Whip it, whip it good

One of the cruelest legacies of the Abrahamic religions, was the normalisation of slavery.  Slavery in the Western Christian world persisted largely until the 1800s. Islamic countries did not ban slavery for the most part until the 1900s.  Even then it survived in extremist groups as with Islamic militias in Sudan or ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

This slavery presents a major problem for theists.  It is in direct conflict with a range of claims. These include the moral character of their prophets.  Abraham owned slaves. Mohammad owned slaves. The benevolence of God of Abraham and the origin of morality with this deity, does not survive the reality of slavery.

Christians throughout history have used two main arguments to defend slavery.  These are that their version was more humane, and that slavery was in some sense, a necessary evil.

The Nice Version of Slavery Argument.

This is often seen in pop-apologist defenses of ancient Judeao-Christian slavery.  Apparently all slavery in the ancients kingdoms of Israel was voluntary debt-bondage, of limited scope (rolls eyes).  There's nothing wrong with slavery therefore, if it is practiced by ancient Israelites or Christians.

This is a completely made-up argument. The OT rules on slave ownership make it clear manumission-guarantees were limited to Jewish males. Foreign slaves did not get the right to be freed after 6 years. The OT also describes slaves taken in warfare. Exodus 21:20-21 contradicts alleged humane nature of this ancient slavery by sanctioning the beating of slaves, and more explicitly, defining them as property rather than human beings.

Despite many Christians today wanting to distance themselves from pro-slavery arguments, this 'nice slavery' defense is echoed in later centuries. The motif of the kind slaver-owner, solicitous of their slaves' welfare, was commonly employed to defend slavery.

"We ought to consider whether the negroes in a well regulated plantation, under the protection of a kind master, do not enjoy as great, nay, even greater advantages than when under their own despotic governments" - Michael Renwick Sergeant

This tries to justify slavery as welfare-enhancing. While slavery isn't a good thing per se, the slaves are better off than in their own countries.  Or even better, by being exposed to Christianity they would become Christian and so, save their souls. Slavery was a small, temporal price to pay for an eternity in heaven. And with such justifications, moral slippage occurs.

The blunting effects of slavery upon the slaveholder's moral perceptions are known and conceded the world over; and a privileged class, an aristocracy, is but a band of slaveholders under another name.
- Mark Twain A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

The Necessary Evil Argument

This argument is duplicated by slavery apologists, both modern and historical.  Arguments from the 18th (and 19th Centuries in antebellum US) were that slavery had benefits. It civilised or Christianised the barbaric and pagan peoples of Africa.  

The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. - Robert E Lee. 

Modern apologists do not balk at similar arguments. Slavery was necessary for ancient societies and economies. 

Noting that Jesus did not instruct followers to abolish slavery ignores the fact that slavery was often voluntary and civil and a component of societal functioning in Biblical times - Pop-Apologist Stephanie Thomson

I note that there are other forms of 'unfree' labour that ancient economies could use instead. Ancient Egypt and China used a corvee system of mass labour conscription in agricultural slack-months, to undertake public works.  And while slavery did exist in Ancient China, there were attempts to abolish it. The Han emperor Wang Mang did so in 9 CE- during the lifetime of Jesus. Serfdom in various forms was also possible. Slavery was not necessary.

But wait, Christians ended slavery

It seems always odd the Christians also want plaudits for ending slavery in the West.  While I appreciate the efforts of all who were involved in abolition movements, the reality is they were also strongly opposed by Christians. Some were still defending slavery when the Federal Army's guns reached Richmond.  Most people for much of Christendom's history, were not like Wilberforce.  

One thing that also struck me is how much the abolition arguments emphasised the cruelty and brutality of slavery, rather than Christian arguments for ending it. It seems odd that if the argument against slavery really was theological, that this was employed so rarely. 

The problem is also that Christians had to end slavery because no-one else could. They had the political power in the West. It wasn't the Atheists or Buddhists in Western countries that could abolish slavery. They had no power to do so.  And when slavery has been legal for say, 90% of your religion's history, it's not earning the religion much credit to finally abolish it. That's taken far too long and the agonising suffering slavery produced reached too great a scale. 

Summary

It seems ironic that modern apologists use arguments that mimic those from people they claim to oppose.  The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was terrible. Antebellum slavery was not wonderful. Both were defended by Christians for centuries. 

Overall, I find the arguments defending historical slavery inadequate and unconvincing.  They lack a proper moral justification.  It seems instead they require a degree of moral slippage that people outside these faiths, would balk at. In ancient times, few had the courage and moral character to seek the abolishment of slavery. Moses, Jesus and Mohammad were not among them.  I cannot reconcile slavery with the alleged morality of the Abrahamic prophets and deity. 

Embryology and the Qur'an

The internet provides a vehicle for many to communicate their beliefs.  Muslims have also taken to social media (like twitter) to proselytize for their religion. A popular tactic is to claim that the qur'an is filled with modern scientific knowledge.  This seems to be a bizarre tactic.  The Islamic world has not really been at the forefront of scientific discovery since, well, Copernicus worked out that the solar system was heliocentric before Muslim astronomers.  Despite studying an ancient book that provides apparently, all kinds of useful pointers on modern science, the Islamic world is deeply under-represented in science Nobel prizes etc.

One of the claims does interest me as a biologist, and also as an atheist who gets this ploy used on me a lot.  This is the claim that the qur'an anticipates modern (human) embryology.  This could only have a divine origin (despite its erstwhile similarities to Galen, for whom no such divine inspiration is attributed).

Human Embryo

The relevant verses are 23:12-14.  So I just want to look at these quickly.

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed-like substance)...
[Noble Quran 23:12-14]  

Clay

23:12 claims that humans are made from clay.   Now because clay is mostly aluminum and silicon and contain little of the organic material this is clearly not the case (the 6 macro-elements we look for as life's basic building blocks are Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Carbon and Sulphur). It is perhaps more likely this is meant in an allegorical rather than scientific sense.  But if we accept this is not being scientific, then well, it is not clear why the remaining verses are supposed to be scientific. 

Nutfah

23:13 introduces the drop (nutfah) which also presents problems. It doesn't take divine inspiration to realise that the ejaculate from a male can be a liquid drop.  It would be impressive if the qur'an mentioned sperm and eggs.  But it doesn't. In fact, eggs (baydeh) are nowhere mentioned.  It strikes me that as a guide to modern embryology, omitting any mention of eggs is well, astonishing. Parenthetically, sperm isn't mentioned either. Sometimes special pleading is used to infer that the nutfah means a human gamete. But there is nothing here that hints at the microscopic world. 

The claim of a safe lodging would also contradict ectopic pregnancies, where the gamete might settle in the fallopian tube or abdomen. This unsafe location causes miscarriages or at worst, painful pregnancies fatal to mother and child.

Alqahah

23:14 then gets very complicated as many words gets vaguer. The first stages of  embryology (blastula, gastrula) don't involve any blood vessels, so a clot isn't a good description.  It seems more plausible that the spotting that sometimes occurs in early pregnancies- or even miscarriages- would cause a 'blood clot' deduction.  

Alternatively, alaqah could be a metaphor based on a leech.  If so, it is not a very good one.  Leeches are protostomes whilst humans are deuterostomes. We haven't been alike for about 600my. Leeches lack a notochord, they lack limb buds, they lack pharyngeal arches.  A human embryo doesn't digest its host's blood. It doesn't use its mouth-parts to interact with its host.  

Even if we want to go with a leech-like interpretation over the blood-clot for alaqah, then this does not imply divine insight.  For a people familiar with butchering animals (and dare I say, people on occasion), it wouldn't take much powers of observation to notice small embryos attached to the uterus of pregnant mammals.  For ancient peoples, these likely resembled leeches.

Bones

The text above omits the last part of 23:14.  Here are two translations of it:

Muhsin Khan Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.

Pickthall Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!

The issue here is simply the order bones appear. It appears to describe two stages. First, the mudghah becomes bones, then the bones are covered in flesh. This is likely a deduction of people used to butchering animals, and had no way of conceiving how muscles and flesh could be attached to bones without the skeleton being formed first.

The problem is that bones form last. Reduced to the basic steps, mesenchymal cells within the embryo first differentiate into cartilage lines. Later this cartilage is replaced by bone. At no point would we say that the bones are later covered in flesh. 

Conclusion

 It is obvious that the qur'an does not describe human embryology at any useful level.  Rather the argument depends on some very heroic special pleading. Modern scientific discoveries are retrofitted to vague language to make claims that go far beyond the verses.  It also depends on poor knowledge of embryology.  No quantity of Youtube videos or webpages can hide the fact that the Qur'an simply does not describe human embryology.  Rather than being special advanced knowledge, the qur'an seems entirely consistent with knowledge of the era. I'm reluctant to believe that the "creator of the universe" sic would know as little biology as the typical 6th C Arab.