Rewrite the entire text below, make it sound more coherent and better. Mention everything in great detail, including Hadithes and Quran Verses. Be very objective:

Rewrite the entire text below, make it sound more coherent and better. Mention everything in great detail, including Hadithes and Quran Verses. Be very sceptical of Hijab and also add some additional good arguments:


Refute Hijab in this text:

''In this discussion, Mohammad Hijab examines a verse from Chapter 55 of the Quran that refers to a barrier separating two bodies of water, which cannot be crossed by any means. He addresses a video featuring well-known atheist Richard Dawkins visiting a school with Muslim students and attempting to dispute the accuracy of the Quran’s depiction of this barrier. According to Hijab, Dawkins and the “new atheist movement” aim to manipulate young, impressionable Muslims by indoctrinating them with their beliefs. In response, the Muslim students defend the Quran by citing various examples of scientific evidence within its pages, including the shape of the earth, the role of mountains, and the distinction between saltwater and freshwater.

Hijab takes issue with Dawkins’ approach to challenging the Quran. He contends that Dawkins should have thoroughly researched the context and interpretation of the verse from Chapter 55 prior to attempting to discredit it. Hijab argues that the most widely accepted interpretation of this verse is that it refers to the division of seas and rivers by land masses. He accuses Dawkins of exhibiting unscientific and lazy behavior by neglecting to explore this interpretation before launching his attack.

While Hijab acknowledges that there are alternative interpretations of the verse, some of which even consider it as a scientific wonder, he does not elaborate on these further. In conclusion, Hijab asserts that Richard Dawkins failed to discredit the Quran’s depiction of the barrier due to his lack of proper engagement with the verse, thereby demonstrating the importance of understanding context and interpretation when critically analyzing religious texts.''


And use this text below as reference point. Rewrite the entire text below in detail. Mention everything, even Quran verses and Hadithes. Also add some more good arguments based on quran and Hadith and logic to counter the Author Hijab's arguments. Be very critical and do not try to defend the Quran in this case, just refute Hijabs arguments:


''Hijab appears to have misinterpreted the Quran when he posits that the “nutfah stage,” referenced as the initial stage of embryology in the Quran, actually describes the fertilized egg during early cell division. In reality, “nutfah” simply denotes a small quantity of liquid, which was metaphorically used to signify semen in classical Arabic. Hijab also cites Quran 76:2, which states, “We created man from a drop of mingled sperm.” However, this interpretation is suspect. By the time sperm reaches the fallopian tube, it is no longer part of semen. Instead, it has already traveled through cervical mucus and is prepared to fertilize the female egg. There is no evidence in the Quran to suggest that the author was aware of the female egg’s role in the fertilization process.

The Hadith Hijab refers to (Abu Dawood (2050)) does not clarify the precise origin of the “mingled sperm.” The response was elicited by a question regarding azl (withdrawal during intercourse) and only implies that even a small quantity of semen might cause pregnancy. The concept of “mingled fluids” seems to correspond more closely with the Galenic notion of two semens. The egg and sperm meet in the fallopian tube, at which point the sperm is no longer part of semen. Fallopian cilia push the egg along the tube after it has been released into the follicular fluid, which serves as a developmental environment.

The argument that the Quran was simplified for the general populace of the 7th to 9th centuries, as a reason for not mentioning the female egg’s involvement in fertilization, is unconvincing. Similarly, the claim that the author possessed an extensive and advanced understanding of the subject yet deliberately chose not to reveal it, is implausible.''