Source and purity of milk? by amin
Source and purity of milk?
16:66 And indeed, for you is a lesson in the cattle. We give you drink from what is in their bellies, from between bowels and blood, pure milk, palatable to the drinkers.
(Some non-Muslims wrongly say that milk is not pure, while the Qur’an says “pure milk, palatable to the drinkers”. An answer to non-Muslims’ objection is that the pure milk is the raw milk (aka unpasteurized milk), because that’s the way the milk is, after milking the cow or cattle. If you eliminate bacteria, then it is not pure milk, because that’s not the way milk was. So, bacteria is present as part of the milk, (e.g. lactobacillus, streptococcus, bifidobacterium, enterococcus) , and are beneficial to health (e.g. help people with lactose intolerance digest milk, etc). Quoting the article “bacteria and raw milk, a very healing food” in the website “thewholejourney(dot)com”, “If you are lactose intolerant when drinking pasteurized milk, it’s likely you will not be lactose intolerant when you drink raw (unpasteurized) milk”. So, bacteria are part of the pure milk, because milk with bacteria is the drinkable and palatable one for lactose intolerant people too)(Pasteurization of milk was introduced to kill harmful bacteria due to contamination because of unclean practices in production, handling and packaging, not because of the milk itself; that is supported by the article “pasteurization” in wikipedia: a short time period between production and consumption minimizes the disease risk of drinking raw (unpasteurized) milk. As urban densities increased and supply chains lengthened to the distance from country to city, raw (unpasteurized) milk (often days old) became recognized as a source of disease)(So, the “pure milk” (with friendly bacteria) is drinkable for everybody, including the lactose intolerant people, while the pasteurized milk is not drinkable for the lactose intolerant people. And if the milk is pasteurized, it is because people did not consume the milk right after drawing the milk from the cattle. So, it is people’s fault or ignorance, not because of the milk itself. So, the Qur’an is in accordance with science)(Sources: the article “raw milk benefits” in website “wellness-with-natural-health-supplements(dot)com; the article “pasteurization” in wikipedia; the article “bacteria and raw milk, a very healing food” in “thewholejourney(dot)com”)(In regard to the sentence “from between bowels and blood” (16:66), the cattle digests grass which passes through the intestines (bowels), where all the essential nutrients the cattle needs are absorbed. Nutrients from the grass turn into milk. A lot of blood must travel around cattle’s udder to deliver the nutrients and water for making milk. So, their blood is continually traveling around their udder to help with milk production)(Source: “How cows make milk” in the website “dairy(dot)edu(dot)au”)(Allah knows best)
See also: Is the Qur'an scientifically correct? (2) (Biology)
http://aqtthq.blogspot.com.es/2016/04/is-quran-scientifically-correct-2.html
See also: Is the Qur'an scientifically correct? (0) (Index)
https://aqtthq.blogspot.com.es/2017/04/is-quran-scientifically-correct-2.html
Miracle In The Formation Of Milk Mentioned In Quran
Belly does not mean stomach. And especially the arabic word use 'Batn' does not mean the scientific stomach:
i.e. it includes the udder
You can't use the modern day scientific definition of a word and apply it to the Quran. Imagine if the Quran was revealed in English and it used the word 'stomach'. Would you now assume that the Quran means the exact scientific organ that was named 'stomach'. No, that is ridiculous. It means the definition of the stomach at the time of revelation. 'Stomach' for centuries meant exactly what 'Batn' means namely the whole area including all the organs
the verse does not discuss an organ; it discusses a process.
In classical exegeses of the Qur'an, you will find that the verse does not discuss the place at which milk leaves the body of animals. Ibn 'Ashūr, in his tafsīr, explains that literary devices used in this verse as well as its intended meaning:
وموقع من بين فرث ودم موقع الصفة ل لبنا، قدمت عليه للاهتمام بها لأنها موضع العبرة، فكان لها مزيد اهتمام، وقد صارت بالتقديم حالا
NOTE. My own translation, so treat with care.
And the position of intermediacy of pomace and blood is descriptive of the milk, introduced earlier to draw attention to its intended meaning, which gives it more attention as when introduced earlier [in the sentence], it becomes a status [gramatically].
Ibn 'Ashūr further elaborated that milk was put as the object (maf'ūl, Arabic: مفعول) of "give you to drink" (Arabic: نسقيكم) to signify that the verse is not referring to a place of serving (i.e., udders), rather; to an outcome product based on two agents: cud and blood. The milk goes from "within" (butūnih, Arabic: بطونه) as excretion or blood would, but it is tasty and easy to swallow.
Note that the word used is butūnih, which is in a masculine form, whereas the word an'ām (animals specified in the verse) is in a feminine form, which would lend itself to using the word butūniha (feminine) rather butūnih (masculine). Linguistically, the origin of the word is batan (Arabic: بطن) has multiple meanings as is the case with most words of the Arabic language:
- What is within a place as in the case of Surat Al-Fath 48:24 referring to batn of Mecca (obviously, this is not referring to a physical belly of Mecca in the anatomical sense).
- What is within a body as in the case of Surat As-Saffat 37:144 when narrating the story of Prophet Yūnus within the whale's stomach or belly.
- What is on the outside lower side as in the case of Surat An-Nur 24:45 when describing animals that move on their bellies.
The word batan (Arabic: بطن) in its root format refers to what is below and concealed, with its antonym being dhahar (Arabic: ظهر) referring to what is above and apparent:
وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ
And do not approach immoralities — what is apparent of them and what is concealed.
This is often used as a literary device in the Arabic language and has often caused confusion when translating such words as batan can also mean belly (or bowel) and dhahar can also mean back.
Such usage was discussed by Sami Wadī' in his book At-Tafsīr al-Bayāni, pp. 133-134 that is dedicated to the understanding of the linguistic and theological meaning of the words used in this chapter (not specifically verse 66, but it is covered too). He explained that the word farath (Arabic: فرث) referred to pomace. In the case of this verse, it is referring to the point of the process starting with the cud in fermented ingestion to the point where nutrients are transported through blood, and how milk — which neither resembles pomace nor blood — is formed. He, too, did not see that the verse referred to an organ, but to a process.
There are 2 valid interpretations for this But Im not sure if the first one is true or not, can an arab confirm whether I said is true or not. Im just inferring this strictly from the English literal word for word translation
"to drink" is the subject "milk" is the object. So verse is saying we give you milk to drink from what is in their bellies . Well what is in their bellies? Contents of food and such. So basically nutrients. And nutrients are between/among digested contents and blood. So verse is saying we give you to drink from the nutrients between digested food and blood, milk pure and palletable. / we give you milk to drink from the nutrients from between digestive food and blood.
The Other interpretation is the most popular one and is also valid. If it's saying milk is in bellies between digestive food and blood then that would be scientifically accurate because the milk in the udders is indeed between the two. Do people not understand there is blood in the udders. And despite blood being in udders we still get pure milk because those blood vessels are separated from the filtration. And of course the blood vessels there are to support the surrounding cells. So milk is definitely between blood and cud/digested food. And before you say well stomach and udders are two different things. It doesn't say stomach. it says belly. Belly means what is below and concealed. The antonym for batn (belly) is dahr (back). It's like when you say chest. Breasts are included when you say chest of women. Likewise Belly of cow includes udders and everything in that general area and everything inside like intestines and such.
SOURCE:
Bacteria present in raw milk are from infected udder tissues (e.g., mastitis causing bacteria), the dairy environment (e.g., soil, water, and cow manure), and milking equipment. High bacteria counts in raw milk only indicate poor animal health and poor farm hygiene.
So essentially, the milk itself is pure. It's infected udders (so sick cows), unhygienic environment of the cows/milking area and unhygienic milking equipment that introduces pathogens in raw milk. The raw milk, as produced inside the cow "between the digested food and blood" is pure
The contradicter wrote:
Reply:
milk
The Source of the Constituents of Animal Milk by
Maurice Bucaille
It is a well-known fact however, that a translator, even an expert, is liable to make mistakes in the translation of scientific statements, unless he happens to be a specialist in the discipline in question. The most valid translation seems to me to be the following:
“Verily, in cattle there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of what is inside their bodies, coming from a conjunction between the contents of the intestine and the blood, a milk pure and pleasant for those who drink it.” (16:66)
This interpretation is very close to the one given in the Muntakab, 1973, edited by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Cairo, which relies for its support on modern physiology. From the point of view of its vocabulary, the proposed translation may be justified as follows:
I have translated ‘inside their bodies’ and not, as R. Blachère and Professor Hamidullah have done, 'inside their bellies'. This is because the word Batn also means 'middle', ‘interior of something', as well as ‘belly’. The word does not here have a meaning that is anatomically precise. 'Inside their bodies' seems to concur perfectly with the context.
The notion of a 'primary origin' of the constituents of milk is expressed by the word Min (in English 'from') and the idea of a conjunction by the word Baini. The latter not only signifies ‘among’ but also 'between' in the other translations quoted. It is however also used to express the idea that two things or two people are brought together.
From a scientific point of view, physiological notions must be called upon to grasp the meaning of this verse. The substances that ensure the general nutrition of the body come from chemical transformations which occur along the length of the digestive tract. These substances come from the contents of the intestine. On arrival in the intestine at the appropriate stage of chemical transformation, they pass through its wall and towards the systemic circulation.
This passage is effected in two ways: either directly, by what are called the 'lymphatic vessels', or indirectly, by the portal circulation. This conducts them first to the liver, where they undergo alterations, and from here they then emerge to join the systemic circulation. In this way everything passes through the bloodstream.
The constituents of milk are secreted by the mammary glands. These are nourished, as it were, by the product of food digestion brought to them via the bloodstream. Blood therefore plays the role of collector and conductor of what has been extracted from food, and it brings nutrition to the mammary glands, the producers of milk, as it does to any other organ.
Here the initial process which sets everything else in motion is the bringing together of the contents of the intestine and blood at the level of the intestinal wall itself. This very precise concept is the result of the discoveries made in the chemistry and physiology of the digestive system. It was totally unknown at the time of the Prophet Muhammad and has been understood only in recent times.
The discovery of the circulation of the blood, was made by Harvey roughly ten centuries after the Qur'anic Revelation. I consider that the existence in the Qur'an of the verse referring to these concepts can have no human explanation on account of the period in which they were formulated.
According to what I have read, the accepted theory is that all humans used to be lactose intolerant, i.e. after breast feeding is stopped. Some thousands of years ago it was because of a mutation which allowed the LCT gene (which allows for making lactase) to remain turned on and humans were able to continue to consume milk.QuoteThe lactase deficiency also could be linked to certain heritages. Seventy-five percent of all African American, Jewish, Mexican American, and Native American adults are lactose intolerant. Analysis of the DNA of 94 ancient skeletons in Europe and Russia concluded that the lactose tolerant mutation appeared about 4,300 years ago and spread throughout the European population.Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
Different alleles for lactase persistence have developed at least three times in East African populations, with persistence extending from 26% in Tanzania to 88% in the Beja pastoralist population in Sudan.
Regarding the criticism of the verse, exactly what does the verse has to do with lactose intolerance? This is a straw man fallacy and probably a red herring too. The verse is talking about the blessing of Allah for creating a palatable drink, a drink consumable for humans (these are actually how other translators translate this verse, instead of "sweet to the drinker", source: islamawakened.com/quran/16/66/). From between the impure and disgusting matters such as "waste matter [or excretions] and blood", consumable milk is produced.
The verse isn't claiming that there are no humans in the world for whom milk is non-consumable. Additionally, as it would appear that around 75% of all Jews are lactose intolerant (source: www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/.premium-1.664967, www.momentmag.com/the-biggest-jewish-genetic-myths-of-all-time/), if Prophet Muhammad was making the Qur'an up, he would've known about this intolerance.
I disagree. I think it does talk about cattle milk being palatable for all mankind when you look at other translations too. And the prophet didnt have access to cows in the desert, only goats and camels (could he wrong on that).
What i noticed is that it's talking about RAW unpasturised milk, this is why Abdul Haleems translation says "pure milk". Raw (pure) cows milk is hard to get, you have to go to a farm if you want it. And unlike the redditor claimed, it's not dangerous to consume raw milk, in fact it is very healthy, the raw milk has good bacteria which is killed in the pasturisation process and this bacteria helps disgest lactose (apparently).
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/03/study-examines-relationship-between-raw-milk/
"But the spokeswoman did cite a survey conducted by the foundation in 2007 that found that 81 percent of Michigan raw milk drinkers who say they were diagnosed with lactose intolerance reported that they did not suffer from symptoms after switching to raw milk."
Note that the study only looked at the affect over 8 days, we dont know if they'd adapt later if they continued:
http://time.com/17483/study-shows-once-and-for-all-that-raw-milk-doesnt-help-lactose-intolerance/
imo it's not conclusive, they've only ever done one proper study on it. There needs to be further research. by
