“khalqan”一词的意思是塑造、成形和塑形，也指制造、创造和使其初始产生。91“akhara”一词的意思是另一个或又一个。92 拉齐（Al-Razi）引用了先知ﷺ的伴侣、古兰经注释家伊本·阿拔斯的说法：“其他形态”指各种类型的成长，包括胎儿期、婴儿期和童年期。93

The word khalqan means to shape, to form and to mold. It also means to make, to create and to originate.91The word akhara means another or one more.92 Al-Razi quotes the companion of the Prophet ﷺ, and qur’anic exegete, Ibn Abbas that ‘other forms’ signifies all various types of growth including foetal, infancy, and childhood. 93

《古兰经》中用来描述最后阶段的术语，与现代胚胎学相对应。从第8周直到怀孕结束，是生长和增大的时期，在此期间婴儿开始形成人类特有的形态特征。这一阶段通常被称为胎儿期。婴儿的“形态”从难以分辨发展为被“塑造”，并“被赋予”人类的“形状”。Barry Mitchell和Ram Sharma描述了这一生长阶段：

The terms used in the Qur’an to describe the final process correspond to modern embryology. From the 8th week to the end of pregnancy the period of growth and enlargement occurs, during which time the baby begins to form human-specific aesthetic features. This is usually called the foetal stage. The baby’s ‘shape’ develops from indistinguishable to being ‘molded’ and ‘made to look like’ the human ‘form’. Barry Mitchell and Ram Sharma convey this stage of growth:

从第8周末到足月（38周）的这段时间是生长和发育的阶段（胎儿期）。94

The period of time from the end of week 8 to full term (38 weeks) is a phase of growth and enlargement (the fetal period).94

“khalqan akhara”阶段：胚胎阶段的结束，以及新的成长阶段的开始。

The khalqan akhara stage: The end of the embryonic stage, and the beginning of a new phase of growth.

医生哈里思·本·卡拉达出生于6世纪中叶，属于塔伊夫的赛基夫部落（Banu Thaqif）。一些历史学家认为，他曾在贾迪沙普尔医学院接受医学教育，在那里学习了亚里士多德和盖伦的学说。95 根据这些历史学家的说法：

The physician al-Harith bin Kalada was born in the middle of the 6th century in the tribe of Banu Thaqif in Ta’if. Some historians maintain that he received his medical education at the Jundishapur medical school where he learnt the teachings of Aristotle and Galen.95 According to these historians:

伊斯兰医学与希腊医学之间的主要联系，必须从萨珊王朝晚期的医学中寻找，尤其是在贾迪沙普尔学派而非亚历山大学派中。伊斯兰教兴起之时，贾迪沙普尔正处于鼎盛时期。它是当时最重要的医学中心，在一个世界主义的氛围中融合了希腊、印度和伊朗的医学传统，为伊斯兰医学的产生奠定了基础。96

The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam Jundishapur was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time, combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine. 96

接着这一叙述，一些历史学家和注释者认为，先知穆罕默德ﷺ是通过伊本·卡拉达抄袭了亚里士多德和盖伦关于人类胚胎发育的论述，并曾向他寻求医学建议。97 这种说法因多种原因而站不住脚。

Following this narrative some historians and commenta tors believe the Prophet Muhammad plagiarised Aristotle’s and Galen’s accounts of the developing human embryo via bin Kalada, and sought medical advice from him.97 This is unfounded for various reasons.

1. 正如前面所探讨的，如果先知ﷺ确实受到了伊本·凯拉da（bin Kalada）关于希腊医师知识的影响，那么他具体是如何摒弃其中错误的部分、改进正确的部分，并增添新的阶段或环节的？而这些内容如今都得到了现代胚胎学的证实。

1. As previously explored, if the Prophet ﷺ had indeed been influenced by bin Kalada’s knowledge of the Greek physicians, how did he specifically reject what was wrong, improve what was right, and add new stages or parts of the processes, of which all are corroborated by modern embryology?.

2. 断言先知ﷺ曾向本·卡拉达请教医学知识，并不意味着、也不证明他抄袭了本·卡拉达的著作。举证责任在于提出主张的一方。从历史角度看，没有任何直接而明确的证据表明，先知ﷺ关于胚胎学的观点是通过本·卡拉达而形成的。

2. Claiming the Prophet ﷺ sought medical advice from bin Kalada neither implies nor stipulates the fact that he copied bin Kalada’s work. The onus of proof is on the one who is making the claim. From a historical perspective there is no direct and explicit evidence that indicates the Prophet ﷺ manufactured his views on embryology via bin Kalada.

3. 早期的历史文献在描述先知ﷺ的生平时，都突出并强调了他品格的正直。他从不说谎，若有人断言他会说谎，那是站不住脚的。有一种推测认为他抄袭了本·卡拉达（bin Kalada）的内容，同时又坚持《古兰经》是真主的话语，这种说法是不可想象的。即使是他的信息的敌人，也称他为“可信赖者”。98

3. Early historical sources on the Prophet’s ﷺ life illustrate and emphasise the integrity of his character. He was not a liar and to assert as much is indefensible. The presumption that he copied bin Kalada, while maintaining the Qur’an to be the word of God, is therefore inconceivable. He was known even by the enemies to his message as the “Trustworthy”.98

进一步证明先知穆罕默德ﷺ值得信赖、可信可靠的，是这样一个事实：说谎者通常是为了某种世俗的利益而撒谎，而先知ﷺ却摒弃了一切世俗的追求，并为自己的使命遭受了极大的苦难。他拒绝了人们提供给他的财富和权力，条件是他停止传播自己的信息。99 尤其值得注意的是，他因自己的信仰而遭受迫害：他被抵制，被逐出他心爱的城市麦加；他挨饿受饥；他还被孩子们投石击打，以至于鲜血染红了双腿。他的妻子去世，他亲爱的同伴们遭受拷问和迫害。100 已故阿拉伯语与伊斯兰研究荣誉教授威廉·蒙哥马利·瓦特（W. Montgomery Watt）在《麦加时期的穆罕默德》（Muhammad at Mecca）中对此进行了探讨：他甘愿为自己的信仰承受迫害，那些信仰他、并将他视为领袖而敬仰的人所具有的高尚道德品格，以及他最终所取得的伟大成就，都足以证明他根本的诚实正直。若认为穆罕默德是骗子，所带来的问题比它所解决的问题还要多。101

Further proof of the Prophet’s ﷺ reliability and credibility is enforced and substantiated by the fact that a liar usually lies for some worldly gain, but the Prophet ﷺ rejected all worldly aspirations, and suffered tremendously for his message. He rejected the riches and power he was offered to stop promulgating his message. 99 Significantly, he was persecuted for his beliefs; boycotted and exiled from his beloved city, Makkah; starved of food; and stoned by children to the point where his blood drenched his legs. His wife passed away and his beloved companions were tortured and persecuted.100 The late Emeritus Professor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, W. Montgomery Watt in Muhammad at Mecca explores this: His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves.101.

围绕波斯西南部城市贡德沙普尔(Jundishapur)的聂斯托利派活动,形成了一种颇具影响力的传说。按照这一常被重复的说法,聂斯托利派在六世纪前后将贡德沙普尔发展成了一个重要的知识中心,并建立了所谓的"大学",各类希腊学科都可以在此学习。据称,贡德沙普尔设有一所医学院,其课程以亚历山大里亚的教科书为基础,还设有一所仿照拜占庭医院建立的医院,为王国源源不断地输送接受过希腊医学训练的医生。更重要的是,人们认为贡德沙普尔在将希腊学术译介到近东语言的过程中发挥了关键作用,甚至是希腊科学传入阿拉伯人世界的最重要单一渠道。 近期研究却显示,实际情况远没有这般戏剧化。我们没有令人信服的证据表明贡德沙普尔曾存在医学院或医院,不过似乎确有一所神学学校,并可能附设一座诊疗所。贡德沙普尔无疑是严肃学术活动的场所,也进行过一定规模的医疗实践,自八世纪起还为阿拔斯王朝在巴格达的宫廷输送了一批医生,但它是否曾成为主要的医学教育或翻译活动中心,则值得怀疑。尽管贡德沙普尔的故事在细节上不可靠,但这一传说想要传达的教训仍然是成立的。

An influential mythology has developed around Nestorian activity in the city of Gondeshapur [ Jundishapur] in south-western Persia. According to the often-repeated legend, the Nestorians turned Gondeshapur into a major intellectual center by the sixth century, establishing what some enthusiasts have chosen to call a university, where instruction in all of the Greek disciplines could be obtained. It is alleged that Gondeshapur had a medical school, with a curriculum based on Alexandrian textbooks, and a hospital modeled on Byzantine hospitals, which kept the realm supplied with physicians trained in Greek medicine. Of greatest importance, Gondeshapur is held to have played a critical role in the translation of Greek scholarship into Near Eastern languages and, indeed, to have been the single most important channel by which Greek science passed to the Arabs. Recent research has revealed a considerably less dramatic reality. We have no persuasive evidence for the existence of a medical school or a hospital at Gondeshapur, although, there seems to have been a theological school and perhaps an attached infirmary. No doubt Gondeshapur was the scene of serious intellectual endeavour and a certain amount of medical practice —it supplied a string of physicians for the Abbasid court at Baghdad beginning in the eighth century— but it is doubtful that it ever became a major center of medical education or of translating activity. If the story of Gondeshapur is unreliable in its details, the lesson it was meant to teach is nonetheless valid. 102.

社会医学史家罗伊·波特提出了一个论点：是否真的存在过一所医学院。波特在其著作《人类的最大福祉：人类医学史》中写道：

Roy Porter, a social historian of medicine, raises the contention if whether a medical school actually existed there. Porter in his book The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity writes:

贾恩迪沙普尔无疑是阿拉伯、希腊、叙利亚和犹太知识分子的交汇之地，但没有证据表明那里曾存在任何医学学院。直到九世纪初，阿拉伯-伊斯兰学术医学才真正形成。103

Jundishapur was certainly a meeting place for Arab, Greek, Syriac and Jewish intellectuals, but there is no evidence that any medical academy existed there. Only in the early ninth century did Arab–Islamic learned medicine take shape. 103

5. 历史学家如曼弗雷德·乌尔曼（Manfred Ullman）和弗朗茨·罗森塔尔（Franz Rosenthal）对与伊本·卡拉达有关的材料持怀疑态度。他们称他为一个传说人物104，认为其中带有对虚构人物的文学暗指。盖拉德·霍廷（Gerald Hawting）教授在其论文《哈里斯·伊本·卡拉达传记的发展及医学与伊斯兰教之间的关系》中写道：

5. Historians such as Manfred Ullman and Franz Rosenthal are skeptical about the material referring to bin Kalada. They refer to him as a legendary figure104, which has literary allusions to characters of fictitious creation. Professor Gerald Hawting, in his essay The Development of the Biography of al-Harith ibn Kalada and the Relationship between Medicine and Islam, writes:

在这些较晚的资料中,关于哈里斯的信息零散不全,提到他的医生身份的说法并不一致,而且即便出现,也往往只是附带提及;关于他的医术性质或生平细节,似乎也几乎没有可考的信息。105 从这一角度看,若依据不可靠或无定论的历史叙述来论证伊本·卡拉达的"医生身份",反而会削弱"先知ﷺ抄袭了这位7世纪医师"这一论点。

In these latter sources the information about al-Harith is fragmentary, references to his profession as a doctor are not consistent and, where they occur, tend to be incidental, and there seems to be little information about the nature of his medicine or detail about his life.105 From this perspective, using unreliable or inconclusive historical narratives concerning bin Kalada’s “profession as a doctor” serve to weaken the argument that the Prophet ﷺ copied the 7th century physician.

6. 在6世纪或7世纪，似乎并不存在任何重要的医学院。医学史家、学者普利尼奥·普里奥雷斯基（Plinio Prioreschi）在其著作《医学史》（A History of Medicine）中指出，没有任何波斯文献可以证实贾迪沙普尔在医学史上发挥过重要作用这一说法。106

6. There appears to be no evidence of a major medical school in either the 6th or 7th century. The academic medic and historian Plinio Prioreschi in his book A History of Medicine highlights that there are no Persian sources that substantiate the claim that Jundishapur played a significant role in the history of medicine.106

7. 有历史记载称，伊本·卡拉达皈依了伊斯兰教，并被视为先知ﷺ的圣门弟子之一。民族志学者兼语言学家威廉·布莱斯（William Brice）在其著作《伊斯兰历史地图集》（An Historical Atlas of Islam）中写道：他皈依了伊斯兰教，并已获得先知的圣门弟子的身份。107

7. There are historical reports stating that bin Kalada converted to Islam and was considered a companion of the Prophetﷺ. Ethnographer and linguist, William Brice in his book An Historical Atlas of Islam, writes: He was converted to Islam and had acquired the status of one of the Prophet's Companions.107.

讲师兼小说家阿布巴克尔·阿萨杜拉（Abubakr Asadullah）也持类似观点："几乎所有传统文献都认为，已知的第一位阿拉伯医生是哈里斯·伊本·卡拉达（al-Harith ibn Kalada），他毕业于朱恩德沙普尔（Junishapur），是一位皈依伊斯兰教的犹太人，与先知穆罕默德ﷺ同时代。"108

Lecturer and novelist, Abubakr Asadullah expresses a similar position: According to nearly all traditional sources, the first known Arab physician was al-Harith ibn Kalada, a graduate of Junishapur and a Jewish convert to Islam, a contemporary of Prophet Mohammad ﷺ 108.

批评者声称,先知穆罕默德ﷺ曾解剖或检视人类和动物的胚胎,因而这被用来解释他的科学知识。对此的一个直接反驳是:《古兰经》所描述的许多阶段肉眼无法看见,必须借助光学仪器才能观察,其中包括"精液"(nutfah)阶段和"凝血块"('alaqah)阶段。另一个有力的理由也足以推翻这一说法:先知ﷺ若花时间检视胚胎,是不切实际、也会适得其反的,因为他宣告的使命是传播伊斯兰的讯息。这些经文(即描述胚胎发育的经文)并未、也不太可能影响伊斯兰的根本或其传播,尤其是在七世纪的阿拉伯背景下,对胚胎学有如此深入的理解是不太可能的。最后,为什么没有任何记载显示先知ﷺ解剖过动物或人类的胚胎呢?这样的说法与先知穆罕默德ﷺ的生平和使命并不相符。

Critics allege that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ dissected or examined human and animal embryos, and therefore serves as an explanation of his scientific knowledge. An immediate refutation of this allegation is that many of the stages described in the Qur’an cannot be seen with the naked eye but require optical aids, examples of which include the nutfah stage and the `alaqah stage. Yet another poignant reason invalidating this is the impracticalness and counter-productivity of the Prophet ﷺ spending his time examining embryos, when his proclaimed mission was to spread the message of Islam. These particular verses (that is; the verses detailing the development of the embryo) did not, and would have been unlikely to, affect the essence or propagation of Islam, especially in a 7th century Arabian context where such deep understandings of embryology was improbable. Finally, why aren’t there any records of the Prophet ﷺ dissecting animal or human embryos? Such a claim does not tally with the life and mission of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

所以，人应当观察自己是从什么被造的。他是从一种被喷射出来的液体被造的，这液体出自脊椎与肋骨之间。{所以人应当观察自己是从什么被造的。他是从一种被喷射出来的液体被造的，从脊梁与肋骨之间涌出。}114.

So let man observe from what he was created. He was created from a fluid, ejected, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.114.

上述经文受到多位批评者和注释者的谴责,认为其在科学上不准确,任何试图从中挖掘准确含义的努力都被认为无异于文字上的牵强附会。这一评价源于对"sulb"(صلب)和"tara’ib"(ترائب)两个词的分析,这两个词通常被译为"脊柱"和"肋骨"。坚持《古兰经》科学不准确论的人声称,这种对sulb和tara’ib的翻译与现代生理学的发展无法相容。然而,经过对这两个词的词汇学分析,将会看到这两个词实际上与现代生理学是相符的。

The above verses have been condemned by various critics and commentators as being scientifically inaccurate, and any attempt to salvage an accurate meaning from them has been suggested to be tantamount to textual acrobatics. This evaluation arises from an analysis of the words (sulb) and (tara’ib) which have been translated to mean ‘backbone’ and ‘ribs’. Those who maintain the scientific inaccuracy of the Qur’an claim the above translation for the words sulb and tara’ib cannot be reconciled with modern developments in physiology. However, after a lexical analysis of these words it will be seen that these words do in fact concur with modern physiology.

"صُلب"(sulb)一词有多种含义，包括坚硬、结实、坚固和僵硬。它也指脊椎的任何部分，尤指腰椎部分和腰部。此词专指男性。"ترائب"(tara’ib)一词指胸骨、肋骨或骨盆弓，大多数学者认为该词专指女性。

The word (sulb) carries various meanings including hard, firm, solid, stiff and rigid. It also means any portion of the backbone, particularly the lumbar portion and the loins. It is specific to males115 116. The word (tara’ib) means breastbone, the ribs117 or the pelvic arch118, and this word according to most authors refers specifically to women.

通过对阿拉伯语所提供的各种释义进行这样的考察，可以推断，《古兰经》与现代生理学是相符的，因为众所周知，精子和精液来自被称为腰部（ṣulb）的部位，而卵子来自骨盆弓区域。这两者对于人的创造，即人类的产生，都是必需的。

With such examinations of the interpretations offered by the Arabic language, it can be inferred that the Qur’an complies with modern physiology as it is well known that the sperm and semen come from an area referred to as the loins, and the ovum comes from the pelvic arch area. Both of which are required for the creation of man, that is to say, the human being.

先知的圣训阐明并解释了《古兰经》关于发育中人类胚胎的观点，这些圣训与现代胚胎学相吻合。有无数的圣训可以证实这一说法。例如，下面这则关于胎儿性别决定的圣训，就说明先知ﷺ的圣训与科学发展是一致的：

Prophetic traditions that clarify and elucidate the qur’anic view on the developing human embryo correspond with modern embryology. There are a myriad of traditions that substantiate this claim. For instance the following tradition on gender determination highlights how the Prophetic traditions are in line with scientific developments:

当这滴精液在子宫中停留四十或四十五夜之后，天使就会被派去见它，并说："主啊！他将是不幸的还是幸福的？"于是这一点便被记录下来。随后他又说："主啊！他将是男还是女？"119

The angel is sent to the nutfah after it has settled in the uterus for 40 or 45 nights and says, “Lord! Is it to be wretched or happy?” Then this is inscribed. Then he says, “Lord! Is it to be male or female? 119

在胚胎发育的第6周，原始性索呈指状突起。此时，雄性和雌性性腺看起来完全相同。然而，第6周之后不久，发生了一个重要事件，决定了胚胎遗传组成的外在表现。这一事件是激活某些基因，从而刺激雄性和雌性激素的产生：

During the 6th week of the developing embryo the primary sex cords are finger like projections. At this time both the male and female gonads appear identical. However, just after the 6th week a significant event occurs that determines the physical expression of the embryo’s genetic make up. This event is the activation of genes that stimulates the production of male and female hormones:

如果胚胎细胞中存在Y染色体,位于该染色体短臂上的一个名为SRY的基因就会开启,引发一连串的化学反应,进而开启其他基因,并刺激雄性激素的产生。如果存在的是X染色体,或者Y染色体上缺少SRY基因,胚胎将发育为女性,其机制尚未被完全了解。120

If the Y chromosome is resent in the embryo’s cell, a gene within the short arm of the chromosome called SRY will turn on, initiating a chemical chain reaction that will turn on other genes and stimulate the production of male hormones. If the X chromosome is resent, or if the SRY gene is missing from the Y chromosome, the embryo will develop into a female via mechanisms that are not fully understood.120

这清楚地表明了胚胎学与上述圣训之间的紧密吻合。

This clearly shows a strong correspondence between embryology and the above tradition.

然而，有一段特定的圣训被批评者认为与科学事实不符。这段圣训被解读为：胚胎的努extfah（精子）、'alaqah（血块）和mudghah（肉块）各阶段依次经历三个四十天的周期，即总共一百二十天。这种解读与这段时间内胚胎的实际外观并不相符。

However, there is a particular tradition that critics have claimed to be scientifically inaccurate. The following tradition has been interpreted to mean that the nutfah, `alaqah and mudghah stages occur in three 40 day sequences, making it a period of 120 days. This interpretation does not concur with the appearance of the embryo during this time:

真实而受启示的安拉的使者ﷺ说:“人的造化是在母腹中四十天凝聚成形,然后成为一块浓血,经过同样的时间,然后成为一块肉,再经过同样的时间。”121

The Messenger of Allah, the true and truly inspired said, “(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. 121.

为了澄清这个看似不准确的圣训，较正确的理解是：这四十天是并列的，也就是说，各个阶段都发生在四十天的时间范围之内。另有一段先知圣训支持这一点，它提到具体分化器官的形成是在最初四十二天之后开始的：

To clarify this seemingly inaccurate tradition, a correct interpretation would be that the 40 days are parallel, meaning that the stages occur within a 40 day period. This is supported by another Prophetic tradition which mentions that the creation of specific differentiated organs start after the first 42 days:

当四十二个夜晚过去……真主派遣一位天使到胎儿那里，天使为它塑造形体。这段圣训明确表明，精子（nutfah）、血块（`alaqah）和肉团（mudghah）这几个阶段都发生在四十二天之前。

此外,该段圣训中使用了"如此"一词,可以理解为对那段时间的重复。这个词在经注学(usul)中属于"mujmal",即泛指、笼统的表述;而上述圣训属于"mubayyan",即明确的表述。根据古典学术的原则,泛指的表述由明确的表述加以限定,从而准确地反映说话者的含义和意图。包括伊玛目马立克以及七世纪学者伊本·阿扎姆拉尼在内的许多学者得出结论:努夫фа(nutfah)、阿拉卡(`alaqah)和穆邦盖(mudghah)三个阶段发生在最初的四十天内。

Additionally, the tradition in question uses the phrase ‘like that’ which can be understood as a repetition of the time period. The phrase is mujmal, which in the classical sciences means general, whereas the aforementioned tradition is mubayyan, meaning explicit. The rule according to the classical sciences is that the general is specified by the explicit to give an accurate portrayal of the meaning and intention of the speaker. Many scholars such as Imam Malik and the 7th century scholar Ibn Azzamlakani reached the conclusion that the nutfah, `alaqah and mudghah stages occur during the first 40 days.

各种批评者认为上述经文(即关于胚胎发育和精子来源的经文)与科学事实不符,他们往往借助现有的古兰经译本,来指出古兰经中的某些词语为何无法与科学真理相调和。这种做法是有缺陷的。翻译研究的结论是,语言之间永远不可能达到完全对等,而断言可以对等,就是错误地假定两种不同语言之间存在文化与语言上的对称性,而这在语言上是无法实现的。这一点尤其适用于阿拉伯语与欧洲语言,因为二者在语言和文化上都“不相契合”。124 因此,译文永远不可能等同于原文,而任何追求完全对等的人都“在追逐海市蜃楼”。125 由此可见,要得出可靠的结论,就必须结合词汇分析、对古兰经注释的理解以及对现代科学的最新知识来进行研究。

Various critics who argue the aforementioned verses (i.e. on embryonic development and the origins of sperm) are not in line with scientific facts, tend to use the available qur’anic translations to express and highlight how certain words in the Qur’an cannot be reconciled with scientific truths. This approach is flawed. Translation studies conclude that there can never be equivalence between languages123, and to assert this would wrongfully presume cultural and linguistic symmetry between two different languages, which is linguistically unattainable. This clarification is applicable more so to Arabic and European languages than any other as they are both “linguistically and culturally incongruous”.124 Therefore, a translation will never be a representation of the original text and anyone who seeks total equivalence “is chasing a mirage”.125 Hence, a lexical analysis, coupled with an understanding of qur’anic exegesis and up-to-date knowledge of modern science, is required to form sound conclusions concerning science and the Qur’an.

为了缩小语言之间的差距，需要对每一个词的含义和内涵进行详细探究。因此，译者往往对同一节经文产出多种译文。此外，译文在很大程度上依赖于注释性著作及其所提供的多种解释。仅引用某一种译文，或将论证的依据局限于某一种解释，既不足以支撑所提出的结论，也无法提供充分的论据。 关于涉及自然现象的经文，解释会因注释者对该主题所掌握的背景知识不同而有所差异。显然，以不准确的解释和译文为基础，去推断《古兰经》有误，是站不住脚、也无说服力的做法。如果把某节经文所有可能的含义都与自然界的知识加以对照，结果显示它们互相矛盾、彼此不相容，那么认为《古兰经》不准确的结论才值得认真对待。然而迄今并非如此，本文的分析已经阐明、确立并再次证实了这一点。 更一般地说，古兰经阿拉伯语的语言特征赋予《古兰经》深度。其词语具有多层含义，因而能够生发出浩如烟海的诠释，为世界上最伟大、影响最深远的文明之一奠定了基础并提供了动力。正如语言学家侯赛因·阿卜杜勒-拉乌夫所写： “古兰经语言的丰富性及其对不同诠释的包容性，有助于解释这一部书如何能够塑造出世界上伟大的文明之一。” 126

In attempts to close the gap between languages a detailed exploration is required of the derisions and connotations of each and every word. As a result of this, translators produce numerous translations of a single verse. Additionally, translations are heavily dependent on exegetical works and the wide range of interpretations offered by them. Citing one particular translation or restricting the evidence for points of an argument to a single interpretation does not allow for, and cannot provide, adequate grounds for reaching a proposed conclusion. With regard to verses concerning natural phenomena, interpretations will vary based upon the background information a particular exegete has on the topic. Evidently, basing conclusions on inaccurate interpretations and translations is an insubstantial and ineffectual means of inferring the Qur’an is wrong. If all possible meanings of a particular verse were reconciled with knowledge of the natural world, and the results showed them to be incongruous and incompatible, then the conclusion of the Qur’an as inaccurate would be taken seriously. As yet, this has not been the case as illuminated, established and reaffirmed with the analysis provided in this paper. On a more general note, the linguistic features of qur’anic Arabic give the Qur’an depth. Its use of words with multi-layered meanings facilitates oceans of interpretations, providing the foundations and impetus for one of the world’s greatest and most influential civilizations. As the academic linguist Hussein Abdul-Raof writes: The richness of qur’anic language and its receptivity towards different interpretations help explain how this single book could have given shape to one of the world’s great civilizations. 126