Dear Aaron, - A little bit on hermeneutics and tafsir You wrote - “I don't doubt that a modern Muslim can claim that this or that claim was actually meant as metaphor, justify some with hermeneutics gymnastics, and wave away others in post-hoc hand waving.” First of all on metaphors: when talking about Islam it is a cheap presumption that atheists make to say to themselves that “the wording of the Qur’an was all taken literally by it’s followers during the time of its inceptions, but nowadays modernists backpedal on that by saying they are metaphors.” Such a line of thinking is cheap and inaccurate – and I also call it ethnocentric because I believe that such a line of thinking can be said to be true when it comes to exegesis of the Bible, but for Islam it is entirely different and that atheists convenience themselves by just not bothering to distinguish between the two, or not looking into whether or not the two should be distinguished, but rather just presume that the two can be grouped together, is wrong and not intellectually honest. Not you nor anybody can take away the fact that much of the language of the Qur’an is indeed metaphors or metaphoric, as a matter of fact the Qur’an states this plainly in its beginning: Chapter 2 verse 26 says: “Allah does not disdain to use similitude of things, lowest as well as highest. Those who believe know that it is truth from their Lord; but those who reject Faith say: "What does Allah mean by this similitude?" By it He causes many to stray, and many He leads into the right path; but He does not cause to stray, except those who forsake (the path), [2: Al-Baqara-26]” To what we English-speakers call or say as “similes”, “metaphors”, “likeness of”, and “examples” are all things that the word MATHALAAN (which is in the verse translated as “similitude of things” and “similitude”) means. Even this verse itself uses a metaphor because the word that this translator rendered as “lowest” is actually the Arabic word for gnat, but the translator did it that way because he felt “lowest” better portrayed the meaning of the verse, which is that the Qur’an uses similes and metaphors of things big and small in the Qur’an. So it was indeed understood well by the Prophet and his companions during their lives that the Qur’an was full of metaphors and metaphoric language; understood because that fact was stated clearly to them in the Qur’an. Additionally, it is not like such language was foreign or uncomfortable to their ears as the Arabs had (and have) a rich history of oral poetry and story-telling, as well as lesson teaching through metaphoric anecdotes. So when the Qur’an says to them that the idol worshippers in Mecca were “deaf, dumb, and blind…” (2: Al-Baqara-18) they KNEW that it did not mean that they were literally (re: physically) unable to speak, hear, and see. They KNEW that is was a METAPHOR describing the nature of their spiritual faculties which rendered them incapable of accepting the oneness of God.

As for “hermeneutics gymnastics” Chapter 3 (Surat Al-Imran) verse 7 states: “"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning) [MUHKAM]; they are the foundation of the Book: others are not of well-established meaning [MUTASHABEH]. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not of well-established meaning, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge. They say: 'We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:' and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding." This is a very important verse for understanding how the Muslim is to look at the verses of the Qur’an. Part of the work of the mufassireen is to distinguish what verses belong to which category. In doing this work their methodology (minhaj, this is the word used in Islamic Scholarship, it is usually translated as methodology, not hermeneutics) consists of using other verses of the Qur’an and Hadiths of the Prophet. They use those sources for tafsir, beyond that there is the further work of authenticating the hadiths. The scholars of old have made this easier for students of the religion nowadays. The most reputable of authentic collection of Hadiths is Sahih Bukhari. Imam Bikhari collected over 600,000 hadiths and researched their authenticity, he labeled 7,397 of those as authentic. More can be read about that here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html - Imam Bukhari belonged to the 9th century. There is a specific methodology, which is based upon empirical investigation, for authenticating hadith that the great muhadith of the past used. There is a brief primer on it here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/hadsciences.html The stories of what the muhadith of the past went through in carrying this out as their life work is also something that is documented and recorded and it is vast – a muhadith also studies those stories and the work of those who came before him. A muhadith today spends more time with that latter aspect of the work than one from centuries ago. The most extensive and highly-regarded work that exists in tafsir is that of Ibn Kathir, it is called tafsir Ibn Kathir. There is an abridged translation of that work in English, it is 12 volumes long and at about 600-800 pages per volume. Needless to say, I have only read bits of it. He belonged to the 14th century. Those are two pieces of work that are considered monumental in Sunni Islam as works that haved aided the preservation of the authentic, or orthodox, religion that Muhammad taught to his companions. The work of a mufasir today is of course studying and knowing works like these (and many others like them that I have not mentioned) and also refuting those who try to put innovations into the religion that are not authentic.

Now, how verses of the Qur’an relate to modern science, that is something rather separate from all this, but these sources are what would be used to make sure verses are being understood correctly. You said: “Surely, a 9th century mufassir would have interpreted Surah 15:26 differently than a modern scholar. The text or language of the Qur'an didn't change; what else accounts for the changing exegesis other than changing hermeneutics?” I do not know if this verse is categorized by the scholars as Muhkam (well-established meaning) or Mutashabeh (not of well-established meaning). My guess is it would be the first category, regardless, I will talk about it here. First I will talk briefly about the meaning of this verse at it pertains to the Believer. Secondly, I will talk about this as it relates to modern science. 15 Al-Hijr Verse 26 “We created the human being [*yes, the word INSAHN in Arabic means human being, the word RUJUL, means man – many translators put “man” here, but human being is the better word] from SALSAAL (a sounding clay), from mud molded into shape” There are many verses in the Qur’an that refer to man’s creation. The established purpose of all of them is to implore man to consider himself and how his life came to be and to draw the appropriate lessons from it. In the case of this verse and in this surah the point is for man to consider the difference between himself and Iblis who is a jinn (2:34) which are made from fire (15:27). The chief characteristic of Iblis is arrogance (2:34) – so the lesson of this verse is for the Muslim to not be arrogant. On this matter a musafir from the 9th century and one today, nor one today or any believing Muslim today, nor one of the companions, nor the Prophet himself – NONE OF THEM would disagree about this meaning, because it is clear in the verses themselves. So you are completely wrong about that. (note: that Muslims believe in AL-GHAIB [a world that is unseen, included in which are Jinns and Angels {the word also refers to matters that are not known, it is also the word Arabs use to mean someone or something is absent or missing or lost}] is not a discussion I will get into, so there is no need to bring it up in response, because I am not trying to make you believe in it. For sure, I am not trying to make you believe in anything, it is just to stick up for the dignity of Muslims and Islam. Right in the beginning of the Qur’an it says [2:2-3] “This is the Book, in it is sure guidance, without doubt, for those who revere Allah. Who believe in AL-GHAIB, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them” - So some people are simply not built to believe in such things, thus Islam and the Qur’an make it clear in the very beginning that this is not for them!) Other verses which refer to the human being being created from clay include verse 12 of Surah Al Mumenoon 23.

“We did create the human being from SULAALA MIN TEEN (an extraction from clay) – from mud MASNUN (molded into shape)” Then it goes on into more detail: Verse 13 - “Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed” Verse 14 – “Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!” Verse 15 – “After that, at length ye will die” Verse 16 – “Again, on the Day of Judgment, will ye be raised up” Again, the meaning of these verses is not something that would be in dispute by any Muslim from the time it was revealed to now because it is clear in the verses themselves: Humans were made from something low and meek, yet God’s infinite power brought them to what they find themselves as in their lives – this power is a clear sign of God’s ability to take their life away and raise them up again to be judged for the actions they chose to do in that life they were given. It is something very deep to reflect upon. Again, your statement that “Surely, a 9th century mufassir would have interpreted Surah 15:26 differently than a modern scholar” has no basis AT ALL, and again, I accuse it of ethnocentrism because I believe that the gall to make such a claim is rooted in the presumption that tafsir is a whimsical sort of art that is liable to the fancies of individuals – which I believe to be the case with exegesis of the Bible – but in Islam that is NOT the case and those who attempt to do that with the Qur’an are repudiated roundly by those who hold onto its orthodoxy. Now as for verse 15:26 as it relates to modern science. First of all, these verses clearly relate to one another. Ibn Kathir writes in his tafsir about the word SALSAL “It was reported from Mujahid (a companion of the Prophet) that SALSAL means “putrid”, but it is more appropriate to interpret a Verse with another verse “from mud MASNUN means the clay that comes from mud, which is soil.” Ibn Kathir writes in his tafsir about verse 12 from Surah 23: “Allah tells us how He initially created man from an extract of TEEN (clay). This was Adam, peace be upon him, whom Allah created from sounding clay (SALSAL) of molded mud. Ibn Jarir [a musafir before Ibn Kathir] said, "Adam was called TEEN because he was created from it.'' Qatadah [a companion] said, "Adam was created from TEEN.'' This is the more apparent meaning and is closer to the context, for Adam, upon

him be peace, was created from a sticky TEEN, which is a sounding clay from molded mud, and that is created from dust, as Allah says: (Then Verse 20 form Surah 30 is quoted) So I am trying to take this definition from authentic sources that are rooted in the understanding of the Prophet and his companions. I believe it can be said that according to the Qur’an human beings were created “from a sticky clay, which is a sounding clay from molded mud…” – This gives us some more detail to understanding verse 15:26 – which you brought up! Now, I am no scientist, and I do not pretend to be, I definitely do not have the credentials to claim such a thing. Definitely there are better people in the world to speak on this topic than I, maybe I will speak to one or some of them someday. Nevertheless, I will do some crude research on Wikipedia to see if the suggestion that human beings were created “from a sticky clay, which is a sounding clay from molded mud…” has any validity to it – I will choose to do that instead of rehash something that someone else wrote about these verses on the Internet. Come to Thixotropy. “Thixotropy is the property of certain gels or fluids that are thick (viscous) under normal conditions, but flow (become thin, less viscous) over time when shaken, agitated, or otherwise stressed.” Under “Natural Examples” – “Some clays are thixotropic, with their behavior of great importance in structural and geotechnical engineering. Landslides, such as those common in the cliffs around Lyme Regis, Dorset and in the Aberfan spoil tip disaster in Wales are evidence of this phenomenon. Similarly, a lahar is a mass of earth liquefied by a volcanic event, which rapidly solidifies once coming to rest.” “Drilling muds used in geotechnical applications can be thixotropic” “Another example of a thixotropic fluid is the synovial fluid found in joints between some bones. The ground substance in the human body is thixotropic, as is semen.” That part about “clays” and “muds” being thixotropic sort of stuck out to me. Sticking out to me even more was “The ground substance in the human body is thixotropic, as is semen.” Ground substance as a scientific term refers to “the non-cellular components of extracellular matrix which contain the fibers” “In biology, the extracellular matrix (ECM) is the extracellular part of animal tissue that usually provides structural support to the animal cells in addition to performing various other important functions” Okay, I’m pretty sure I understand some of that. It seems to be that there is at least a “similitude”, or a “likeness” between the physical properties of clay/mud and that of “the ground substance in the human body”. The article refers to

some specific places where clay/mud with this property is found, I wonder if it makes a sound when handled, or is sticky? At least we know that mud from laher quickly becomes dry, I think that might also be called becoming “putrid” (as SALSAL was described by a companion according to Ibn Kathir). That is pretty interesting I’d say, I was really interested to learn about this “ground substance” term meaning “the NON-CELLUAR components of extracellular matrix which contain the fibers” because I already knew that the Qur’an has cells themselves covered where it says: “We made from water every living thing from water” (21:30)

“And Allah has created Every animal from water.” (24:45)

“It is He Who has Created man from water: Then has He established Relationships of lineage And marriage: for thy Lord Has power (over all things).” (25:54)

Of course it is fairly common knowledge that “after advances have been made in science we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence.”

So I knew that the Qur’an had the cellular substance of man covered. I didn’t know until looking into this verse that you brought up that it has the non-cellular substance of man covered also!

“Thixotropic substance” might have been a somewhat advanced word for the 7th century Arabs. Would someone be a whack-a-loon to think that it was perfectly appropriate for the Qur’an to use “clay” and “mud” instead? Even if it’s just in a metaphoric sense would it be wrong or anti-intellectual to consider that it might be more appropriately comprehendible to them? I would say “no” – especially considering that the Qur’an provided the condition that metaphors will be used. Really, I am not even sure if the whole clay thing here is even a metaphor. If there are similarities between the chemical compounds of soil and the human body, I think it might be getting outside of being a metaphor and just going into straight telling it like it is.

Of course, all this is secondary when it comes to these verses, the important thing about them is the inspiration and guidance that they are to give to the believer’s soul, for him to recognize the lowliness of his origins (I don’t think the theory of evolution disputes man’s lowly origins), and to direct him twoards understanding the power of his Creator and that Creator’s power to raise him up again on hold him accountable for the choices he made in the life he was given.

But, there is a challenge in the Qur’an in verse 19-20 of Surah 29:

“Do they not see how Allah begins the Creation, then repeats it? That is easy for Allah. Say: "Travel through the Earth and see how He began the Creation. Then,

Allah makes the latter Creation. Allah is capable of (doing) everything"

Muslims have not shied away from investigating the nature of the creation. It was indeed commanded of them to do so, and that commandment led to great advances in science.

All this is to say that Muslims and Christians, Islam and Christianity, are quite different in this regard compatibility and respect for science; and to group them together casually, as in your saying “I've read more than I'd like to admit by apologists for literalist Islam as well as fundamentalist Christianity. One thing they have in common is they always claim that they're the ones not at odds with science.” – is not right to do so, and is not intellectually honest to do so (BTW – I here did not quote “apologists” to you, I quoted the authentic sources).

For more illustration on this difference I invite you to check out this debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjDEdbvG0bU

This document: http://sunnahonline.com/ilm/quran/qms.pdf

And this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crkq8HVvdm8

For a lecture on the verses of the Qur’an I quoted above (23:12) and there correlation with the stages of embryonic development see here: http://scienceislam.com/goodies/video_popup.php?vid=2