The Quran on the Cerebrum "Naseyah" (pre-frontal cortex)!

[Maiwand]

Quran and our pre-frontal cortex and our limbic system:



The Quran on the Cerebrum "Naseyah"




The Quran on the Cerebrum "Naseyah"


The Quran on the Cerebrum "Naseyah" Al-Naseyah by Skeikh.Alzindani Studies on the front lobe of the brain All Pages Page 1 of 3
God has said in the Quran about one of the evil unbelievers who forbade the Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, from praying at the Kaaba:
“No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the naseyah (front of the head), a lying, sinful naseyah (front of the head)!” (Quran 96:15-16)
Why did the Quran describe the front of the head as being lying and sinful? Why didn’t the Quran say that the person was lying and sinful? What is the relationship between the front of the head and lying and sinfulness?
If we look into the skull at the front of the head, we will find the prefrontal area of the cerebrum (see figure below). What does physiology tell us about the function of this area? A book entitled Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology says about this area, “The motivation and the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur in the anterior portion of the frontal lobes, the prefrontal area. This is a region of association cortex...”[1]

Functional regions of the left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex. The prefrontal area is located at the front of the cerebral cortex. (Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology, Seeley and others, p. 210.)

Also the book says, “In relation to its involvement in motivation, the prefrontal area is also thought to be the functional center for aggression....”[2]
So, this area of the cerebrum is responsible for planning, motivating, and initiating good and sinful behavior and is responsible for the telling of lies and the speaking of truth. Thus, it is proper to describe the front of the head as lying and sinful when someone lies or commits a sin, as the Quran has said, “...A lying, sinful naseyah (front of the head)!”
Scientists have only discovered these functions of the prefrontal area in the last sixty years, according to Professor Keith L. Moore.[3]

References:

[1] Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology, Seeley and others, p. 211. Also see The Human Nervous System, Noback and others, pp. 410-411.

[2]Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology, Seeley and others, p. 211.

[3]Al-E’jaz al-Elmy fee al-Naseyah (The Scientific Miracles in the Front of the Head), Moore and others, p. 41.

Source: islam-guide.com


For more intersting articles about science and Quran: Go to :: Quran and Science ::- - - - - - -:: Islam and science :: Scientific miracles in the holy Quran:: Convert to Islam::

[Catya Sher]

When I saw the thread's caption, i thought it might indicate that reading the Quran has a healthy affect on the brain.

I bet in another 60 years, science will discover THAT!

This discussion revealing the remarkable correlation is truly food for thought.

Thanks for providing the written text for those who don't have time to watch the videos at that moment.

[muhsina]

You guys talk about the sanctity of your religeous texts and scriptures after science discovers them. Why the hell dont you discover it before science does?

[Dust]

^Could it be perhaps that the terminology is different. If the two do match, then we have to give the benefit of the doubt. Wouldn't you say so?

[Wrayun]

I don't agree with using science to proving or validating scripture. Not everything is a scientific fact, and these facts can change thus used against scripture. Plus what do you do with all the science that might contradict scripture? So it works both ways.

You guys talk about the sanctity of your religeous texts and scriptures after science discovers them. Why the hell dont you discover it before science does?

Science is a verification method/tool as well. How else will you be able to discover such things without the use this method/tool?

[As-Salaf As-Saalih]

^Yes, correctly put.

[muhsina]

[QUOTE=Wrayun;166248]

I don't agree with using science to proving or validating scripture.

I agree with that. Why should science prove scriptures,it should be the otherway round. If the scripture is against science then you need to check the scripture.

Plus what do you do with all the science that might contradict scripture?

In case science gets contradicted by scripture then ofcourse we need to check that scripture. It might be a script being claimed as scripture.

Science is a verification method/tool as well. How else will you be able to discover such things without the use this method/tool?

Everything has to be verified to know whether it is scientific or some hypnotising story to fool masses.

Having said this, I did not mean any of what has been perceived. I just said that if the scriptures are of any use then use they should be used to discover new facts about universe whether they belong to physical or biological or pshycholofgical domain of sciences.

It is foolish that once science has discovered certain fact then we start exploring our scriptures to find out if the same was said thousands of years ago.

Watch Maharishi channel to understand what I am talking about. He would prove every fact of Physics,Politics, IR ,Psychology etc to prove that what Maharishi has said is right but would not dare to predict or discover anything new as they are afraid of the falsification principle.

[Dust]

You guys talk about the sanctity of your religeous texts and scriptures after science discovers them. Why the hell dont you discover it before science does?

I agree with that. Why should science prove scriptures,it should be the otherway round. If the scripture is against science then you need to check the scripture.

Contradictory statements. To be fair.

[Dust]

Having said this, I did not mean any of what has been perceived. I just said that if the scriptures are of any use then use they should be used to discover new facts about universe whether they belong to physical or biological or pshycholofgical domain of sciences.

It is foolish that once science has discovered certain fact then we start exploring our scriptures to find out if the same was said thousands of years ago.

Well, you would not have thought this if you knew what the Muslims claim about the premise of the Quran.

I believe that its verses have many layered meanings. If this is true then your statement should be revised for the present day findings all come with different classifications and terminology.

As a scholar, I have learned to always understand a subject from its experts, not from one's own whims.

[Wrayun]

Contradictory statements. To be fair.

lulz.....

Two words: Intellectual dishonesty.

[Dust]

That is what I get upset at some Atheist for: they think they know it all, just because they don't believe in God. They are no better then the extremists of any other religion.

I love to learn that is why I have so many questions. Then I try to find the flaw in the answer with logical fallacies. If I can't then I simply accept it.

I don't believe in being an Agnostic, that is like having your cake and eating too.

[Wrayun]

I think some "atheists" here don't quite understand the full dynamics of calling oneself an "atheist". It's more than just not believing in the existence of a creator, it is a thought system, where you can't afford to be biased. But many are, and that leads to exposing their own self imposed dogmas. In other words, like you said, no different than religious extremists.


So Dust, you are subscriber of: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.....


I respect that.

[Dust]

If you follow my posts, I don't have a problem with the Islam per se, I am more confused with the way its followers are at each others' throat.

I mentioned in one post that if God did not exist, then Muhammad was a genius. This is statement is somewhat of what Michael Hart has said.

I believe that logic can answer anything. The problem is that we do not fully understand and comprehend all laws of nature. That is why Stephen Hawking is unable to derive a universal formulate.

Imagine how far behind we are in scientific discoveries versus the already existing natural world. I will give you one example. When Roberto Carlos took the impossible free-kick, the French keeper said it was a fluke. Roberto Carlos countered that by saying that he had replicated the same kick before.

Physicists were taken by surprise for the kick defied all "known" laws of physics. Nonetheless, after studying his kick and trying to simulate it, they concluded that it was something possible and a new formula was created.

So, Stephen Hawking better have infinite years to live, because he will not be able to derive a universal formula anytime soon.

Nature is too complex to disagree with anyone based on one's own whims. That is why I am so open to religion, especially Islam. Christianity lost my hope.

[Dust]

I think some "atheists" here don't quite understand the full dynamics of calling oneself an "atheist". It's more than just not believing in the existence of a creator, it is a thought system, where you can't afford to be biased. But many are, and that leads to exposing their own self imposed dogmas. In other words, like you said, no different than religious extremists.

Right on!

I mentioned in one post that even Atheists take everything "scientists" say blindly. You can't do that. Science is nothing more then a systematized system that tries to falsify a hypothesis in order to reach a concrete answer. However, there are many systems by which one can reach an answer, of course depending on what you are looking for.

How can you falsify God? You can't. Therefore, another method has to be developed to prove His existence or His non-existence. My theory is as follows: If God does not exist then we Atheists have to counter the arguments for the existence of God. Simple. We can't derive our own criteria.

One thing that always baffles me: If Muhammad truly was illiterate and he did not have help from anyone, then the Quran is mind-boggling. That is why I say if God does not exist, then Muhammad was a genius.

[Wrayun]

One thing that always baffles me: If Muhammad truly was illiterate and he did not have help from anyone, then the Quran is mind-boggling. That is why I say if God does not exist, then Muhammad was a genius.

It's a discussion I had once with an ex-Muslim. He confessed that the only thing that bothers him is that he can never place the Quran into the equation of his disbelief. Where did it come from? If it was plagiarized then Muhammad did a far better job as an Arab than the Christains and Jews of the time in compiling a religious scripture. The moral standard in the Quran is higher than that of the Bible (old and new testaments) i.e. you don't see Prophets sleeping with their daughters, lusting over married women, seducing daughter-in-laws etc. These biblical Prophets are cleansed from all morally objectionable acts you find in the Bible. Even for that he deserves recognition, he was like....wait, can't put that in the Quran, some might find that a little too naughty.


If he was a genius, still, personally, worth following. Being born into the Muslim community helps too.

Christianity, out of the question.
Hinduism, as is, out of the question.
Judiaim, similar in many ways to Islam, but it has no universalistic factor. Very cliquish.
Budhism, can't spend all my life meditating, plus similar to Hinduism.
Sikism, rip off Islam and Hinduism.
Bahai, same thing.
Scientology, LOL.

Atheism, interesting at times, but creates more problems instead of solutions.