة مني الرجل ، آنثا بإذن الله
قَالَ الْيَهُودِيُّ لَقَدْ صَدَقْتَ وَإِنَّكَ لَنَبِيٌّ ثُمَّ انْصَرَفَ فَذَهَبَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ لَقَدْ سَأَلَنِي هَذَا عَنِ الَّذِي سَأَلَنِي عَنْهُ وَمَا لِي عِلْمٌ بِشَىْءٍ مِنْهُ حَتَّى أَتَانِيَ اللَّهُ بِهِ ‏"‏ 
http://sunnah.com/muslim/4#38

The True Translation:
The Prophet said "The water of the man is white and the water of the woman is yellow. When they get together, if the semen of the man is dominant over the semen of the woman, the child is male, by the permission of Allah, and if the semen of the woman is dominant over (the link above translates it as "prevails", which means the same as "dominating", see http://thesaurus.com/browse/dominate?s=t) the semen of the woman, the child is a female by the permission of Allah.
The Jew said: What you have said is true; verily you are an Apostle. He then returned and went away. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that."

Study of the Hadeeth:
a. As we know that women has no role in deciding the gender of the child when fertilization takes place and the text appears to state something that seem to contradict this fact, we need to resort to laid down principles in order to guideline our understanding. This principle state that in such case, we reconsider our understanding to the texts. How? I will explain it in the following point.

b. It is important to pay attention to the used words in the hadeeth. The key words we would like to highlight (I will translate the words of the text litterally to explain it further).
Notes:
a- The word above here means "dominant"/"dominates" as this is one of the known meaning of the word "above" ('Ala) and has been used in Quran to mean "dominant and controlled".

b. The first half of the hadeeth referred to the man and woman liquids as "water" while in the second half he became more specific as referred to it as "semen".

c. We already know that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned in other hadeeths that the "water" of women is involved in process of fertilization. Then we realized that this water has a description that does not befit ejaculated fuilds since ejaculated fluids are white in color whereas he described the color as yellow and thin.

d. The sound understanding of this text is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was referring in this hadeeth to the male and female chromosome of the spermcell of the man (X as the female chromosome and Y as the male chromosome). Based on this, the Prophet meant that when the male factor is dominant then it is a boy but when the female factor is domionant then it is a girl. This is what science states and this is the sound understanding that one should have beacuse the text can be understood in various ways and we know that authentic texts must be in agreement with agreed on facts.

e- He didn't know about that except what Allah told him.
what may be the cause of misunderstanding is that it is because when people "understood" it, they assumed that the word "semen " used in this hadeeth refer to man and woman' water mentioned earlier while as a matter of fact, he صلى الله عليه وسلم was referring to the semen of the man only which is always a carrier of male and female chromosomes. This is supported by the fact that the word "semen" is always exclusively for men while women liquid is always called water only.

In short, it seems according to the words and structure of what was stated, that the issue of "dominance" is purely in targeting the dominance of x chromosome (female) and y chromosomes (male), particularly because women are scientifically not classified as having "sperm"
And Allah knows the best !

Qur'an and the Big Bang

Some Muslims have been arguing that its uneducated people who don't know the Qur'an or Islam properly, and thus incorrectly say that the Qur'an mentions something similar to the big bang.

Let's see the Qur'an (Chapter 21, verse 30) "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"


"Then He turned to the heavens when it was smoke.."
[Noble Quran 41:11]

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf mentioned that the word "smoke" was the best word as the Arabs didn't have a concept of gas at the time of the Qur'an, and the most encompassing Arabic word for gas was "smoke", and that can be used to refer to the "from the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, which created a hot, dense gas of elementary particles" (http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=4&secNum=7)

Apart from a number of well read and qualified scholars (like Sheikh Abdullah Hamid Ali) saying that the Qur'an talks about something similar to the big bang (we can't say it exactly talks about the big bang, since the details of the big bang theory, and even the big bang theory can change. Yet the basics of what the big bang shows, corresponds with the Qur'anic description of the creation of the universe), the GREAT scholar and Wali, Sheikh Ahmed al Alawi (in A'dhab al-Manahil, p. 33.) believed that 21:30 referred to something like the Big Bang, and predicted that it would be discovered by 'those who disbelieve' to whom the verse is addressed. 

And indeed it is the non-Muslims who first scientifically proved the big bang theory.

Although the Qur'an is not a book of science, we naturally expect that it would speak about the creation of Allah swt, and thus you see similarities with some scientific facts and theories.

Allahu A'lem.

Body image and Female Brain

I discovered a gem of a website and discovered this:

“Do I look fat in those pants?” is a question many women ask their husbands at home before deciding to go out in their choice of clothing. What happens in the husband’s brain when he hears this question is akin to going off and the most wide scale panic response. Many men would rather face an enemy in the battlefield than face this question during a calm evening. The correct answer whether she does look fat or not is, “don’t be ridiculous honey, you look fantastic”. Obviously the truth of this statement is irrelevant. If he wants the evening to remain calm, he must produce this answer or else sleep with one eye open for the next few months.

As it turns out, eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia, which have been associated with concerns about body image and size are estimated to be about 10 times more common in women than men. What is it that makes women more victims to these eating disorders? A possible reason that has been proposed goes back to the differences in brain function. It seems that women might be processing information about their body image quite differently than men.

In a study published by the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2005, a team of researchers sought to detect gender differences in brain activation during the processing of unpleasant words concerning body image. 13 men and 13 women, all of which were 25 years old and physically, as well as psychologically healthy were recruited to participate in this study. Each participant underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging tests to assess brain activity during an emotional decision task. Brain activity was recorded while they were presented with a series of pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant words concerning body image. In addition to the brain imaging, the participants were also asked to rate the words for how unpleasant they were on a scale from 1 (very unpleasant) to 7 (very pleasant).

The results from the rating of words by men and women showed both to have a similar assessment of the degree of unpleasantness. In other words, both men and women have similar initial psychological perceptions when it comes to how they assess unpleasant words describing their body image. However, brain activation was significantly different between both genders.

In response to unpleasant words, men had their brains record activity in the left hippocampus, left superior temporal gyrus, left fusiform gyrus and left medial frontal gyrus. These regions of the brain have roles in perception of emotions and word and number recognition. They also play important roles in face and body recognition.

Women brains on the other hand had their brains record activity in the left parahippocampal gyrus including amygdala, left thalamus and right caudate body. These brain regions are responsible for recording memories of emotional reactions and play a role in relating the transmission of information regarding worrying events.

Taken together, it seems that when men are told unpleasant information about their body image, their brain response is more about assessing external factors relating to the person speaking to them. Women on the other hand develop an emotional response that is stored and coded in their brain, which internalizes the unpleasant information in a way that translates to a constant reflection onwhat has been said about their body image. Hence, many men are able to continue eating their burger as they receive a comment about how much chubbier they have become, while women will skip dinner for a week if one hesitates to answer the question, “do I look fat in those pants?”

The medial prefrontal cortex, which was only activated in men in response to unpleasant words, has been implicated to have a role in emotional processing. Recent studies have shown this area to be active when people turn their attention inwards to assess self-relevant attributes or emotional awareness. What is interesting about this region, is its connections to areas of the brain that deal with our emotional response. This makes the medial prefrontal cortex an interaction zone between emotional and cognitive processing. What seems to be the case is that this region may have a role in controlling the emotional response in the brain.

So what it all boils down to is that having a structure like the amygdala become active in response to unpleasant words exclusively in women, makes them have a more emotional response. On the other hand, having the medial prefrontal cortex activated exclusively in men, makes them have a more cognitive response to unpleasant words about their body image. This in turn translates into women caring way more about how they look than men do.

While this study, as well as others, is giving us an explanation to why women are more sensitive to what is said about their body image, it is definitely not settling for men out there when they are asked, “do I look fat in those pants?” Nevertheless, knowing that you are physiologically blocked from being able to reason this out with your wife, you should just memorize the right response, “you’ve never looked skinnier in those pants sweetheart!”

Mohamed Ghilan

UVic Neuroscience

From:

http://mohamedghilan.com/2012/04/06/body-image-the-female-brain-why-they-care-more/