4.

Objection: Nabeel al-Khalidy aka LearnQuranicArabic (hereby LQA) claims that the ( "nutfah), as used in the Quran, means a spermatozoon and thus a miracle. word " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwQAytS5wg; Transcript: http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc LQA's claim is as follows; i) Anagrams of a word are synonymous or at the very least relational with each other and thus can provide the meaning of that word; ii) Some ( "nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to the properties of a anagrams of " ( "nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to spermatozoon; iii) Therefore, " ( "nutfah), as used in the Quran means a describe a spermatozoon. iv) Therefore, " spermatozoon v) Therefore, the Quran has miraculous scientific foreknowledge. Reply: One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its application and learn from that. But the difficulty is to remove the prejudice which stands in the way of doing so. ~ (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 340) 1 Contents I. Background to LQAs Argument II. Summary of LQAs Argument III. Initial Impression IV. Objections to LQA's Argument i) Logical Objections 1) The conclusions are non-sequitur 2) The Argument commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization 3) The Argument commits the fallacy of Undistributed Middle 4) The Argument is Self-Refuting; ii) Epistemological Objections 5) Hidden Unjustified Assumptions 6) LQAs Methodology is Arbitrary & Circular; 6.1) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy 6.2) The homunculus Counter-example 6.3) Reductio-ad-Absurdum iii) Empirical Objections ( "nutfah) signifying 'Seminal Fluid'; 7) The argument equally applies to " 8) The argument ignores relevant evidence. V. Conclusion While LQA's case is not a direct objection to any of the specific arguments provided in Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing (hereby EQMAN), it, at the very least, is meant to negate one of EQMAN's central points; which concluded ( "nutfah) in light of all the that the most reasonable understanding of the word " relevant evidence is that it signifies seminal fluid as per a 7th century understanding and not that of a sperm cell as per the modern understanding.

On a side note, an interesting development regarding this topic is that as of September 2013, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, the person EQMAN was directed against, has repudiated and withdrawn his paper on the topic. He has also referenced EQMAN in his recent article regarding his retraction. 2 Thus, it is anticlimactic that other apologists, such as LQA, who came to the scene to defend Hamzas currently rejected views, would also not follow suit. Nonetheless, the post will begin by providing the background details for the present argument; after which a detailed analysis of and objections to the argument will be presented. I. Background to LQA's Argument LQA has already been subject to two previous responses on this site. 3 4 He ( "nutfah), as used in the 7th century text of attempted to conclude that the term " Quran, signifies the modern understanding of sperm cells. However the two previous posts had demonstrated that LQAs conclusion does not follow from his premises and that he had failed to holistically address the presented counter-arguments and consequently ignored relevant evidences. Much in the same fashion, LQA can be seen here mischaracterizing a counterargument and then continuing with his new claims all the while ignoring relevant evidences to the contrary. The following post will take a holistic approach rather than a point-by-point rebuttal; wherein LQAs argument will be analyzed for its logical validity, hidden assumptions and empirical veridicality. II. Summary of LQAs Argument For LQAs video, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwQAytS5wg For a Transcript of LQAs video, see: http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc (NOTE: It is recommended that the Readers watch LQAs video or see its transcript before reading the following refutation.) LQA begins by displaying the argument of the critics (at timestamp 00:26)
0:00:26.5 So I am going to speak about the word NUTFAH and what actually a NUTFAH means. Now what critics of the Qur'an say is the following; they say "The Qur'an contains X". So X is a particular word; in this case NUTFATAN. In the 21st century, X is translated as Y. So what they says is, for example, NUTFATANistranslatedasaspermorspermcell.0:01:00.0

LQA has already begun on a mistaken note. The argument, which LQA characterized as being from the critics, was taken from a blogpost of the present author. 5 Contrary to what LQA stated, the argument is not from a critic of the Quran

but rather it was the characterization of a fallacious argument used by Muslim apologists. It is not entirely clear how LQA could have mistaken the two. Given that LQA is in the habit of hiding away links to the work of his critics, he has misled (perhaps intentionally) his audience with such a mischaracterization. Regardless of the mischaracterization, LQA proceeds with his argument which can be summarized in the following manner. ( "nutfah) meant spermatazoon, then Quran is a miracle. 1) If " ( "nutfah) means spermatazoon 2) " ( "nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to describe a 2.1) " spermatozoon. 2.1.1) Anagrams are synonymous or relational in meaning with each other. ( "nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to 2.1.2) Some anagrams of " a spermatozoon. Conclusion) Therefore, Quran is a miracle LQAs justification for premise 1 is the charge of scientific foreknowledge which, for the sake of the argument, is acceptable. LQAs justification for premise 2, found in 2.1.1, 2.1.2 & 2.1, is perhaps the most notorious part of his video. LQA then makes the leap, quite visibly, to his ultimate desire ( "nutfah) be sperm cells and thus the Quran a miracle. that the meaning of " III. Initial Impression The Science in the Quran lobby has been engaged in the same task for the previous four decades; namely trying to fit an elephant through a pinhole. At least as of recently, many Muslims are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that such a task is not feasible. 6 Hamza Tzortzis himself is an example when he states the following; Regrettably, the scientific miracles narrative has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists, including myself. However, less sophisticated Muslims still resort to the technique of pretending that the pinhole is large enough. Such apologists as Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya were once in favor of directly reinterpreting the verses to suit their wishful thinking. When this was not sufficient, those like Hamza tried to base his reinterpretations by unjustifiably deriving meanings from the cognates of Quranic words. Since the release of EQMAN, this method too has been shown to be insufficient. As a consequence, LQA arrives with the new method wherein

he pretends anagrams of a word, on top of the cognates, are synonymous/relational and are then used to derive contrived and suitable meanings. The need for such Muslim apologists to make the pinhole as large as possible could not be more apparent. IV. Objections to LQA's Argument This post will outline the various flaws that have resulted from LQA's lack of critical thinking and negligence of crucial evidence. The objections presented are; i) Logical Objections 1) The conclusions are non-sequitur 2) The Argument commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization 3) The Argument commits the fallacy of Undistributed Middle 4) The Argument is Self-Refuting; ii) Epistemological Objections 5) Hidden Unjustified Assumptions 6) LQAs Methodology is Arbitrary & Circular; 6.1) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy 6.2) The homunculus Counter-example 6.3) Reductio-ad-Absurdum iii) Empirical Objections ( "nutfah) signifying 'Seminal Fluid'; 7) The argument equally applies to " 8) The argument ignores relevant evidence. i) Logical Objections 1) The conclusions are non-sequitur. Consider LQAs primary argument again; 2.1.1) Anagrams are synonymous or relational in meaning with each other. ( "nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to the 2.1.2) Some anagrams of " properties of a spermatozoon. ( "nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to describe a spermatozoon. 2.1) " ( "nutfah) means sperm cell 2) " This set of statements form the crux of LQAs video yet he fails to justify his central conclusions. Firstly, no justification is given for (2.1.1) as to how anagrams of a word can provide meanings for each other. Secondly, no justification is given for (2.1) as ( "nutfah) becomes the best Arabic word to describe a spermatozoon merely to how " ( "nutfah). Lastly because he derived contrived meanings from some anagrams of " and most importantly, no justification is given for (2) as to how "( "nutfah), as used in the Quran, means a spermatozoon merely because LQA retrospectively concluded it is the best word to describe a sperm cell. Therefore, the 3 main conclusions in LQAs argument are entirely non-sequitur.

 ( "nutfah) is the best Arabic word in LQAs conclusion in (2.1) asserts that " the 7 century to signify the idea of a spermatozoon. The reasoning he provides is that he derived four contrived definitions that are attributable to a sperm cell from the ( "nutfah). The four specific definitions will be discussed later. anagrams of "
th

LQAs argument begs the question of what exactly the objective rules are for declaring a certain word as the best word to denote a concept; and for this LQA provides no explicit answer. Thus, one is left to presume that the best-word is those with anagrams onto which contrived meanings can be imposed upon. What is then the justification for this assertion? No answer is to be found in LQAs video and thereby one is left with nothing more than the arbitrary and subjective line of LQAs reasoning. Therefore, this conclusion is a non-sequitur. ( "nutfah), as The last of LQAs conclusion is in (2); where he implies that " used in the Quran, means, without any doubt, a sperm cell. This is concluded from the unjustified conclusion in (2.1), which itself is concluded from another unjustified assertion in (2.1.1). ( "nutfah) as sperm In other words, the meaning of a 7th century usage of " cell is not entailed even if it is the case that "( "nutfah) is the best word to describe a spermatozoon. Therefore, LQAs central conclusion exists as the product of a three-fold non-sequitur line of reasoning. 2) The Argument commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization Premise (2.1.1) states that anagrams of a word can provide meanings for each of the anagrams. LQA merely asserts this by providing a solitary example;
0:02:38.0Nowherewehavearoot,theAYNMEEMLAM.Andfromthisrootweget the concept of action. Now there is a phenomenon in Arabic as well as other semitic languages which is the base letters of a word; is that you use the samelettersbutyourearrangethem.Andwhatitdoesisgiverelatedmeaning. And sometimes even, information about another word that has the same letters. Now let's say for example somebody did something; he tried to build something for example but he had no knowledge. That would be a crime. Here in Australia if you were to build a house without having the proper knowledge, the proper background, this would be an offence; because it is endangering people's lives. So what do you need; there is something you need with action. And that is I'LM, knowledge. So let us, here, that A'mal and I'lm are related. You can't have one without the other; even when it comes to religious matters. We want to learn some rules, we might learn how to pray, but there is not point if one is not acting. And actually if you don't act it is a big sin. So there is a relationship between these two. Same letters, different order and they giverelatedmeanings.0:04:09.0

From this example, LQA tries to derive a universal rule that one can use anagrams to provide meanings or explanations of each other. Formally, the reasoning used by LQA commits the hasty generalization fallacy. It does not follow that since the anagrams of a

few words can be arbitrarily related to each other that such a linguistic nature of the proposed relationship is a universal rule. In fact, such a warning is even admitted by Muslim linguists who have expounded on this matter. Consider the statements below taken from one of the few English sites that discuss this linguistic word play; (see http://www.learnarabiconline.com/greateretymology.shtml) There is [a] type of etymology ... called Greater Etymology ( ) that recognizes the common meanings words with different base letters share ... This is by no means a mature science ... There are no rules, no systematic methodologies except those we impose ourselves, and no observations are to be taken as universally applicable regulations. Incidentally, no rules and no systematic methodologies is a perfect description of LQAs video. He has merely imposed his preconceived conclusion on to the anagrams in order to contrive the meaning of a spermatozoon. Thus it is comical to think that LQA is utilizing an admittedly immature idea with no rules, no system, no methodology in order to predict his preconceived interpretations. One can only wonder at the amount of desperation behind such an attempt. Regardless, given that this is not a universal rule, there is no need to press on the issue further. One can easily look at the examples given in the website above as well as LQAs video and come to the realization that the so-called relationship between the anagrams are extremely arbitrary and/or subjective. For example, in website above, 2 anagrams with meanings baking and eagle respectively are related by saying an eagle is hasty bird while a baked good hastens to break apart. Such are the degree of arbitrariness involved in this linguistic puzzle; an exercise far removed from reality. ( "nutfah) is compared with an anagram Similarly, in LQAs video, the word " having the meaning of death/obstruction. In order to relate the two, he states the following;
the root of NUTFAH has the root NOONTAFA. Now those three letters, if we were to rearrange them we get the following patterns. ... the TAFANOON. Words on this root mean, death and obstruction. That is very interesting because we know sperm have a hard time when they enter the female body. There are so many different obstructions in the way that cause problems for it and all the sperm cells will die; or one could enter into the egg. So either one survivesornonesurvivesSubhanallah.0:05:48.1

Think about the amount of arbitrariness involved. Death is related to sperm because it (like all organic matter) dies. Obstruction is related to sperm because it, like all living things, has some obstructions in its life cycle. This arbitrary and un-objective methodology of letter-play and guesswork is LQAs grand plan to miraculize the Quran. It cannot be stated with enough emphasis

that LQAs assertion (2.1.1) of anagrams providing meanings for each other is a blatant non-sequitur on top of a hasty generalization fallacy. On a side note, regarding this letter-play guesswork methodology, it may be of benefit to heed to the Wittgensteinian view of language. He is of the view that meaning in language is not prior to its usage but rather the meaning should be derived from the way the words are used. While the topic of phonosemantics (the relation between sound and meaning) is an important question in linguistics and the origin of language, it is also important to keep in mind the view that language is a product of human usage and thus it is not entirely sensible to abstract language away into a world of formulas and theories; especially when this is done by ignoring the way in which the language is regularly used. LQA is guilty of ( "nutfah) was such a pseudo-intellectual line of reasoning when he ignores how " used in antiquity in favor or his anagram-guessing-game. To quote Wittgenstein again, One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its application and learn from that. 3) The Argument commits the fallacy of Undistributed Middle The fallacy of undistributed middle is one of the most common examples of false reasoning present in many of the Science in the Quran claims. 7 8 The same is repeated by LQA when he makes the following argument; ( "nutfah) 1) The Quran mentions " ( "nutfah) 2) Spermatazoon can be denoted using " Therefore, The Quran mentions spermatozoon. Such an argument commits the fallacy of undistributed middle. LQA would have ( "nutfah) denotes a spermatozoon. to establish that any and every usage of " " However, this is patently false as it is even documented in Lisan al-Arab that " th (nutfah) was meant to signify seminal fluid and thus consistent with a 7 century understanding of human reproduction. ( "nutfah) as spermatozoon does not in Therefore, LQAs attempt to signify " and of itself entail that the Quranic usage has the same meaning; especially given the evidence from Lisan al-Arab. 4) The argument is self-refuting The following objection is a result of considering the logical consequences of (2.1.1) and (2.1). Consider a word ABC; if ABC can mean X because its anagrams, CBA, BAC, CAB, etc are related to X, then it can also be said that CBA means X

because its anagrams ABC, BAC, CBA etc are related to X. Likewise, for each of the other anagrams. ( "nutfah) can provide the meaning of Similarly, if anagrams of " ( "nutfah) can provide the same meaning to spermatazoon to "( "nutfah), then " ( "nutfah) listed by LQA can mean a its anagrams. Thus, any one of the anagrams of " spermatozoon.

Therefore, if LQAs anagram-guessing-game is valid, then the 4 anagrams of "( "nutfah) listed by LQA can denote a sperm-cell and thus, using LQAs methodology, each of the 4 words can be considered as the best word to signify a ( "nutfah), and no other, was spermatozoon. However, given that LQA insisted that " the best word and since his own argument has produced other best words, LQAs argument is self-refuting. ii) Epistemological Objections 5) Hidden Unjustified Assumptions Hidden assumptions are at times difficult to detect. The same can be said in LQAs case. Consider when LQA asks what the best 7th century Arabic word is to denote a spermatozoon. In asking such a question, LQA has already assumed that there exists a word in 7th century Arabic that denotes spermatozoon and that it is merely a matter of discovering it. He further assumes that it is sensible to identify non-existing concepts using words with alternate meanings. Such a question is the equivalent of asking what the best 12th or 13th century English word to denote a biological cell is. It has first of all assumed that such a word even exists or that it makes sense to believe that the concept of a biological cell, which did not exist in the 12th or 13th century, can be identified using words that had different meanings. If a sophist wanted, he could present subjective and arbitrary reasons to claim that words like cell or prison or block etc can signify a biological cell in the 12th or 13th century. Yet if such a person were to present any ancient text that has the word cell or prison, in a metaphorical phrase such as the prisons of a human being, and claim it divinely refers to the biological cells of the body; it would be rejected as stupidity.

Now consider the following Quranic example. In Sura 12:19, there is a phrase th which states, And there came a caravan ( ). The 7 century Arabic term used to mean caravan is sayyara ( ). Incidentally, sayyara ( ) means car st in the 21 century. Perhaps, if LQA wanted to he can claim that Qur'an in Sura 12:19 uses sayyara ( ) to mean a car. He could even use his anagram-guessing-game to say that the angrams of sayyara ( ) are related to the definition of a car, which, given the arbitrary nature of LQAs methodology, should be fairly easy. Would it now be reasonable to claim that the Quran was mentioning a car instead of a caravan in the ancient deserts of the Middle East or North Africa? ( "nutfah) is equally unreasonable. Likewise, LQAs attempt to do the same with " 6) LQAs Methodology is Arbitrary & Circular; Consider LQAs methodology again. Take a word; have a preconceived meaning; list the anagrams of the word; impose the desired meaning onto the anagrams. Then, conclude that the imposed meaning has been derived from the anagrams.

( "nutfah); he wants it to mean spermatozoon; Thus, LQA takes the word " he lists the following anagrams ( na-fa-ta), ( ta-na-fa), ( ta-fa-na), ( fa-ta-na); with the following meanings respectively; movement of fluid with force, to protrude, death/obstruction, to be intelligent, skillful. He then imposes the concept of a spermatozoon on to these definitions however arbitrarily as possible (to see his reasoning in full, see transcript from timestamp 04:00 to 09:30 http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc). Then he finally concludes that his imposed meaning has been derived. Such a line of reasoning is as circular as it gets. If one were to grant the validity of this anagram-guessing-game for the sake of the argument, then what is most striking about LQAs line of reasoning is its ultimately arbitrary or subjective or selective nature. Clearly there is nothing in the 4 anagrams LQA presented that specifically and directly references a spermatozoon. Instead LQA is forced to artificially impose the concept of spermatozoon on to the 4 anagrams. Hence, LQAs argument is circular in nature as it boils down to LQA deriving the concept of spermatozoon from the 4 anagram via imposing the concept of spermatozoon onto the 4 anagrams

6.1) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy However, if one were to analyze the 4 anagrams without LQAs circular line of reasoning; clearly there is nothing to suggest that i) forcefully moving liquid + ii) protrusion + iii) death/obstruction + iv) intelligence = a spermatozoon. LQAs argument then is a prime example of the texas sharpshooter fallacy. He has deliberately chosen to fit his 4 anagrams into a description of a spermatozoon. In other words, rather than following where the evidence leads to, LQA selectively chooses his evidences to fit his preconceived conclusion. One could impose any number of concepts on to the 4 definitions. 6.2) The homunculus Counter-example In fact, due to the arbitrary nature, one could easily use LQAs method to claim ( "nutfah) means a vast number of concepts including imaginary ones. For a that " simple example, consider the following. There used to be a theory called preformationism which stated there exists a homunculus i.e. a miniature human, in the seminal fluid which merely grows in size during the course of pregnancy. Would it now be possible to use LQAs methodology and impose the outdated concept of a homunculus on to the 4 anagrams? This is quite easily achieved. A homunculus is implanted through i) the movement of liquid with force; it ii) protrudes out of the womb for delivery; faces the risk of iii) death and other obstructions during pregnancy and of course it is an iv) intelligent creature. ( "nutfah) can refer to a Thus, using LQAs very own methodology, " homunculus, therefore "( "nutfah) would mean a homunculus and therefore the Quran would be wrong. Fortunately for Muslims in this case, LQAs reasoning is utterly asinine. 6.3) Reductio-ad-Absurdum In fact, the homunculus counter-example can be used to show that LQAs method ( "nutfah) is illogical. Since LQAs method gives rise to contradictory conclusions as " meaning a homunculus as well as a spermatozoon, it follows, via reductio-ad-absurdum, that LQAs method is false. iii) Empirical Objections ( "nutfah) signifying 'Seminal Fluid'. 7) The argument equally applies to " A rather hilarious point about LQAs argument is that every single one of its ( "nutfah) means seminal fluid. premises can be used to justify the conclusion that " Consider, the four anagrams provided by LQA,

Each of the 4 inferences LQA made from the 4 anagrams are equally applicable or relatable to the concept of seminal fluid. Seminal fluid is a liquid moving with force, it protrudes, it dies/decays, faces obstructions in the body and transports cells that will develop into intelligent beings. Add to this point the fact that classical dictionaries like Lisan al-Arab specifically ( "nutfah) as seminal fluid. Thus, even if one were to accept LQAs define " " methodology, it would still be more reasonable to accept the definition of " (nutfah) as seminal fluid. On a side note, consider the following thought; 'X' and 'not X' cannot both be true. X then is not the best word to describe 'not-X'. Of all possible words, why would the word that was used and understood to mean seminal fluid be the best word to designate the meaning of 'sperm'? 8) The argument ignores relevant evidence. As noted before, LQA has ignored the entirety of evidences presented in EQMAN. The most important of which are the following statements from Lisan al-Arab where it ( "nutfah) specifically as seminal fluid. For any reasonable person, such a defines " ( "nutfah) should outweigh any contrary retrospective direct example of the usage of " anagram-guessing-games;

V. Conclusion Anyone who has taken the effort to deconstruct LQAs contentions very easily receives the message that he is not a very competent thinker. As demonstrated in the previous two posts, there are often huge gaps in his argument that are blatantly visible for anyone with eyes to see. LQA, perhaps as a result of his lack of training in formal logic, is unable to distinguish between facts and assertions, deductions and assumptions, inferences and wishful thinking. He also does not seem capable of seeing through his own prejudices and assumptions. More damaging, however, is his inability to analyze the logical validity of his arguments. Consequently and unsurprisingly, he is also incapable of deconstructing counter-arguments accurately. LQAs present argument is one such cocktail of hidden over-generalizations, weak inferences and logical fallacies concocted on top of counter-arguments he failed to comprehend. Regardless, this post has sufficiently demonstrated that LQA relies on assertions without any proper or sensible justification. The claim that one could derive the meaning of a word through anagrams and arbitrary interpretations, all the while ignoring the established meanings, is desperate, disingenuous and pseudo-intellectual. Even if one were to hypothetically grant the validity of LQAs anagram-guessinggame, one is still struck by its arbitrariness since LQAs methodology can also be used to make words mean a vast number of concepts. For example, LQAs methodology was ( "nutfah) can also refer to an outdated concept of the homunculus. used to show that " This consequently also proves that LQAs methodology is false via reductio-adabsurdum. Additionally, LQAs methodology can also be applied to the conclusion that ( "nutfah) means seminal fluid. This conclusion would also be supported by the " historical context as well academic lexicons of classical Arabic. Incidentally, LQA has consistently chosen to ignore the relevant evidences from academic lexicons presented in EQMAN. Overall, LQAs argument is pointless and asinine. The only redeeming quality of having wasted ones energy in refuting such a silly argument is the realization that Muslim apologists have hit absolute rock-bottom when they have to rely on anagrams and guesswork to argue for their position.
1

. Wittgenstein, L 2009. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe, Hacker & Schulte. Revised 4th edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Page 116e

. Hamza Tzortzis 2013. Does the Quran contain Scientific Miracles. http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/does-the-quran-contain-scientificmiracles-a-new-approach/.

. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 2 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing. http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/09/objection-2-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html
4

. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 3 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing. http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/10/objection-3-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html
5

. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 1 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing. http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/09/objection-1-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html
6

. QuranMiraclesRefuted 2013. Muslims against the "Science in the Qur'an" Claims. http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/2013/01/muslims-against-science-in-quran-claims.html
7

. Captaindisguise & Taverille, M 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. Page 6. http://www.scribd.com/doc/110224187/2-101612-Embryology-in-the-Quran-Much-Ado-About-Nothing
8

. Hamza Tzortzis 2013. Does the Quran contain Scientific Miracles. Page 4 http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/does-the-quran-contain-scientificmiracles-a-new-approach/.