Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Question for Muslims

What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing? There seems to be some confusion...

All quotes are from the Qur'an

"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
"We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
"He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

 
IhartU

Asked by IhartU at 11:47 AM on May. 20, 2009 in Religion & Beliefs

Level 27 (31,412 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (7)
  • This is a translation - anytime you read something in translation you get problems in the translator's word choice. A single word in Arabic often has a multitude of English words which mean roughly the same thing. Most Muslims who read the Qu'ran in translation use several versions to try and get proper meaning. You can't really do an appropriate line by line in my opinion.

    As to the "We" - it is often used for singular in cases of Royalty in English, so in some translations you see that pronoun used.

    Also note there is a difference between creation of the first man, and the creation of all people that takes place in the womb, from a sprem drop to a clot through the stages of development - you are listing quotations refering to two different types of creation.

    I am not an expert, so I am sure there are more detailed answer available.
    b_cheerful

    Answer by b_cheerful at 10:40 PM on May. 20, 2009

  • I am not a Muslim, but as someone who studies mythology I can say that this is not at all unusual. Many mythological systems term the same creation story in different ways. Mud/clay/dust can all be considered the same thing & can be considered the "blood" of the earth that man was "made" from. The sperm-drop can refer to the life force that the supreme creator gave to mankind from himself. And all can be considered making man out of nothing, because there were no building materials assembled (arms, heart, head, etc.) and the creator improvised. The confusion comes from people wanting to know & envision the details of the story, but the story is that of metaphor. People really evolved like all life on earth, the stories are poetic versions to convey that a creator made it happen "from nothing".

    nysa00

    Answer by nysa00 at 1:30 PM on May. 20, 2009

  • ^^Nysa00 covered it well.^^
    Collinsky

    Answer by Collinsky at 1:33 PM on May. 20, 2009

  • Sorry but there is a big difference between nothing and clots of blood, dust or sperm. Everything you stated is pure conjecture and not a definitive answer to my question. People can speculate all they want about what is MEANT, but the fact is that these versus do not say the same thing and are many different versions about how life began. How is one supposed to know the truth- or is that the point? To keep people guessing in order to create confusion?
    IhartU

    Answer by IhartU at 6:43 PM on May. 20, 2009

  • That is if you prescribe to the theory that everything written in a "holy" book is verbatim truth. Many believing, Christians, Muslims, etc. have faith in their holy books without having to battle each and every word, to make it work out perfectly. In the Christian Bible, their are in fact two Creation stories, distinctly different in feel. They don't have to be the same or even agree. If you think of these texts as historical documents (which they are) mixed with spiritual guidance for ones life, you have to realize that many different hands have taken part in the writing and sometimes more importantly the translation of languages that lead to different stories that don't always agree. Some are even a bit beyond language translation since their are words in some languages that don't translate readily into others. And pre-written text, these passages were passed down in an oral tradition (even more room for change).
    batikeggartist

    Answer by batikeggartist at 8:38 PM on May. 20, 2009

  • One more question..do you really have to know that the specifics any given creation story are true, in order to believe in a god? Isn't that in and of itself, faith? Who would believe in any God if all we had to base it on was the thousands of wacky creation stories from antiquity?
    batikeggartist

    Answer by batikeggartist at 8:44 PM on May. 20, 2009

  • Hmmm, I'm more interested in how they explain the "We" since they're so adamant that God has no "partners."
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 10:00 PM on May. 20, 2009