V

American-Pakistani

Critic

[V @void_orbit]

Sperm does not come from between the backbone and the rib, as the Quran says. Sperm cells are produced in the seminiferous tubules of the testes, These reproductive structures are located in the pelvis, not between the backbone and the ribs. The kidneys are the organ between the backbone and the ribs. The Quran could not be more wrong if it tried.

Your claim falls short when examined against basic human anatomy. Even if someone accepts the argument your argument that verse 7 refers to the human being (a baby being born), the anatomical description remains incorrect. Where childbirth actually happens baby human being baby emerges from the uterus through the pelvic canal and birth canal, not between the backbone and ribs. The ribs form the thoracic cavity (chest) at the upper torso. The foetus does not grow between the ribs and the upper spine, nor does a baby pass between the backbone and the ribs during birth. Referring to the pelvic cavity or uterus as "between the backbone and the ribs" would be completely anatomically inaccurate.

#Anatomy101
#RibsAreNotPelvis
#FactCheck
#BasicBiologyLeftTheChat
#HumanAnatomy
#NotHowThatWorks
#ScientificAccuracy
#SpineAndRibsHaveNoBabies

@RealMonotheist @IslamCritic

[Real Monotheist @RealMonotheist]

Regarding the flying winged animal that took Muhammad ﷺ to the heavens, that is a miracle. Given that God is real and Islam is true, then miracles are deductively true as well. So that’s a moot point of argumentation.

Regarding the sperm coming from the backbone, the human being is mentioned in verse 5. The semen is mentioned in verse 6. The pronoun used in verse 7 can refer to the human being mentioned in verse 5. So yes, a human being comes out from between the ribs and the backbone.

Any other questions?

[blugill @blugill]

@Islam435 Yeah, islam deserves to be mocked and discounted….

It’s fake..muhammad never existed…

[John Knox @knox1711]

Muhammad never existed. In the seventh century, Arabic had no vowels in it, therefore, literally you could not write the name. You could, however, write MHMD, which was a title, not a proper name. A title dating back over a millennia from the seventh century… Arabic came from Aramaic, which came from Hebrew.

Do a little research, Muhammad never existed, Mecca had no water before massive desalinization plants, and there are hundreds of versions of the Quran not just one. It’s all a fraud.

[Reason over faith @IslamCritic]

@void_orbit I think folks like him live in some parallel universe where the laws of this universe aren't required.

[dark humour and absurd humour memes @darkhumour2026]

A guilt trip about your reading habits.

[Ro @cuddlyro]

@GGodakTime @void_orbit Copy not Original. New Testament books were written between roughly 15 to 70 years after the death & crucifixion of Jesus (around 30 CE), with the final texts completed by about 100 CE (roughly 70 years later). Where are the sources from ppl who met Mohammed besides Quran?

[raz. @razadx_k]

@void_orbit One of the Islamic fuqh that interprets the hijab as an obligation is based on the idea of the historical account of slave women being forced to be uncovered and "free" women being covered up. And somehow basing it on that inhumane ideology is supposed to be empowering?

[Focused 🧘🏾‍♂️👁️ @xonphused]

Calling me possessed because I question the authenticity and framework of your religious beliefs is exactly why it should be questioned.

[Samad khan @Samadkh20257105]

@void_orbit Difference between Science and Religion.

[V @void_orbit]

@RealMonotheist @grok You have used it extensively.

[V @void_orbit]

THERE'S NO SCIENCE TO "THE SCIENCE OF HADITH"

The so called "Science of Hadith" is Islamic branding nonsense with a respectable word added on to it con the credulous. Hadith are chains of second-, third-, and tenth-hand stories about what some guy allegedly said or did centuries ago, filtered through fallible memories, tribal loyalties, political agendas, and outright fabrications. Calling that "science" is like calling village gossip "peer-reviewed research." Science demands observation, measurement, repeatability, falsifiability, and controlled variables. Anecdotes, especially those written generations later by people with skin in the game, are the opposite. They are merely hearsay and village gossip. Slap the "science" on it, and medieval Chinese whispers gain the dignity of laboratory results, it's folklore giving itself a lab coat.

The remaining problems follow from the same dishonest framing. Real sciences progress by discarding failed hypotheses, whereas Hadith science preserves and ranks competing stories, treating divine transmission as beyond challenge. Contradictions are managed by preference hierarchies rather than discarded as evidence of unreliability. Psychology and memory research prove oral cultures lose detail and invent motives with every retelling, yet the enterprise pretends chain authentication can recover original speech. Naturally, the edifice exists to prop up authority. Labeling the process scientific makes questioning feel like attacking empiricism itself. It is not science, it is a traditional method of sorting religious anecdotes, and using the modern prestige term merely borrows unearned credibility.

#FolkloreInALabCoat
#ScienceOfHadith
#PeerReviewedGossip
#ReligiousEpistemology
#MedievalChineseWhispers
#HadithCriticism
#IsChainAuthenticationScience
#ProvingGhostsWithMoreGhosts

@al_athariiii
@Hadith_Notes
@YusufAsunmogejo
@EmineErdogan
@alhamdullah54
@GGodakTime
@RealMonotheist
@salahuddin7302
@Sanab9a_
@FrenchyCarlino

[Sarah S. A. @GothicXRose90]

I like the term "religious exhibitionism". No wonder religious people always seemed to hate me. I like to keep my sacred relationship with God private + I wasn't about performing my faith. Performative virtue always needs an audience otherwise you'll be demonised.

[Sarah S. A. @GothicXRose90]

@void_orbit Agreed. It's a lot of things - character, their conduct, discipline, refraining from harmful activities or at least limiting them, empowering/uplifting people rather than tearing them down, mentoring, simplicity, a sense of justice. These r what make one more memorable.

[V @void_orbit]

I don't need you to educate me on the etymology of the term 'Science'. Words change usage and meaning over time. In contemporary English, "Science" is almost exclusively synonymous with empirical, testable, and measurable investigation. The modern usage of the word, "science" denotes is something which "the Science of Hadith" is not at all. The backstreet grapevine of hadith is not a reliable or objective scientific tool.

When dawah bros use the phrase "Science of Hadith", they are leveraging the modern cultural respect of the word "Science" to try and give their religious bullshit an unearned aura of objective, laboratory level credibility and certainty.

It is a slippery disingenuous rhetorical sleight of hand that relies on a semantic equivocation. Conflating the two implies that the historical reliability of a hadith has been mathematically or empirically proven, which is false. You can't masquerade subjective human hearsay as hard data. Deciding whether a middle ages narrator had a "good memory" or was "morally upright" is not an empirical measurement.

[Sarah S. A. @GothicXRose90]

@void_orbit It's funny + sad how Muslims can make a tonne of claims about the Quran referencing x scientific miracle + how this famous scientist became a Muslim bc of it, yet fundamentalist facts in every biology textbook are described inaccurately in the Quran.

[V @void_orbit]

This is a strawman, No biologist, historian, linguist, or critic argues that 7th century Arabs used the phrase "thoracic cavity" or understood modern medical jargon. To call me "ignorant" is a deflection. Nobody is claiming the 7th century Arabs spoke English medical Latin, the criticism is that the physical description given in the text does not match human biology, regardless of what language you use to describe it. Terms like thoracic cavity or ribcage today in English to objectively describe the geographical location that the classical Arabic text points to.

Pointing out where a primitive 7th century text places a biological process using modern anatomical geography is not "retroprojecting" definitions into the Arabic medium", it is simply mapping ancient claims onto actual human anatomy so they can be evaluated.

The irony is retroprojection is precisely what dawahbot apologists do. Dawahbots are the ones retroprojecting modern science back into the 7thcentury text. When modern apologists argue that "between the backbone and the ribs" actually refers to embryonic blood vessels, the aorta, or the testicles descent path, they are the ones forcing modern anatomical knowledge onto ancient texts that never mentioned those things.

[V @void_orbit]

Sperm does not come from between the backbone and the rib, as the Quran says. Sperm cells are produced in the seminiferous tubules of the testes, These reproductive structures are located in the pelvis, not between the backbone and the ribs. The kidneys are the organ between the backbone and the ribs. The Quran could not be more wrong if it tried.

Your claim falls short when examined against basic human anatomy. Even if someone accepts the argument your argument that verse 7 refers to the human being (a baby being born), the anatomical description remains incorrect. Where childbirth actually happens baby human being baby emerges from the uterus through the pelvic canal and birth canal, not between the backbone and ribs. The ribs form the thoracic cavity (chest) at the upper torso. The foetus does not grow between the ribs and the upper spine, nor does a baby pass between the backbone and the ribs during birth. Referring to the pelvic cavity or uterus as "between the backbone and the ribs" would be completely anatomically inaccurate.

#Anatomy101
#RibsAreNotPelvis
#FactCheck
#BasicBiologyLeftTheChat
#HumanAnatomy
#NotHowThatWorks
#ScientificAccuracy
#SpineAndRibsHaveNoBabies

@RealMonotheist @IslamCritic

[Real Monotheist @RealMonotheist]

Regarding the flying winged animal that took Muhammad ﷺ to the heavens, that is a miracle. Given that God is real and Islam is true, then miracles are deductively true as well. So that’s a moot point of argumentation.

Regarding the sperm coming from the backbone, the human being is mentioned in verse 5. The semen is mentioned in verse 6. The pronoun used in verse 7 can refer to the human being mentioned in verse 5. So yes, a human being comes out from between the ribs and the backbone.

Any other questions?

[V @void_orbit]

@Kruveux @RealMonotheist @grok Yeh, because modern Science unambiguously shows us quranic errors.

[V @void_orbit]

If I wanted to debate a website, I'd open a browser. You've mistaken sending links for making a point. Give a argument, not a google treasure hunt for a link that supports your views. Imagine needing a website full of linguistic gymnastics and scientific inaccuracies that have been thoroughly debunked to to say what you can't.

The article is full of basic biological errors. Seminal vesicles are not "parallel to the backbone". Seminal vesicles are paired glands located in the pelvis, sitting directly behind the urinary bladder and in front of the rectum, just above the prostate. They do not run parallel to the backbone.

A womb is not located between the backbone and the ribs either, It is located much lower in the pelvis.

[V @void_orbit]

@RealMonotheist @IslamCritic There's no good reason to think any god or allah or leprechauns exist.

[V @void_orbit]

An answer from Grok should not be taken as an objective statement of fact, its outputs are heavily driven by user framing, leading prompts, and sycophancy of the individual making sentimental biased appeals to Grok. Grok has a built in process to agree with the user's premise, tone, or implied bias rather than remaining neutral or pushing back.

Grok just mirrored your premise. You asked a very leading question, and Grok shaped its response to validate your mediocre understanding of Science. Your prompt used very loaded language, and the Grok model gave an answer to fit that prompt. Grok's reply and answer was influenced by your system prompts and custom instructions embedded in the request.

What Grok does is connect directly to X posts to gather real time data. This real time access creates a distinct vulnerability to biased outputs. What Grok just did was retrieve and emphasize details that supported your feelings. That's not a argument or a a truth arbiter.

It's garbage in, garbage out. A loaded, biased, or leading prompt will produce a loaded, biased, or agreeing response.

[SG @antitheistdad]

It needs to be thrown in the trash.

[Derperepuerum @derperepuerum]

@the_christnats Muhammad is a myth, most likely never existed. But islam is retarded and a complete lie.