Thank you good logic.. From my understanding of the Quran I think he presented the right meaning for 133... I am satisfied on his explanation over my understanding...

Well.. 6512 is totally different subject so that I didn't mention anything about it.. Since he is a word by word clarification... Hope he would get the meaning of earth and heavens right one day... As you all know I am not a believer in universe OR spinning earth... But I do only understand within Quran earth is massive and stationary and heavens are above it in layers and all heavens are visible and the nearest (Dunya) heaven is the extreme end of heaven well protected beyond that no entry... It is a ceiling it has doors... 6512 never speaks of seven earth as of the current earth... 4111-12 very clear God made only one Earth and out of smoky one heaven He turned it to seven layers and assignes each it's function... No seven earth...
Sorry... It is not a subject to speak about it.. God will true believers will understand God's real creation Earth and Heavens...
Peace...

Hello everyone, I don't want to get too deep into these because they are not too relevant to 133, but I do want to break down 6512 using a word for word translation

Allah- He-Who - created - seven - heavens -and of - the earth - like of them (mith'lahunna).

Now, I understand one translation had it in brackets that it means . However, that interpretation is a metaphorical understanding of the verse. The verse does not have the word "the many aspects of the Earth", however it is possible that the metaphorical translation you prefer is correct over the literal translation. But you must recognize the possibility that the literal translation may also be true--that there are several planets like the Earth just as there are several heavens. I say this verse does not make it clear which is the case, but it is certainly possible there are other Earth like planets or even other universes.

Note, the word "seven" in the Quran is not necessarily '7', it can also mean "several". As an example, look at Quran 2261--The parable of those who spend their substance in the way of God is that of a grain of corn it grows seven ears. This verse doesn't mean "seven" ears, rather it means "several ears". This is just a convention of the Arabic language where you use 7 to convey multitudes.

Note, also that 'ard' can also mean 'land', however, even if the Quran says many 'lands', that does not exclude lands in other planets as those planets also have lands. Ard also means Earth.

Now, you said something about Quran 4111-12. I don't think anywhere in these verses does it say there is only one planet like Earth. When the Quran says "the Earth", we know exactly what it is talking about, it is talking about the one we are in right now. But this doesn't mean there aren't mith'lahunna (similar planets) of the Earth in the universe/multiverse--just that this verse is talking about our Earth (and it is not talking about other planets).

You also mentioned something about the Earth being fixed. There is no place in the Quran which explicitly and unambiguously says the Earth is fixed--but it is possible the Quran alludes to this to appeal to 7th century dispositions but note that the Quran does not explicitly say the Earth is fixed (perfectly agreeable with science). Also note Ard can also mean "land" as discussed above.

I don't want to get too deep into this in this thread because this is not relevant to the original discussion and doesn't really matter for our purposes here.

The amazing thing is that the mathemtical pattern and even number 19 has an involvement in my journey. I acknoledged for example as Edip Yuksel points out the odds of the arrangement of the muaqataat in the quran being arranged in this manner giving multiples of 19 is about 1/60,000. HOWEVER when i saw the pattern of JUST TWO VERSES in the Bible i.e. Gen 11 and John 11 when the SAME FORMULA was applied to each of them it resulted in both pi and eulers number to FOUR SIGNIFICANT FIGS exactly, it kinna stuck with me. that was much more powerful with probability lower than 1/1000,000.

The previous scriptures were also from God (The Quran says so). But they were corrupted. So we should expect to see some formula of 19 within them too...

In fact, if ALL 3 scriptures have an improbable numerical code in them, then that is evidence they are all originally from God (which is what Islam teaches, lol). If the other scriptures don't a numerical code (or a remnant of a numerical code), then that is not evidence against Islam because they could've been corrupted.

In fact, verse 7431 said those who were given the scripture can also be convinced through the 19 phenomenon (which is a numerical phenomenon) that the Quran is from God

And We have not made the keepers of the Fire except angels. And We have not made their number except as a trial for those who disbelieve - that those who were given the Scripture will be convinced and those who have believed will increase in faith and those who were given the Scripture and the believers will not doubt and that those in whose hearts is hypocrisy and the disbelievers will say, "What does Allah intend by this as an example?" Thus does Allah leave astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And none knows the soldiers of your Lord except Him. And mention of the Fire is not but a reminder to humanity.

Note that "those who were given the scripture" could also mean "Muslims", but it could also be referring to "Christians/Jews". Thus it could mean Christians/Jews through looking at their scriptures and seeing remnants of a numerical code in them too would be convinced of the Truth of the Quran and Islam. As I said, if all 3 scriptures have remnants of a numerical code, then that is evidence that all 3 are originally from God (which is literally what the Quran says) But as we will see below, those whose hearts are perversity from those who have been given the scripture and the believers, will be misguided through it

SECONDLY given that 19 is the number thats so central in the quran it stands to reason that sura 19 verse 19 should be amongst the most profund verses of the quran. Well heres what that verse says

1919 He said I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

That's a non-sequitur. You assume that 1919 must say something central to Islam. Why?

In fact, this may be one mechanism Allah uses to misguide those through 19. Allah said that through the 19 thing, he will misguide some and guide others. By putting 1919 he allows those whose hearts are perversity to be misguided, while allowing those whose hearts are open to be guided. For my case, I know there there is no reason that verse 1919 necessarily has to say something central to Islam. Allah could've simply avoided that just to misguide you and others (just as Allah promised--he will misguide some and guide others through the 19).

In the context its obviously talking about none other than JESUS CHRIST. imo no one can just chuck this off as coincidence given tht he belevied in code19. Thus God in His providence used the very number 19 to lead me to come home to Christianity.

Or God could've misguided you into Christianity...The Quran says Allah misguides and guides whom he wills--and it also says will also do this using the number 19.

Ofc there was much more involved in the rpocess of my conversion. Another astounding of what i call a ripple effect within mainstream sunni islam is the muslims in the past evhemently fighting against the mutazila who claimed allah's word the quran was created,, as opposed to the mainstream view tht it is uncreated. muslims even went through persecution to defend this doctrine. Yet this mimicks what happened AT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA CENTURIES BEFORE THAT. For me this was anothe rpowerful evidence of God even leaving muslims with a trail of evidence to come home to the Orthodox Christian Faith which includes accepting the Council of Nicea. I now have a utube channel and a discord sevrer as follows

It is a non-sequitur to say that how Muslims act is evidence against the truth of the Quran. That doesn't follow logically.

Your arguments are weak at best. I don't see much insight or intellect in your claims. Looks like Allah misguided you through the 19, just as he promised he would.

Salam everyone.

I wanted to mention a verse in the Quran about 19

And We have not made the keepers of the Fire except angels. And We have not made their number except as a trial for those who disbelieve - that those who were given the Scripture will be convinced and those who have believed will increase in faith and those who were given the Scripture and the believers will not doubt and that those in whose hearts is hypocrisy and the disbelievers will say, "What does Allah intend by this as an example?" Thus does Allah leave astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And none knows the soldiers of your Lord except Him. And mention of the Fire is not but a reminder to humanity.

The Quran says that God made the angels of the fire 19 and that through this he will guide some and misguide others--he will misguide those whose hearts are perversity. The OP was the one Allah misguided through the 19 (and he admitted that the 19 phenomenon is what led him to leave Islam).

This is a Quranic prophecy that came true (any may be continually coming true). Subhanallah!

In my next post, I will give a point by point refutation of the OPs argument. Again, given life obligations, I want to leave it to you (Muslims) to also respond.

Salam everyone

I'm not new to Islam. I converted many years ago.

I'll give a brief background of myself My family is a conservative Evangelical Christian family from the west coast. I became an atheist after I read Richard Dawkin's book titled "The God Delusion" and I was convinced God did not exist. This was a common trend among my friends too--this person had much influence in the culture. At the time, this book's arguments seemed extremely well formed and sound. As such, I began joining atheists in online debate against theists. I became familiar with the works of Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dennet. These are other popular atheists--and at the time, they the only vocal atheists with a popular presence. I went to college with a Muslim and we'd have many debates on atheism vs theism. Overtime, I remember him telling me that I should look at both sides of the argument. I am debating online theist laymen and that I should be reading the works of academic atheists and theists--the postings of the laymen are nowhere near the academic debates on religion. So I started doing this and overtime, the arguments against theism I've known have been shown to be poor arguments--even by academic atheists! As I started reading the works of theists, I began to slowly lose my faith atheism. It didn't seem so clear cut as the popular atheists made it. It was too ambiguous and it was not apparent at all that God doesn't exist.

One major thing I've gained from this research is I've gotten myself well situated with academic philosophy and critical analysis. This will carry on with me for life. After a while, I saw that The proposition is itself a faith about the nature of reality. And as I became more and more convinced by the theist arguments, I became a theist. However, I began researching religions. I had more of curiosity of the eastern religions so I started to focus initially on them-- I definitely looked heavily into Wicca, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'.

So much more research took place, and ultimately (years later), I became Muslim. The funniest thing about my conversion to Islam is that it was catalyzed by the website "AnsweringIslam". This is a website that is critical of Islam and attempts to show contradictions in the Quran or scientific errors in the Quran. There are so many of those websites, but the one that I was using was answeringIslam. I was trying to convince myself Islam was false. Ultimately, through the Islamic responses to answeringislam, Islam and the Quran gained more credibility. I was noticing that Muslims always refer to the original Arabic--so I looked into learning Arabic--nothing significant, but just enough to be able to understand word-for-word translations and be more careful with the Arabic. I found the Quran gained so much credibility and so did Islam after my studies.

This is just a short explanation. This was a long journey and nothing happened overnight. This was all a gradual transition back to theism and then to Islam. This happened over 10 years.

But over those years, I've learned many skills in critical analysis, reasoning, and textual criticism.

I'm not new to this forum either! I'm not much of a poster on forums. I used this forum to search certain alleged contradictions in the Quran and to see your responses.

What prompted me here first is an ex-Muslim who posted on ShiaChat (this is a shia forum, although I'm not Shia, I do also check out that forum--I look at many forums) about 133 being a contradiction with science and so on. I noticed that the responses to him were very weak, I also noticed that online no one mentioned double fertilization before. There are usually websites like "miracles of the Quran" that cover this, but I didn't see it covered. So I created an account and debating with him on ShiaChat. Ultimately, he stopped responding. I also looked at this forum and still, I see no one answered 133 here! So I just copied and pasted from what I wrote on ShiaChat on here. And then I went on all the other Islamic forums I know and posted the same thing. This wasn't talked about enough by Muslims, so I wanted to make sure that each forum had this information. I did not want to be quiet about this because many anti-Muslims will keep on using this to show a contradiction, I want to ensure Muslims have the tools to defend Islam. That's what brought my here as a poster

Brother peace..
I do anticipate that you have patience with my repeated concerns...

Absolutely! I hope that you find insight in my responses. Although, given some life obligations I may not always respond on time.

Note pls 307 is clearly stated verses are (Muthashabih) not words or phrases.. With words verses form.. But other verses are manifest it says.. So in manifest verses also words form it.. Nothing will make a verse muthashaabih coz of min or kullu.. Anyway it further says only those whose hearts perversity follows muthashaabih.. So do you consider this verse 133 a muthashabih? So why explain it if so? It seems like believers only believe it not trying to explain the verses of muthashaabih... Unless the verse 307 speak differently.. Is the verse 307 itself muthashaabih? Lol..

I would disagree with your understanding of Quran 37. This verse does not explicitly rule out ambiguities within some verses. Some verses can have both ambiguous and unambiguous elements. Quran 37 is not restricted to whole verses. As I said earlier if a professor tells you some sentences are poorly written and others, well written---your professor is not excluding the existence of sentences with poorly written and well written phrases. Such an exclusion is only an assumption you make. The same is true in 37, you are assuming that it excludes ambiguity in verses, but the verse does not explicitly say this. Parts of verses can be muthashaabih and parts can be manifest. So yes, a part of a verse (including a part of 37) can be muthashaabih and another part (including a part of 37) can be manifest. It depends on the verse!

Now, I think you misunderstand "those who have perversity in their hearts follow what is muthashaabih". I want to address this here

It is commonly claimed that the Quran is teaching us to not think about the ambiguous verses. However, when we closely examine 37, we do not see such an explicit command

"...Then as for those in whose hearts (qulubihim) is perversity (zayghun), so they follow what is 'tashabaha' (obscure, unclear) of it seeking discord/disagreement (fitna) and seeking its interpretation (tawil)..."

This verse is saying to not pursue the ambiguities seeking discord and committing yourself to one interpretation when the verse is ambiguous. It is not saying "don't think about the ambiguities or try to understand it", it is saying, 'don't pursue the ambiguities with the intention of causing discord'. This is, in fact, what nonbelievers do--they take ambiguous verses and then they claim those verses definitively teach X, and then they show that X is a scientific error (or a contradiction with the Quran)--just as Allah warned us in 37! The non-believers time and time again (especially in Wiki-Islam and AnsweringIslam) take ambiguous verses as if they are unambiguous, and they restrict the interpretation of the ambiguous verse to one possible understanding, and then they claim the Quran is in error as a result--just as Allah warned us in 37!

As we see here, this verse is not commanding us to not recognize that a verse is ambiguous and recognize that it could be referring to different things--instead, it is commanding us to recognize the ambiguities within the Quran and not restrict the interpretation of those verses to only one thing when they are ambiguous and could mean either thing. So this verse doesn't mean don't pursue them, it means don't commit yourself to one interpretation of an ambiguous verse--it is telling you to recognize that verses can be ambiguous--to understand that there could be other meanings and not restrict it to only one.

For me 133 is not muthashaabih.. Who will decide muthashaabih and manifest? That's an issue..

Exactly! Quran 37 doesn't tell you how to recognize mutashaabih vs manifest. You recognize it by reading a verse and recognizing that it could mean something else--that is is possible it is referring to something else. And since the verse does not specify which meaning is the case, then the verse is ambiguous as to what it is saying.

Okay.. Let's turn to 1303... Why you take feeha as 'inside it' rather than in it...
What I say is each zhamarath in it is genders.. For example apple, in apple genders/zawjain (male and female) not male or female.. So every zhamarath in its own possesses the gender of male and female..

Yes, this is a good example of how this verse is "mutashaabih". You said "feeha" can be taken as "in it" and "inside it". Both are possible understandings. You just chose "in it" and ignored that it could mean "inside it". What you did was exactly what Quran 37 warned us about--you decided to restrict its meaning to only one interpretation and ignore the other. I am not saying this verse definitively says "inside it" rather than "in it"--I'm saying it could be either!

I say that this verse is a miracle because Allah made it ambiguous to both satisfy 7th century dualistic dispositions, yet the verse was worded in such a weird way that also allows for such an interpretation to support modern dispositions! Only Allah would know exactly when to be ambiguous and yet even within the ambiguity, the other valid interpretation of the verse allows the verse to be perfectly agreeable with science (double fertilization). This verse was so perfectly written; it was so carefully written and it is a sign/evidence that it is from Allah. The only thing we can say to this is Subhanallah!

If the verse simply said "and the fruits are made in pairs, male and female". It would not be agreeable with science and it would be a scientific error. Yet Allah knew this and was able to word it in such a brilliant and careful way. How did Muhammad know to do this and word it this way? He didn't! It was Allah--such an amazing sign from Allah.

Note the below verse for our concerns ..
1611 "He causes to grow for you thereby the crops, olives, palm trees, grapevines, and from all the fruits (min kullu zhamarath) . Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought.

Already some of the examples furnished in the verse and further says min kullu zhamarath.. Would you take it 'from some of'..

Yes, I think it is possible that this verse you mentioned still means "some of/from all the fruits" and not just "all the fruits". If Allah wanted to say "all the fruits", he could've said "kullu zhamarath", but he put the word "min" in there to make it ambiguous as to whether he is saying "some of/from all the fruits" or "all the fruits". This allows for either understanding.

The universe is massive and there are many Earth like planets. Indeed there may be different kinds of fruit growing on those other planets. The Quran says there are many Earths too (See verse 6512). Those other Earths can have different fruits not found in our Earth.

Additionally, the Quran says in Jannah (heaven/paradise) there are fruits. That doesn't mean the fruits in Jannah are exactly the same as the ones on Earth, or that Earth has all the fruits that Jannah has. That is inconclusive.

In both of them are of every fruit, two pairs.

This verse's context is talking about heaven/paradise, not on Earth. And notice how this verse says the fruits in paradise are gendered. But when Allah was discussing the fruits on Earth, he was careful not to say this and instead said "inside them are 2 pairs". Again, I ask how did Muhammad know to conveniently say this? He didn't! It was Allah!

By the way zhamarath for me not mere fruits.. But all edible plants and produce of all plants (fruits, veg, nuts etc etc except animals and animal products ). Does every fruit has a seed? Just asking.. How do I know, while I don't have any knowledge of every fruit that exist on this earth?

No, some fruits are seedless.

Do you notice the difference in 1437 where Ibrahim ask to provide from the zamarth ... He did really say some of the zamarath not all.. Clearly omitted kullu.. What if the verse included kullu.. Does it still mean some of the zamarath?

I already mentioned in my previous post that

"Zamarath" is different from "Kullu Zamarath" which is different from "min Kullu Zamarath".

When you just say "Zamarath", you are not asking for a lot. It carries a connotation of modest amount.

When you say "Kullu Zamarath", you are asking for ALL of them.

When you say "min Kullu Zamarath", you are asking for a lot. It carries a connotation of plentiful amounts. But it does not necessarily mean "every single Zamarath"--it can also mean "some from ". It allows for that ambiguity while carrying that connotation of greatness. This is an example of how Allah can appeal to 7th century dispositions without contradicting ours.

Brother...

It's hard to get kullu means part... Kullu can only mean all or each.. When added min kullu it can only mean from all or from each...

No, I think you are restricting the verse to one interpretation, while ignoring the others.

The verse did not say "kullu zamara" (all fruits), which Allah could've said simply, but he chose to be very specific and Allah added "min" to that verse to say "min kullu zamara".

That means "of " or "some of ". The word "min" can mean 'of', 'from', 'some of', 'some from'.

So when you say, some from the set of all the fruits, you are saying something that carries a connotation of high magnitude while at the same time not necessarily saying "every single one".

Imagine the set of and I tell you "pick some of the numbers from all the set" or "pick numbers from the whole set"--that doesn't necessarily mean pick every single number. Likewise "min kullu zamara" does not mean "every single fruit", it means "of every fruit" or "some of every fruit" or "some of all the fruits".

In English, I can say "of all the fruits, some of them are sweet" or "of all the fruits, are sweet ones". The same in Arabic. Allah used the word "min kullu" and not just "kullu".

I went through min kullu verses it clearly indicate within the context of all or each...

First, I think you took the wrong approach because you are thinking we need verses from the Quran to reduce the ambiguity. Sometimes, the Quran may not explain some of its ambiguities...and we are left with those ambiguities. And we already know that "min kullu" can mean those 2 different things. If they can mean those things, then they can mean those things ) That alone is sufficient.

Even the couple of example you furnished cabnot be taken as part of.. Context of the verse or intention and subject is key...
If I say I gave from all I have to you...it does mean all.. Not leaving anything apart but what is the subject... What did I give.. Money... Money is what I gave all not any other thing...

Sure, that Dhul Qarnayn verse is just one I picked randomly. I'm sure I can search for many, but why do such a thing after what I just explained above? Also why did you forget about Quran 3927? This tells us specifically that "min Kullu" cannot always mean "every single one", but rather means "from the set of all ones". Again, Allah could have just said "we have given you "kullu" examples", but he didn't, he said "min kullu" indicating he only gave us examples from .

But even then, the assumption that we need a Quranic verse to remove the ambiguity is non-sequitur. If something can be understood as X, Y or Z, then it can be understood as X, Y, or Z, even if the Quran did not specify which! Don't fall for this trap.

Even 307 is talking Bout a particular word.. But it talks about verses (aya) so what you connect is not so adhering... Here only a word or two.. That also clear Arabic words kullu and min..

No, it's far more complicated than that! There could be ambiguities within large verses. Some verses are super large and they have phrases in them that are ambiguous.

If I say "there are medical conditions which present with mild pain and others with severe pain", I am not excluding the fact there are medical conditions with moderate pain nor am I excluding medical conditions with alternating bouts of mild and severe pain. Such an exclusion is not stated in that statement--its only the presumption of the reader that leads them to that conclusion. Likewise, if I tell you there are sentences in this article with big words and others with small words--that doesn't exclude sentences with both big words and small words. Likewise, if a professor tells you that in your essay there are sentences that are well written and others, poorly written--it doesn't mean there aren't sentences with both well written and poorly written components. Again, such an exclusion is only perceived through the assumption of the reader. So again, this verse (37) does not exclude the existence of verses which have both ambiguous and unambiguous elements within it.

From http//www.answeringislamicskeptics.com/approach-to-quran-understanding.html

In my understanding 133 could mean that God created all zamara.. Then ja'ala made all of them genders Zawjain (genders male female).. I mean each zamara is both male and female.. Out of it two..

That's not what the verse said. Word for word here is what it said

وَمِنْ كُلِّ الثَّمَرَاتِ جَعَلَ فِيهَا زَوْجَيْنِ اثْنَيْنِ
"From All The Fruits, He Made inside it two mates"

So inside the fruits are two mates. The fruits themselves are not two mates, but inside them are two mates. That is literally what this verse is saying. And we find out that indeed there are double matings inside the fruits (and these are in their seeds!).

And note, because "min" also means "some of", that verse above can be rendered word-for-word "some of all the fruits, he made inside it two mates".

I don't how logical with science but that's what I get from the verse.. Science can change but verse won't..

If a verse is worded in such a very specific weird way that happens to true to the science--that is VERY significant. The verse above is worded very carefully, and this carefulness and specificity is a sign for us.

Why didn't Allah say "fruits are created in pairs, male and female"? That would be a scientific error--there is no such thing as a male or female strawberry. But Allah avoided saying that and instead said "INSIDE" them, there is a double pairing. This specificity and carefulness of the Quran is very telling as to who the author of the Quran is.

I do understand that science is changing, but this is not just science, it is an observation. With respect to double fertilization, that is not something like cosmology or social science where there is a lot of guessing, modeling, experimenting and rudimentary analysis, this is not an experiment, it is an observation--you can literally see it under a microscope! You can literally observe it. It's not really science, it's just observation at this point. It's kind of like observing the heart pumping blood, sure it is a science, but it's really more of an observation.

So in the case of Zamarath quantity is two but when it comes to animal qty is 4..
That's my take..

That is an inconsistent translation. It seems that you've just chosen to use the same exact phrase in different ways without justification.

I also wanted to add

Why didn't Allah say "fruits are created in pairs, male and female"? That would be a scientific error--there is no such thing as a male or female strawberry. But Allah avoided saying that and instead said "INSIDE" them, there is a double pairing. This specificity and carefulness of the Quran is very telling as to who the author of the Quran is.

salam mclinkin94

i agree with you that there could be a possibility that the people of noah pbuh were the only people that existed at that time, when mankind was one community

i think the people of noah pbuh were what we call neanderthals (as per below verse)

surah 7 verse 69 (i understand it is hud pbuh talking to the people he was sent to in the verse)

"are you surprised that a reminder has come to you from your Lord through a man from among you to warn you? ans remember that He made you successors after the people of noah, and He increased you in CREATION vastly. so remember the grace of God, that you may succeed."

scientist also say that some neanderthal genes are in all humans (here is an article https//www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/africa/africa-neanderthal-dna-scn/index.html ) and i think they say it is because humans mated with neanderthals (as they have no other explanation s )

i think if we all have some of such genes it is rather because all humans are descendants of the people of noah pbuh a.k.a. neanderthals

i also think that the first ship ever built was the ship of noah pbuh that The Lord created for noah pbuh and subsequently taught humans how to build ships

so my opinion, big possibility that people of noah pbuh were the only community of humans and that the flood was global

i might be wrong so please again verify for yourself

peace

Yes, I agree with the possibilities you mention. I also want to add it is also possible the people of Noah were the only community of humans and that the flood was local. I'm not saying happened as a local flood, but that it is possible.

Like you said in "introduce yourself" section, "Don't leave any thoughts that support Islam unsaid!"

I wish you stay in this forum actively In sha Allah.. I sense your knowledge and guidance within book and most of all, the way of clarification to a question by not deviating from the point of question..

Thank you!

By the way my undying Zawjain is gender (both male and female only)
5345 "And that He creates the genders (Zawjain) - the male and female"

Zawj is just kind or pair or any gender regardless

Izthnain is just two numbers and nothing else regardless of gender..

In my case.. Ja'ala(made) and khalaqa (creates) should be noted carefully to understand certain relevant verses..

I don't think it is necessary. Zawjain can be the dual form of Zawj and it can be any pair. But, if what you say is true, then it strengthens the case of the miracle I mentioned.

Zawjain is still dual form, so it would be dual form of the sexes (as in, both sexes). So now the Quranic verse 133 is saying "two sexes, two"--which is referring to the 2 sexual pairings that happen in double fertilization. If what you say is necessarily true, then that's even better!

In the case of 'min kullu' to be called 'part of' as well, you need to give a big support from Quran whether it has meant anywhere and if so reason it why taken as 'part of' leaving 'all of'

'min kullu' is technically translated as 'from/of/part-of all'. As such, when understanding that technical morphology, we recognize that it could mean 'part of the whole of' or 'a piece from every'. It can mean one or the other--and what it means can vary between different verses as they can use that same phrase to mean different things.

But then, why use "from ALL" and not just "from them". Because it carries a greater rhetorical effect and signifies massive multitudes. "from ALL" has a greater rhetorical effect and better signifies the magnitude than "from them", yet at the same time, it does not necessarily mean "a part from every single thing", but it can also mean "a part of/from " (just I described with the number set example in my previous post).

I agree that it would be great to have direct support from the Quran, but I don't think it is necessary. If a phrase could mean something else, then it could mean something else--even if nothing else in the Quran helps us identify which is the case.

The Quran's ambiguity is a strength of the Quran, not a weakness. It allows for flexibility in translation and by using this Allah can support 7th century dispositions while still being vague enough not to contradict ours.

That being said, I still want to give examples of verses where "min kullu" does not always mean 'a part from every single thing' and rather it can mean 'a part from ' (just as I described in the number set example in my previous post). These verses are not required to understand that "min kullu" can mean different things, but since you asked

Indeed, we established him on the Earth and gave him "min kulli" thing a means.

This verse doesn't mean that Dhul Qarnayn was omnipotent or that Allah allowed him to do absolutely anything. Could Dhul Qarnayn become prophet Muhammad? Could Dhul Qarnayn ask Allah to forgive mushrikeen of Shirk (something Allah will never do)? Did Allah give Dhul Qarnayn the power to disobey him without any punishment at all? Rather it means Allah gave him capabilities from a big part of .

And We have certainly presented for the people in this Qur'an from every ("min kulli&quot example - that they might remember.

Does this verse mean that the Qur'an has all the examples Allah can provide? Or does it mean that Allah gave us many examples (pieces) of/from ? There are many examples within Allah's infinite knowledge and wisdom that he could've given us, yet the examples in the Quran are many, but finite. Allah demands that we ponder/reflect over the Quran--so we must arrive at this conclusion.

Either way, even if the Quran provided us with no help regarding this, it doesn't change the fact that "min kulli" could mean either "a part from every thing" or "a part from ".

salam mclinkin94

i understand from the Quran that the flood was global

surah 71 verse 26

“and noah said my Lord, do not leave on the earth from among the rejecters an inhabitant."

so from my understanding the flood was global (i may be wrong so please verify for yourself)

peace

Salam, tutti_frutti

The issue is the translation.

"ard" which they translated as "Earth" can also mean "Land". We know that Noah existed long before Abraham and long before the Jews. He may have existed shortly after Adam before humans really dispersed around the Earth.

I'm not saying the Quran definitively said the flood was local--I'm saying the Quran did not specify whether it was local or global and thus either could be the case.

Peace..

2327 "So We inspired to him, "Construct the ship under Our observation, and Our inspiration, and when Our command comes and the oven overflows, put into the ship from each two mates and your family, except those for whom the decree has proceeded. And do not address Me concerning those who have wronged; indeed, they are to be drowned..

Would you pls explain the verse 2327 connecting to your above explanation
Thank you..

Yes, I will address this in two parts. First, this reflects the complexity and multiple meanings of the Arabic language and the Quran.

'Zawj' can mean "pairs" or "kinds" or "sorts". It is not clear which one is the case--it can mean either thing depending on the context of the Quran, and sometimes the context of the Quran doesn't give us the answer and remains ambiguous.

'Min kol' can mean "a part of every/each" or "a part from/of the set of all" (ie. a part from ). In other words, it can mean a 'portion of each thing', or it can mean a 'portion of/from the set of all things' (ie. a portion of/from ) For example, imagine the number set --we will call this set "Set A". If I say "pick numbers from the whole Set A"--it is ambiguous. Does it mean pick some numbers from Set A, or pick all the numbers of Set A? The way I worded it allows for both translations and is thus ambiguous. This too is ambiguous and can mean either depending on the context of the Quran and sometimes the context does not reveal which is the case. The Quran tells us that it is sometimes deliberately ambiguous in 37.

Ambiguity is a strength of the Quran, not a weakness--it allows support of 7th century dispositions while not contradicting ours. Maybe this is one of the reasons why Allah chose it to be revealed in Arabic, which is a rich language containing words with multiple meanings.

Now, the second part

With the above said, I want to mention a nuance in those two verses (133 and 2327)--specifically, Allah's word choice.

If you notice in both verses it says zawjayni ith'nayni

In Arabic, there are three types of nouns

• Singular
• Dual
• Plural

(In English, there is only singular and plural)

Zawjani is a dual noun. Ith'nayni is also a dual noun.

https//imgur.com/a/GWLDCyN

So even if "Zawjani" is translated as "kinds" rather than "pairs", it is in dual form--so it means "2 kinds" which means the same thing as a "pair". Thus the verses that say "zawjayni ith'nayni" would be saying "two kinds two". It is using the number 2 twice. 2 x 2.

Some English translators have picked up on this, for example In translating 133, Yusof Ali writes "and fruit of every kind He made in pairs, two and two". Other English translators have also written "two pairs"--see Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, T.B.Irving, Abdul Hye, Abdul Majid Daryabadi, Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali, Syed Vickar Ahamed, Farook Malik, Dr. Kamal Omar, Maududi, Ali Bakhtiari Nejad, A.L. Bilal Muhammad, Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli, Mir Aneesuddin etc.

Allah could've just simply said "and fruits he made Zawjani" which would say "fruits made in pairs"--but Allah didn't say that. He added the redundant word "ith'nayni". It is clear from the science what Allah is referring to--double marriages, double mating, double fertilization IN fruit. Notice how the verse says "Fiha" which means In/inside. It is saying INSIDE the fruit there are double pairings of mates. Male and female gametes/cells are inside the fruit. It is not a contradiction at all--in fact, given the deliberate seemingly unnecessary redundancy of using "Ith'nayni" in 133, Allah is pointing to that redundancy INSIDE fruits. Literally double spouses; double fertilization.

Part of the miracle is that Allah used the word "inside" when referencing the double pairings in fruit. "inside" ("fiha" in Arabic) also seems to be an unnecessary thing to say if Allah was just saying 'fruits, he made them pairs'--rather, Allah instead put the word "inside", which directs our attention to something happening inside fruits, rather than fruits having genders. The specificity of Allah's use of language in this verse is very telling.

As a side note, notice how the Quran does not rule out the existence of a multiplicity of double fertilization in fruits (eg. Fruits can have multiple seeds--each seed is doubly fertilized)--it just said inside fruits, there are double matings. It didn't say how many double matings are occurring, as thus, it does not explicitly rule them out. It's kind of like saying "In plants, there is X"<---When I say this, I am not ruling out that plants also have Y--I just said they have X in them that is a true statement.

Now, regarding 2327, I think we should consider Allah's word choice--he is saying "2 pairs"--as in two sets of a mating pair (as in 4 animals). Likewise, If I tell you to give me 2 pairs of socks, I am asking for 4 socks.

Interestingly, in the bible, it says "seven pairs" rather than "two pairs" in Genesis 73. If you look at a mechanical word for word translation https//www.mechanical-translation.org/mtt/G7.html it says

"From all of the clean beasts you will take for you seven seven males and females"--so 7 pairs of males and females.

https//www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8170/jewish/Chapter-7.htm The Jews translate it as "Of all the clean animals you shall take for yourself seven pairs, a male and its mate".

So this could be a corruption in the bible. But note that the common understanding that they only took ONE male and female only of each animal is not correct in either the Bible nor the Quran.

As a side note, the Quran does not conclusively lay out whether the flood was a local or global event, nor does it say if they took animals from all the Earth or just from all the animals that they use for subsistence (like the grazing animals--Quran just said take 2 pairs each and thus could be referring to what was around or proximal to Noah's settlement--it didn't say take 2 pairs of each living being on the planet) and thus this ambiguity allows for either understanding.

Per my last post, the Quran says that Some fruits, Allah put in them double marriages (Zawj= pair, marriage). Hmm...double marriages inside fruits, double mating inside fruits--fruits have double mating within them...double fertilization within them...

Welcome to the forum, thank you for your insights.

Thank you, I hope it will be helpful.

The word فيها , which was used in Quran 133 means "in"

In other words, we see a "double marriage", "double mating", "double pairing"--double fertilization IN fruits!

Here is a good resource talking about how double fertilization evolved specifically in "FLOWERING PLANTS" (Angiosperms)--fruit IS an organ of flowering plants--fruit is produced by flowering plants.

https//bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/32%3A_Plant_Reproductive_Development_and_Structure/32.2%3A_Pollination_and_Fertilization/32.2D%3A_Double_Fertilization_in_Plants

I am really sorry, I have been reading this post and I got so sad that people are making a problem about 133. I just have to discuss this here. Please forgive me for bringing back an old topic, but I NEED to address it because this thread had no closure!!

Same problem. 133 says "two pairs" meaning a total of 4. Are fruits always produced in fours?

Back to square one; this seems to be a serious contradiction in the quran.

Actually, it is not a contradiction, and in fact, it is a major miracle--if you understand the science behind plant development.

Let's start with

Exalted is He who created (in) pairs all things.

This is an example of the inferiority of the English translation compared to the original Arabic. This verse does not say "in" pairs all things. Rather, if you look at a word for word translation, it says "the pairs", not "in pairs". That is, Allah created "all the pairs" of the Earth. i.e He created all the existing pairs, so what.

kol=all

In arabic you can say "kol alazwaj or "alazwaj kollaha" interchangeably.

And of all things We created two pairs...

In Arabic, (مِنْْ) “min“ could mean "some of"

Definitions from, some, some of .

Some of, of. Indicating a segment of; a portion of. In other words, "Some of all things we created pairs" in essence "a part of all things are made into pairs".

and from all of the fruits He made therein two mates

Same thing as above. A part of all the fruits have in them pairs. In other words of all the fruits, there are pairs within them (fi-ha). This could be referring to some of the fruits with seeds which are diploid (have two sets/pairs of chromosomes, from the male and female components of the plant)

Believe it or not, this verse is a significant MIRACLE. It is something, the prophet Muhammad could not have known! Let me explain. This verse uses the terminology "zawjayni ith'nayni"--which is weird terminology. Zawjayni means "two"/"pair" and Ith'nayin also means "two". That means 4 in total! (2 pairs)! What???! That doesn't make any sense?!! Actually it does

Double fertilization "The launch of seed development in flowering plants (angiosperms) is initiated by the process of double fertilization two male gametes (sperm cells) fuse with two female gametes (egg and central cell) to form the precursor cells of the two major seed components, the embryo and endosperm, respectively." From https//doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00452

This is a peer reviewed scientific article, so cut the BS from those atheist/anti-Muslim websites that claim this Quranic verse is a contradiction because plants only have 1 sperm and 1 egg and that no plants have 2 pairs of sperm and eggs. WRONG THEY ARE!! Double fertilization happens in some fruits (not single fertilization, DOUBLE fertilization). I cannot believe the stupidity and ignorance of anti-muslim apologists and the BS they spew on their websites and forums!

Now, did 7th century Arabs have a concept of double fertilization? How did Muhammad (pbuh) know??

It seems to be that Allah is appealing to 7th century Arabs' astonishment with duality/dualism of the world and is saying "you see that thing that you are astonished by?--Allah created it". Allah said this in such a way to appeal to 7th century Arabs' dispositions while not making it a contradiction for future generations. Allah may have wanted to make it sound like to the 7th century Arabs that he was talking about duality in the world (Quran must support 7th century belief by relating to their dispositions) AND the objective nature of reality that will be discovered through science). If Allah said "and everything that exists in the heaven and the Earth are made in pairs", that would be a clear scientific error, but notice how the Quran was careful to avoid this. It is only human interpretation that messes things up; It is only the English translators that mess things up.

Salamu Alaikum. This site is not new to me at all--I've looked at the search function many times in the past and I must say that your posts here have ultimately led to my conversion to Islam.

Thank you very much and please do not silence your voice or your thoughts online--it helps many. Don't leave any thoughts that support Islam unsaid!