Is the word “alaqah” mentioned in the poetry of Zuhair bin Abi Salma? - Does it contradict the miracle?

 Some miracle-mongers claim that the use of the word "alaqah" in the Qur'an - in the fetal stages - is a scientific precedent!

The response is as follows:
- Since the beginning of humanity, abortion has occurred, at different stages of pregnancy. People knew the fetal stages by observation!
- The word actually appeared before the revelation of the Qur'an! The pre-Islamic poet Zuhair ibn Abi Salma said about his she-camel, and about his haste with her to go to Harim ibn Sinan:
Here I have made her work, and her companions followed her... Two months aborting from her wombs the clot

In the name of Allah,
my response will be in four points:

1- Your statement: “The miraculous ones”
2- Your claim: “Humans know the stages of the fetus by observation!”
3- Your claim: “The word ‘alaqah’ actually occurred before the revelation of the Quran!”
4- Your source and your leaps.

1- Your statement: “The miraculous ones”
As for the miraculous ones, we do not know anyone who described himself by this name, but we know for certain that the Book of Allah is miraculous for you and for them, whether you like it or not. This is not to diminish you, but rather it is a source of pride for every Muslim. Every word in the Book of Allah, in its place and context, is miraculous. There is no problem in criticizing claims of miracles that are not valid or appear to be arbitrary. Rather, the miracle is certainly established, whether in its wording and organization, or in its news and stories, or in its predictions of the unseen. It certainly includes the scientific miracle that is certain with correct observation, and with what is correct and proven with adherence to the principles of interpretation.

2- Your claim that: “Humans know the stages of the fetus by observation!”
This is one of your wonders, and whoever speaks about something other than his art comes up with wonders. Since this is my specialty, my field and my track, I say to you, my dear, if the entire fetus in the first two months does not exceed a few millimeters , then how do they know its stage, my dear? Indeed, all the people who you claim see abortion see nothing but lumps of blood and flesh. You may think, as any ordinary observer might think, that these pieces of flesh that may come out with the abortion are the fetus, but in reality they are nothing but the lining of the uterus . It is impossible for anyone to see a fetus in this abortion except with great difficulty, as he may find a piece the size of your fingernail, or less, a crunchy "cartilaginous" piece similar to what we call "Qarqeesh", barely 1 cm long if he is lucky! So how do they know that it is a clot? Or a chewed lump? Or something else? Show us, dear, how do they know the stages of the fetus from it?!

Most people have never seen a miscarriage, and do not know what an aborted fetus looks like. However, what most people imagine, and what their minds picture to them, is that the aborted fetus is a piece of flesh, and this is a completely wrong perception...!!! Because the fetus in the first weeks does not exceed the size of a small berry ... As for the blood and tissues that come down with it, it is the wall of the female uterus , and it is the same as what comes down during the menstrual cycle, although it is larger in size during a miscarriage.

So the doctor is well aware that a child who does not exceed the size of a berry cannot be a fleshy mass in the first weeks. The doctor knows very well that the blood and membranes that surround the fetus and resemble fleshy masses are the lining of the uterus ... the lining that falls every month, causing the menstrual cycle, or the doctor removes it for a medical reason. What stages ,

my dear?! If the whole world sees abortion and claims that the fetus is flesh before the bones, and this is seen with the naked eye when every person sees the lining of the uterus with the abortion, then the one who has no knowledge thinks that the flesh was formed first, for example , and then the bones appeared on it, and this was the way of the whole world before Islam, even in the Holy Book in the Book of Job they claimed it like this,How did they claim this claim? From their observations of abortion, just like your observations, with the same argument , but the Quran is the one that contradicted them and Allah the Almighty said: " Then We covered the bones with flesh " so Allah made it clear that there were bones and then they were covered with flesh, there is no arbitrariness in this, just reading the verse, and the interpreters agree on it, and the Quran here talks about a stage of the fetus that is clearer than the stage of the clot! And this time the Holy Quran contradicts all that is seen with the naked eye. And

the Quran alone has remained on this statement for 1400 years without changing, while embryologists, with their great status and all their science, said the same as the nations said before and after the Quran, and science and scientists changed their statements in the last thirty years only ! And the observations of the naked eye did not benefit them - my dear - nor did they benefit you or the nations, my dear. So if the Quran here talks about a stage of the fetus that is clearer than the stage of the clot! Which you claimed was apparent to the eye, and this time the Holy Quran contradicts everything seen with the naked eye, in what is clearer, so what about what is more subtle and hidden?!

Then who told you that the Arabs do not know the word "alaqah"? Rather, they know it for certain and by it they called the thick or solid blood before it dries the "alaqah". If it is true that this verse is attributed to Zuhair - and it is certainly not proven as will come - then it is no wonder that every blood that comes out of a woman in her miscarriage is called a "alaqah", especially since the blood of the miscarriage is thick and clumped and has not dried. The most they say is to describe her blood coming out of her, not her fetus inside her. They do not describe the stages of the fetus with it, my dear.

The verse in the Book of Allah speaks about the alaqah inside the womb, not outside it , a sperm, then the sperm became a alaqah. So it seems that you have a problem with the place, or with understanding the verse, as the place where the Arabs saw the blood is outside the womb, and what you spoke about is what came out of the womb, while the place where Allah spoke about the stage of the fetus while it is stuck in the womb. This is not seen by Arabs, nor by nations, nor by the woman who has had an abortion, nor by anyone around her, before the ultrasound , my dear. Science sees it and confirms it, confirming the Book of Allah.

The fetus in week (2-4): In the second to fourth week, the fetus is the size of a coffee or opium seed. So, by Allah, where are these stages that they will see in the first month? The size of one seed, not the entire spoon.

As for the size of the fetus after a month and a half of the week (5-6): it ranges between the size of an apple seed and the size of a berry. So what stage can you perceive from the apple seed, my dear, and how do you see it in the first place in a woman’s miscarriage?!

As for the size of the fetus after two months - week (7-8) : it ranges between the size of a mulberry and the size of a grape..!! At this stage, the bones have already appeared, meaning that the clot stage ended a long time ago! So what stage can you perceive from a worm the size of a grape, my dear, and how do you see it in a woman’s miscarriage?!

I wish you would speak with knowledge as long as you have been at the forefront of speaking about the Book of Allah. Criticize whoever you want and whatever you want, but do not throw doubts and false allegations in a definitive and certain manner, and delude the reader into thinking that you know what you are talking about!


3- Your claim that: "The word 'alaqah' actually occurred before the revelation of the Qur'an!"

This absurd, miserable claim was based on verses attributed to Zuhair bin Abi Salma, and we expected from you, my dear Tayeb, for example with your saying " actually occurred before the revelation of the Qur'an ", that you were certain and researched, and would not mislead the reader, for example, with false information. A strange language that makes us feel as if Zuhair was resurrected from his grave to confirm the authenticity of what was attributed to him before Islam!

I also confirm that I have no problem with the miracle, rather it is proven in the verse with certainty, whether Zuhair or someone other than Zuhair said this. It is certainly a miracle, whether we know it or not, for every word in the Book of Allah is a miracle in its place and context. But this is another topic that is not related to my discussion here.

I would like to ask you - after questioning you about this miracle and examining the verse - my question: Did you search for any support for this speech and this poetry before it became unclear to you? Or before it aroused your anger?

How do you prove its attribution to Zuhair ibn Abi Salma, when much of the poetry was attributed to Zuhair after Islam?? And Al-Asma'i, who is the most knowledgeable person about his poetry , rejected much of what was attributed to him, and he collected his collection and everything that was authentically attributed to him. There are two narrations about Zuhair:

1. The most reliable or most truthful and authentic narration is that of Al-Asma'i Al-Basri, which is the one narrated with the explanation by Abu Al-Hajjaj Yusuf bin Sulayman, known as Al-A'lam Al-Shantamari, the Andalusian grammarian imam in the fifth century AH, with a chain of transmission that ends with Al-Asma'i, and at the end of it he said, "The poetry of Zuhair is complete from what was narrated by Al-Asma'i, Abu Amr, and Al-Mufaddal." It is distinguished by its precision, firmness, and strictness in narration, and it contains 18 poems and fragments, and it is the basis for what is attributed to Zuhair. It was printed in the Brill Press under the supervision of Omar Al-Suwaidi in the city of Leiden in the year 1206 AH, 1889 AD.
2. The second narration is the narration of Tha'lab al-Kufiya, which is less acceptable among scholars than the narration of al-Asma'i, and a number of its verses are considered fabricated. The Egyptian National Library issued the Diwan of Zuhair with the commentary of Tha'lab (d. 291 AH) under the title "Explanation of the Diwan of Zuhair bin Abi Salma", relying on four handwritten copies, although they inserted into its text many passages, verses and narrations that should have been included in the footnotes because they were from a copy that had no connection to Tha'lab's commentary. There is a third narration that is added to Tha'lab's narration, which is the narration of Sa'da'.

However, there is no trace of these verses in any of the narrations, whether the narration of Al-Asma'i, Tha'lab or Sa'da'.

The closest verses to them are what he said in his collection of poems, the narration of Al-Asma'i mentioned above, which is what was authentically reported from him in the rhyme of Qaf ( Basit meter), and in it:

Indeed, the mixture has made the separation more serious, so they parted And the heart was hung from the names of what was attached And I parted
from you with a pledge that cannot be released on the day of farewell, so the pledge became closed
And the daughter of Al-Bakri broke her promise to you, so the rope from her became weak in creation

And similar to it in Tha'lab's narration:
Indeed, the mixture has made the separation more serious, so they parted And the heart was hung from the names of what was attached
And I parted from you with a pledge that cannot be released on the day of farewell, so the pledge became closed
And the daughter of Al-Bakri broke her promise to you, so the rope from her became weak

in creation And Sa'da' added 16 verses in the rhyme of Qaf, in which there is no such thing.

So where did these verses come from? There is no mention of them except in the book Al-Iqd Al-Farid by Ibn Abd Rabbih, from which Al-Alusi quoted you, whom you mentioned in the Arab Atheists Forum that you quoted from . This is the oldest mention of these verses in the fourth century AH, so how did you confirm that it was attributed to Zuhair? And how can it be judged by the Book of Allah? And all the books of literature and poetry of the Arabs and their collections lack these verses? Next time, my dear, I advise you to take your time, and to be honest and serious in your research, with integrity, before you launch your missiles in any scientific forum. This is a right for every reader, and everyone who claims is obligated to do so, and the claimant must provide evidence. Your topic is as if it did not exist until you can prove the attribution of these verses that appeared three or four centuries after the Holy Quran. The leech remains a miracle until you bring us certainty that it was proven before Islam. 4- Your source and your leaps. Your source is Al-Alusi, as you claimed, and Al-Alusi, may God have mercy on him, died in 1854 AD, meaning a hadith. Is this the source that you rely on? I have brought the source closer to you and shown you that Al-Alusi took it from Al-Iqd Al-Farid in the fourth century AH. It would have been more appropriate for this to be from you, and your role, considering the seriousness of your research, especially since this topic in particular is your favorite song and anthem and the first in criticizing the “miraculous” as you call them on your website, or in the atheism forum. And what Ibn Abd Rabbih mentioned of these verses and others without a chain of transmission, is disconnected, so they are fabrications after Islam on Zuhair, and until you are able to attribute them to those who narrated from Zuhair. As for your leaps of ecstasy and victory in the Arab Atheists Forum , I do not know what your thinking is when you do such an act! I am not criticizing or doubting you, but your talk may be due to jealousy for the Book of God, but your disparagement of those who responded to you in the forum or elsewhere there, reveals your state and your agitation. Even if someone accuses you, this is no justification for you to go there and mention it, and this is a response to you and to the atheists who applauded you there. Your presence there does not exonerate you in my eyes or in the eyes of those who accuse you, and a Muslim has nothing but appearances. Whatever the case, the most important thing is that your criticism be more honest, credible and scientific, especially with regard to the Book of Allah. May Allah guide us and you and guide you to the truth, amen.