Dear Mr. Rafi Aamer:

I have said enough on the equations in my last letter, I do not want to dwell on physics or Dr. Schroeder’s treatment of those equations. Let’s get down to the actual topic that has been under discussion for three months now. 

Regarding your comment about the ‘creative’ translation; the word ‘alaq’ does have various meanings including ‘leech’, ‘some thing suspended’ among others. An on-line English-Arabic dictionary yielded the following: 

 

I am sure you are going to claim that they changed the Dictionary to fit the needs for Quranic translation. In fact every translator has not used the word ‘leech’. Some have used the terms like blood clot. Contrary to your claim for the ‘creative’ translation, It could have been just the opposite; it is quite possible that the earlier translators may have had difficulty in accepting that the use of the word ‘leech’ could have been closer to the reality.  

Let us assume, that your claim about the ‘creative’ translation is correct, then, would you be prepared to say that 1400 years ago, they had a microbiology laboratory set up to describe the blood clot. Do you think they had ability to magnify the embryo (or whatever they thought it was) to describe it using whatever words (you find acceptable) today in the book (never mind the word leech)? Does it not challenge you to stop for a moment and ponder upon it by putting yourself in the shoes of those people 1400 years ago? Would you have described it the way it has been, without the use of scientific  equipment of some kind? Surely, the people of that time had no way to describe the process the way it has been. 

Arguing about translator’s chosen words will not help to carry out a serious discussion. The understanding of the message and the considerations of human knowledge and limitations and understanding at that time is an important consideration and a vital clue. This is where all that intelligence and rationality is required instead of looking for the missing links between a monkey and a man. 

Your other comment, copied below: 

“The book containing divine wisdom that allows husbands to beat their wives” 

This unfortunate comment was not only uncalled for but also grossly untrue and wrong. You did not quote the verse but I think you are referring to 4:34; I have had experience with others whose flight of thoughts was similar to yours. The insertion of this comments clearly indicates that you do not want to discuss the fine points of the subject matter but you want to assert that the subject matter is beneath you that you do not think it is worth your effort or a serious thought. I thought you once stated that you are trying to open the right door, but with this mindset, one cannot even find a door, let alone opening the right one. 

In this verse the word, ‘wadribu-huna’ is the one that has multiple meanings and Quran has used this word in many other places. Its basic meaning is to explain assertively, suasively, forcefully using strong arguments. I do realize that most translators have used the word ‘beating’, but that could very well be as you say, ‘the creative’ translation done by men to keep control over women – a cultural influence. But we must remember, the translation is not supposed to be God’s work, the Arabic text is! I suggest that you make use of the services of some one who knows Quranic Arabic well. That is what I do whenever possible, as I do not know Arabic. 

Regarding your comments on Bible, I am sure there is lots of truth in that book that has escaped human editing, changes and corruption.