Sources of Islamic Theories of Reproduction - Revision history

Lightyears at 13:53, 16 February 2026

2026-02-16T13:53:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 16 February 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{QualityScore\|Lead=4\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=4\|References=4}}		{{QualityScore\|Lead=4\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=4\|References=4}}
	[[File:Galen.jpg\|thumb\|right\|200px\|The writers of the Qur’an and hadith were influenced by Galen, the hugely influential 2<sup>nd</sup> Century Greek physician.]]		[[File:Galen.jpg\|thumb\|right\|200px\|The writers of the Qur’an and hadith were influenced by Galen, the hugely influential 2<sup>nd</sup> Century Greek physician.]]
	The [[hadith]] contain many statements about fluids from both the man and woman that were believed to form the human embryo. The [[Qur'an\|Qur’an]] too ~~says~~ that the embryo is formed from ~~emitted fluid~~, and in one verse perhaps indicates a mingling of male and female fluids. This article will trace the origins of each of these ideas at least as far back as the Jewish Talmud and the ancient Greek physicians.		The [[hadith]] contain many statements about fluids from both the man and woman that were believed to form the human embryo. The [[Qur'an\|Qur’an]] too indicates that the embryo is initially formed from a small amount of semen which is stored in the womb, and in one verse perhaps indicates a mingling of male and female fluids. This article will trace the origins of each of these ideas at least as far back as the Jewish Talmud and the ancient Greek physicians.

	The Prophet [[Muhammad]], who had been a well-traveled merchant, had extensive interactions with Jews in Arabia, and almost certainly with Nestorian Christians, who had large communities in Najran in the south and Hira to the north of the Arabian Peninsula.<ref>J. Stewart, "Nestorian Missionary Enterprise", p.70-74, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928</ref><ref>Cyril Glasse, “The New Encyclopedia of Islam”, p.342-343, CA, USA: Altamira, 2001.</ref> Guillaume says of the Nestorians, “Such men were a familiar sight on all the caravan routes of Arabia”.<ref>Alfred Guillaume, “Islam”, p.15, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1990 (Reprinted)</ref> The Nestorians were based in Syria, where they already possessed and studied the works of Galen, the hugely influential 2<sup>nd</sup> century Greek physician.<ref>Allen O. Whipple, “[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1965836/pdf/bullnyacadmed00860-0027.pdf Role of the Nestorians as the connecting link between Greek and Arab medicine]”, Annals of Medical History 8 (1936) 313-323</ref> While this does not necessitate that the creators of the Qur’an and hadith directly copied from these works, it seems likely to historians that they were at least indirectly influenced by these widespread ideas.		The Prophet [[Muhammad]], who had been a well-traveled merchant, had extensive interactions with Jews in Arabia, and almost certainly with Nestorian Christians, who had large communities in Najran in the south and Hira to the north of the Arabian Peninsula.<ref>J. Stewart, "Nestorian Missionary Enterprise", p.70-74, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928</ref><ref>Cyril Glasse, “The New Encyclopedia of Islam”, p.342-343, CA, USA: Altamira, 2001.</ref> Guillaume says of the Nestorians, “Such men were a familiar sight on all the caravan routes of Arabia”.<ref>Alfred Guillaume, “Islam”, p.15, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1990 (Reprinted)</ref> The Nestorians were based in Syria, where they already possessed and studied the works of Galen, the hugely influential 2<sup>nd</sup> century Greek physician.<ref>Allen O. Whipple, “[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1965836/pdf/bullnyacadmed00860-0027.pdf Role of the Nestorians as the connecting link between Greek and Arab medicine]”, Annals of Medical History 8 (1936) 313-323</ref> While this does not necessitate that the creators of the Qur’an and hadith directly copied from these works, it seems likely to historians that they were at least indirectly influenced by these widespread ideas.

Lightyears at 00:25, 9 December 2025

2025-12-09T00:25:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:25, 9 December 2025
Line 257:		Line 257:
	==Other apologetic interpretations==		==Other apologetic interpretations==

	Apologists sometimes use other arguments to find a reference to sperm (not just semen) or the female ovum in the Qur’an. These are described below as well the views of critics. Qur’an translations are Sahih International’s.		Apologists sometimes use other arguments to find a reference to sperm (not just semen) or the female ovum in the Qur’an. These are described below as well as the views of critics. Qur’an translations are Sahih International’s.

	===Single entity that is part of a bigger group of its kind===		===Single entity that is part of a bigger group of its kind===

Lightyears at 00:21, 9 December 2025

2025-12-09T00:21:06Z

Lightyears: Further language improvements

2025-12-08T01:37:14Z

Further language improvements

Show changes

Lightyears at 00:46, 15 November 2025

2025-11-15T00:46:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:46, 15 November 2025
Line 190:		Line 190:
	{{Quote\|Babylonian Talmud, Nidda 31a\|R. Isaac citing R. Ammi stated: If the woman emits her semen first she bears a male child; if the man emits his semen first she bears a female child;<ref name="Nidda 31a">[http://halakhah.com/niddah/niddah_31.html Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah (Nidda 31a)] - Halakhah.com, accessed July 23, 2012</ref>}}		{{Quote\|Babylonian Talmud, Nidda 31a\|R. Isaac citing R. Ammi stated: If the woman emits her semen first she bears a male child; if the man emits his semen first she bears a female child;<ref name="Nidda 31a">[http://halakhah.com/niddah/niddah_31.html Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah (Nidda 31a)] - Halakhah.com, accessed July 23, 2012</ref>}}

	The same thing is reported in Berakoth 60a.<ref name="Berakoth 60a"></ref> Notice also a two-semens theory again. In most versions of this hadith the determining factor in resemblance is whose water (m<U>a</U>a i.e. semen) preceded (sabaqa) the other person’s water. In other versions it is whose water is on or upon (‘ala) the other’s, which is closer to various Greek theories in which resemblance or gender is caused by semens prevailing upon each other.<ref>Iain M. Lonie, “The Hippocratic Treatises ‘On generation’, ‘On the nature of the child’, ‘Diseases IV’”, pp.125-126, Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1981</ref><ref>See Galen’s description of Strato’s theory of sex determination in “On Semen”, p.183, and De Lacy’s notes on p.242. Galen postulates a semen prevailance theory of resemblance on p.179-181.<BR />Available on [https://cmg.bbaw.de/epubl/online/cmg_05_03_01.php The Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences website] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230909084119/https://cmg.bbaw.de/epubl/online/cmg_05_03_01.php archive])</ref> In one case (~~Sahih~~ Muslim~~, Book 3, number 614~~), it is gender rather than resemblance that is determined in this way and maniyy is used rather than m<U>a</U>a.{{Quote\|1=Aristotle (d. 322 BC) in ''[https://www.google.com/books/edition/De_Generatione_Animalium/WhRDAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 De Generatione Animalium]'', 764a 6 as quoted in {{citation\|page=191\|editor=Philip Wheelwright\|publisher=Macmillan\|year=1966\|title=The Presocratics\|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Presocratics/B9QDAQAAIAAJ?hl=en}}\|2=T 22. Democritus of Abdera says that it [gender] is determined in the womb whether the offspring is to be male or female. He denies, however, the theory [of Empedocles] that heat and cold are what make the difference; it depends, he thinks, upon which of the two parents' generative fluids prevails--i.e., that part of the fluid which has come from the distinctively male or female parts [rather than the part which has come from the body as a whole]. Of the two theories that of Democritus is the better; for he is trying to discover and specify the exact way in which the sexes become differentiated; but whether he is right or not is another matter. (''De Generatione Animalium'' 764a 6)}}		The same thing is reported in Berakoth 60a.<ref name="Berakoth 60a"></ref> Notice also a two-semens theory again. In most versions of this hadith the determining factor in resemblance is whose water (m<U>a</U>a i.e. semen) preceded (sabaqa) the other person’s water. In other versions it is whose water is on or upon (‘ala) the other’s, which is closer to various Greek theories in which resemblance or gender is caused by semens prevailing upon each other.<ref>Iain M. Lonie, “The Hippocratic Treatises ‘On generation’, ‘On the nature of the child’, ‘Diseases IV’”, pp.125-126, Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1981</ref><ref>See Galen’s description of Strato’s theory of sex determination in “On Semen”, p.183, and De Lacy’s notes on p.242. Galen postulates a semen prevailance theory of resemblance on p.179-181.<BR />Available on [https://cmg.bbaw.de/epubl/online/cmg_05_03_01.php The Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences website] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230909084119/https://cmg.bbaw.de/epubl/online/cmg_05_03_01.php archive])</ref> In one case ({{Muslim\|\|315a\|reference}}), it is gender rather than resemblance that is determined in this way and maniyy is used rather than m<U>a</U>a.{{Quote\|1=Aristotle (d. 322 BC) in ''[https://www.google.com/books/edition/De_Generatione_Animalium/WhRDAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 De Generatione Animalium]'', 764a 6 as quoted in {{citation\|page=191\|editor=Philip Wheelwright\|publisher=Macmillan\|year=1966\|title=The Presocratics\|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Presocratics/B9QDAQAAIAAJ?hl=en}}\|2=T 22. Democritus of Abdera says that it [gender] is determined in the womb whether the offspring is to be male or female. He denies, however, the theory [of Empedocles] that heat and cold are what make the difference; it depends, he thinks, upon which of the two parents' generative fluids prevails--i.e., that part of the fluid which has come from the distinctively male or female parts [rather than the part which has come from the body as a whole]. Of the two theories that of Democritus is the better; for he is trying to discover and specify the exact way in which the sexes become differentiated; but whether he is right or not is another matter. (''De Generatione Animalium'' 764a 6)}}

	=== “Not from all the sperm a fetus is created…” ===		=== “Not from all the sperm a fetus is created…” ===

Lightyears: Automated script replacing USC-MSA hadith numbering system for Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Dawud

2025-11-15T00:45:01Z

Automated script replacing USC-MSA hadith numbering system for Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Dawud

Lightyears: /* History of Embryology */

2025-11-10T23:33:21Z

History of Embryology

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 10 November 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Before commencing the specific topic of this article, the following timeline summarises existing theories of embryology, which may be compared with the wider content of [[Embryology in Islamic Scripture\|Islamic embryology]]. Some argue that the vague statements of [[Embryology in the Quran\|Qur'anic embryology]] have similarities with these theories, most conspicuously the incorrect ideas of Galen.		Before commencing the specific topic of this article, the following timeline summarises existing theories of embryology, which may be compared with the wider content of [[Embryology in Islamic Scripture\|Islamic embryology]]. Some argue that the vague statements of [[Embryology in the Quran\|Qur'anic embryology]] have similarities with these theories, most conspicuously the incorrect ideas of Galen.

	{\| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="100%"		{\| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="100%"
	! width="70px" \|Date		! width="70px" \|Date
Line 54:		Line 55:
	3. 'ubbar (something carried); v'alad (child); v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and <BR>		3. 'ubbar (something carried); v'alad (child); v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and <BR>
	4. ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).<ref>Samuel ha-Yehudi</ref>		4. ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).<ref>Samuel ha-Yehudi</ref>
			\|-
			\|354-430 AD
			\|Augustine of Hippo (Christian theologian)
			\|Now it is said that human fetal development reaches completion in the following way. In the first six days [the fetus] is similar to a kind of milk, in the following nine days it is changed to blood, then in the following twelve days it becomes solid, in the remaining ten and eight days the features of all its members achieve complete formation, and in the remaining time until birth it grows in size.<ref>David Mosher (transl.) [https://archive.org/details/saintaugustineei0000unse/page/98/mode/2up Eighty-three Different Questions] by Saint Augustine, 1982, p. 98</ref>
	\|-		\|-
	\|571-632 AD		\|571-632 AD
Line 60:		Line 65:
	“The Prophet said, "Allah puts an angel in charge of the uterus and the angel says, 'O Lord, (it is) semen! O Lord, (it is now) a clot! O Lord, (it is now) a piece of flesh.' And then, if Allah wishes to complete its creation, the angel asks, 'O Lord, (will it be) a male or a female?”<ref>{{Bukhari\|8\|77\|594}}</ref><BR>"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; 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!"<ref>{{cite Quran\|23\|12\|end=14\|style=ref}}</ref>		“The Prophet said, "Allah puts an angel in charge of the uterus and the angel says, 'O Lord, (it is) semen! O Lord, (it is now) a clot! O Lord, (it is now) a piece of flesh.' And then, if Allah wishes to complete its creation, the angel asks, 'O Lord, (will it be) a male or a female?”<ref>{{Bukhari\|8\|77\|594}}</ref><BR>"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; 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!"<ref>{{cite Quran\|23\|12\|end=14\|style=ref}}</ref>
	\|}		\|}


	==A few definitions==		==A few definitions==

Lightyears at 22:01, 6 August 2025

2025-08-06T22:01:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 6 August 2025
Line 305:		Line 305:
	{{Quote\|Eich & Doroftei, 2023. <i>Adam and Embryo. p. 97.</i>\|"And they do not understand the works of their Maker, which are formed like a drop of water (nuṭptā) and a grain of dust in the hollow of His incorporeal hand."}}		{{Quote\|Eich & Doroftei, 2023. <i>Adam and Embryo. p. 97.</i>\|"And they do not understand the works of their Maker, which are formed like a drop of water (nuṭptā) and a grain of dust in the hollow of His incorporeal hand."}}

	Eich and Doroftei's theory has a number of strengths, perhaps most interestingly the two above quotes from Ephraim and Babai which use the Syriac cognate for nutfah in the context of the creation of the first (they also quote a similar passage in the Syriac ''Cave of Treasures'', which likewise mentions the palm of God's hand in this context but with four elements - a grain of dust, drop of water, breath of wind and a little fire, explicitly to create Adam<ref>Ibid. footnote on p. 97</ref>).		Eich and Doroftei's theory has a number of strengths, perhaps most interestingly the two above quotes from Ephraim and Babai which use the Syriac cognate for nutfah in the context of the creation of the first man (they also quote a similar passage in the Syriac ''Cave of Treasures'', which likewise mentions the palm of God's hand in this context but with four elements - a grain of dust, drop of water, breath of wind and a little fire, explicitly to create Adam<ref>Ibid. footnote on p. 97</ref>).

	Their view that {{Quran\|23\|14}} was edited or interpolated is a common one among scholars for stylistic and rythmic reasons.<ref>Ibid. pp. 162-66</ref> Their interpretation provides a simple reason for the dust stage being mentioned in some verses before other stages. It works particularly well for {{Quran\|18\|37}} and {{Quran\|35\|11}},<ref>Ibid. pp. 147-151</ref> in the latter of which pairs/mates would refer to Adam and Eve rather than the birth of males and females (though others may note that the verse immediately then mentions normal ~~conception~~, and comparisons with {{Quran-range\|75\|37\|39}} and {{Quran-range\|53\|45\|46}} may suggest that the conventional interpretation is stronger). Eich and Dorotei also observe that a number of verses which only mention nutfah can be interpreted as the creation of the first man rather than conception: {{Quran\|16\|4}}, {{Quran\|36\|77}}, and {{Quran-range\|76\|1\|2}}, the first of which they note is surrounded by verses about the creation of the world.<ref>Ibid. pp. 170-181</ref> They cleverly offer a reinterpretation of {{Quran-range\|80\|17\|23}} as the conception, life, death and resurrection of Adam.		Their view that {{Quran\|23\|14}} was edited or interpolated is a common one among scholars for stylistic and rythmic reasons.<ref>Ibid. pp. 162-66</ref> Their interpretation provides a simple reason for the dust stage being mentioned in some verses before other stages. It works particularly well for {{Quran\|18\|37}} and {{Quran\|35\|11}},<ref>Ibid. pp. 147-151</ref> in the latter of which pairs/mates would refer to Adam and Eve rather than the birth of males and females (though others may note that the verse immediately then mentions normal pregnancy and childbirth, and comparisons with {{Quran-range\|75\|37\|39}} and {{Quran-range\|53\|45\|46}} may suggest that the conventional interpretation is stronger). Eich and Dorotei also observe that a number of verses which only mention nutfah can be interpreted as the creation of the first man rather than conception: {{Quran\|16\|4}}, {{Quran\|36\|77}}, and {{Quran-range\|76\|1\|2}}, the first of which they note is surrounded by verses about the creation of the world.<ref>Ibid. pp. 170-181</ref> They cleverly offer a reinterpretation of {{Quran-range\|80\|17\|23}} as the conception, life, death and resurrection of Adam.

	At the same time, various difficulties and problems may be observed in their theory. {{Quran-range\|37\|7\|9}} provides context to verses that mention dust before other stages. It clarifies that the first man was created from dust, and his progeny from "liquid disdained" (a synonym for nutfah, as discussed in this article). The authors try to explain "disdained" here by appealing to an obscure and certainly metaphorical mid 7th century Syriac passage on baptismal theology which compares the race of Adam to water polluted by the devil. <ref>Ibid. p. 101, pp. 154-161</ref> As argued elsewhere in this article, another passage, {{Quran-range\|77\|20\|22}} mentions liquid disdained placed in a firm lodging (similar to {{Quran\|23\|13}} which instead uses the word nutfah), and is easily understood as semen placed in the womb in line with Greek and Talmudic concepts. Eich and Dorotei interpret the "firm lodging" as a prominent fixed place and attempt a connection with the creation story, though their evidence may seem very thin here.<ref>Ibid. pp. 156-61</ref> Some may also find it hard to see how the disdained liquid being placed there for a known extent/determination in {{Quran\|77\|22}} sounds like the creation of Adam more than gestation in the womb.		At the same time, various difficulties and problems may be observed in their theory. {{Quran-range\|37\|7\|9}} provides context to verses that mention dust before other stages. It clarifies that the first man was created from dust, and his progeny from "liquid disdained" (a synonym for nutfah, as discussed in this article). The authors try to explain "disdained" here by appealing to an obscure and certainly metaphorical mid 7th century Syriac passage on baptismal theology which compares the race of Adam to water polluted by the devil. <ref>Ibid. p. 101, pp. 154-161</ref> As argued elsewhere in this article, another passage, {{Quran-range\|77\|20\|22}} mentions liquid disdained placed in a firm lodging (similar to {{Quran\|23\|13}} which instead uses the word nutfah), and is easily understood as semen placed in the womb in line with Greek and Talmudic concepts. Eich and Dorotei interpret the "firm lodging" as a prominent fixed place and attempt a connection with the creation story, though their evidence may seem very thin here.<ref>Ibid. pp. 156-61</ref> Some may also find it hard to see how the disdained liquid being placed there for a known extent/determination in {{Quran\|77\|22}} sounds like the creation of Adam more than gestation in the womb.

Lightyears: /* Theory that verses about Adam were repurposed as embryology */

2025-05-24T23:23:19Z

Theory that verses about Adam were repurposed as embryology

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 24 May 2025
Line 298:		Line 298:

	==Theory that verses about Adam were repurposed as embryology==		==Theory that verses about Adam were repurposed as embryology==
	In 2023, Thomas Eich and Doru Constantin Doroftei's ''Adam und Embryo'' ~~academic book~~ was published (open access) in which they argue that the Quranic verses about reproduction and embryology have been misinterpreted and instead relate to the creation of Adam.<ref>Eich & Doroftei, 2023. [https://www.nomos-shop.de/de/p/adam-und-embryo-gr-978-3-98740-064-3 ''Adam and Embryo. A contribution to the study of the story of Adam in Jewish, Christian and Islamic texts up to the end of the first millennium.''], Ergon Verlag<BR />The book is in German, though can be downloaded as an open access (free) ebook format via the link and it is easy to then use google document translation for each chapter.</ref> In this theory, the Quranic nutfah is not semen, but rather water that was mixed with dust to create the first man; alaqah is not clotted blood, but rather a lump of clay; and mudghah is not a bite sized lump of meat but rather the creation when it has become flesh. The theory requires that some of the relevant verses were edited or interpolated to reframe them in a pre-natal context, most notably {{Quran\|23\|14}} (pp. 162-66, 206-214). They also argue that hadiths relating to such verses merely reflect this reinterpretation and contemporary ideas.		In 2023, Thomas Eich and Doru Constantin Doroftei's academic book ''Adam und Embryo'' was published (open access) in which they argue that the Quranic verses about reproduction and embryology have been misinterpreted and instead relate to the creation of Adam.<ref>Eich & Doroftei, 2023. [https://www.nomos-shop.de/de/p/adam-und-embryo-gr-978-3-98740-064-3 ''Adam and Embryo. A contribution to the study of the story of Adam in Jewish, Christian and Islamic texts up to the end of the first millennium.''], Ergon Verlag<BR />The book is in German, though can be downloaded as an open access (free) ebook format via the link and it is easy to then use google document translation for each chapter.</ref> In this theory, the Quranic nutfah is not semen, but rather water that was mixed with dust to create the first man; alaqah is not clotted blood, but rather a lump of clay; and mudghah is not a bite sized lump of meat but rather the creation when it has become flesh. The theory requires that some of the relevant verses were edited or interpolated to reframe them in a pre-natal context, most notably {{Quran\|23\|14}}<ref>Ibid. pp. 162-66, 206-214</ref>. They also argue that hadiths relating to such verses merely reflect this reinterpretation and contemporary ideas.

	The authors identify occurances of the Syriac word nuṭptā (cognate to Arabic nutfah) in the works of early church fathers of the Syriac Church of the East, also known as the Assyrian Church. Ephraim the Syrian (d. 373) wrote:		The authors identify occurances of the Syriac word nuṭptā (cognate to Arabic nutfah) in the works of early church fathers of the Syriac Church of the East, also known as the Assyrian Church. Ephraim the Syrian (d. 373) wrote:
Line 305:		Line 305:
	{{Quote\|Eich & Doroftei, 2023. <i>Adam and Embryo. p. 97.</i>\|"And they do not understand the works of their Maker, which are formed like a drop of water (nuṭptā) and a grain of dust in the hollow of His incorporeal hand."}}		{{Quote\|Eich & Doroftei, 2023. <i>Adam and Embryo. p. 97.</i>\|"And they do not understand the works of their Maker, which are formed like a drop of water (nuṭptā) and a grain of dust in the hollow of His incorporeal hand."}}

	Eich and Doroftei's theory has a number of strengths, perhaps most interestingly the two above quotes from Ephraim and Babai which use the Syriac cognate for nutfah in the context of the creation of the first ~~man~~ (~~his footnote on p. 97~~ also ~~quotes~~ a similar passage in the Syriac ''Cave of Treasures'', which likewise mentions the palm of God's hand in this context but with four elements - a grain of dust, drop of water, breath of wind and a little fire, explicitly to create Adam).		Eich and Doroftei's theory has a number of strengths, perhaps most interestingly the two above quotes from Ephraim and Babai which use the Syriac cognate for nutfah in the context of the creation of the first (they also quote a similar passage in the Syriac ''Cave of Treasures'', which likewise mentions the palm of God's hand in this context but with four elements - a grain of dust, drop of water, breath of wind and a little fire, explicitly to create Adam<ref>Ibid. footnote on p. 97</ref>).

	Their view that {{Quran\|23\|14}} was edited or interpolated is a common one among scholars for stylistic and rythmic reasons (pp. 162-66). Their interpretation provides a simple reason for the dust stage being mentioned in some verses before other stages. It works particularly well for {{Quran\|18\|37}} and {{Quran\|35\|11}} (pp. 147-151), in the latter of which pairs/mates would refer to Adam and Eve rather than the birth of males and females (though others may note that the verse immediately then mentions normal conception, and comparisons with {{Quran-range\|75\|37\|39}} and {{Quran-range\|53\|45\|46}} may suggest that the conventional interpretation is stronger). Eich and Dorotei also observe that a number of verses which only mention nutfah can be interpreted as the creation of the first man rather than conception: {{Quran\|16\|4}}, {{Quran\|36\|77}}, and {{Quran-range\|76\|1\|2}}, the first of which ~~he notes~~ is surrounded by verses about the creation of the world (pp. 170-181). They cleverly offer a reinterpretation of {{Quran-range\|80\|17\|23}} as the conception, life, death and resurrection of Adam.		Their view that {{Quran\|23\|14}} was edited or interpolated is a common one among scholars for stylistic and rythmic reasons.<ref>Ibid. pp. 162-66</ref> Their interpretation provides a simple reason for the dust stage being mentioned in some verses before other stages. It works particularly well for {{Quran\|18\|37}} and {{Quran\|35\|11}},<ref>Ibid. pp. 147-151</ref> in the latter of which pairs/mates would refer to Adam and Eve rather than the birth of males and females (though others may note that the verse immediately then mentions normal conception, and comparisons with {{Quran-range\|75\|37\|39}} and {{Quran-range\|53\|45\|46}} may suggest that the conventional interpretation is stronger). Eich and Dorotei also observe that a number of verses which only mention nutfah can be interpreted as the creation of the first man rather than conception: {{Quran\|16\|4}}, {{Quran\|36\|77}}, and {{Quran-range\|76\|1\|2}}, the first of which they note is surrounded by verses about the creation of the world.<ref>Ibid. pp. 170-181</ref> They cleverly offer a reinterpretation of {{Quran-range\|80\|17\|23}} as the conception, life, death and resurrection of Adam.

	At the same time, various difficulties and problems may be observed in their theory. {{Quran-range\|37\|7\|9}} provides context to verses that mention dust before other stages. It clarifies that the first man was created from dust, and his progeny from "liquid disdained" (a synonym for nutfah, as discussed in this article). The authors try to explain "disdained" here by appealing to an obscure and certainly metaphorical mid 7th century Syriac passage on baptismal theology which compares the race of Adam to water polluted by the devil (p. 101, pp. 154-161). As argued elsewhere in this article, another passage, Q. 77:20-22 mentions liquid disdained placed in a firm lodging (similar to {{Quran\|23\|13}} which instead uses the word nutfah), and is easily understood as semen placed in the womb. Eich and Dorotei interpret the "firm lodging" as a prominent fixed place and attempt a connection with the creation story, though their evidence may seem very thin here (pp. 156-61). Some may also find it hard to see how the disdained liquid being placed there for a known extent/determination in {{Quran\|77\|22}} sounds like the creation of Adam more than gestation in the womb.		At the same time, various difficulties and problems may be observed in their theory. {{Quran-range\|37\|7\|9}} provides context to verses that mention dust before other stages. It clarifies that the first man was created from dust, and his progeny from "liquid disdained" (a synonym for nutfah, as discussed in this article). The authors try to explain "disdained" here by appealing to an obscure and certainly metaphorical mid 7th century Syriac passage on baptismal theology which compares the race of Adam to water polluted by the devil. <ref>Ibid. p. 101, pp. 154-161</ref> As argued elsewhere in this article, another passage, {{Quran-range\|77\|20\|22}} mentions liquid disdained placed in a firm lodging (similar to {{Quran\|23\|13}} which instead uses the word nutfah), and is easily understood as semen placed in the womb in line with Greek and Talmudic concepts. Eich and Dorotei interpret the "firm lodging" as a prominent fixed place and attempt a connection with the creation story, though their evidence may seem very thin here.<ref>Ibid. pp. 156-61</ref> Some may also find it hard to see how the disdained liquid being placed there for a known extent/determination in {{Quran\|77\|22}} sounds like the creation of Adam more than gestation in the womb.

	Eich and Doroftei's theory relies crucially on editorial processes and interpolations to explain verses that do not fit a first man interpretation. Like many scholars, they regard {{Quran\|23\|14}} as an interpolation. But in addition, {{Quran\|75\|37}} uses a noun and verb relating to seminal emission to remind man that he was a nutfah of semen emitted. They accept that this verse refers to semen, but suggest that an editorial insertion has occurred (pp. 194-99). Perhaps the greatest difficulty arises in {{Quran\|22\|5}} and {{Quran\|40\|67}}. The authors attempt to divide the part mentioning various stages from the part about pregnancy and childbirth in Q. 22:5, which they consider to be a revision and expansion of Q. 40:67 to add an element about the creation of the first man. They attempt to explain Q. 40:67 itself as a deliberate parallelism of prenatal development with the creation of primordial man (pp. 199-206).		Eich and Doroftei's theory relies crucially on editorial processes and interpolations to explain verses that do not fit a first man interpretation. Like many scholars, they regard {{Quran\|23\|14}} as an interpolation. But in addition, {{Quran\|75\|37}} uses a noun and verb relating to seminal emission to remind man that he was a nutfah of semen emitted. They accept that this verse refers to semen, but suggest that an editorial insertion has occurred.<ref>Ibid. pp. 194-99</ref> Perhaps the greatest difficulty arises in {{Quran\|22\|5}} and {{Quran\|40\|67}}. The authors attempt to divide the part mentioning various stages from the part about pregnancy and childbirth in Q. 22:5, which they consider to be a revision and expansion of Q. 40:67 to add an element about the creation of the first man. They attempt to explain Q. 40:67 itself as a deliberate parallelism of prenatal development with the creation of primordial man.<ref>Ibid. pp. 199-206</ref>

	Another possible weakness is that the verses that mention dust and nutfah separate them chronologically with the word thumma ("then") but never say "dust and nutfah" (in their theory these two elements are combined to create Adam). Similarly, the theory is also perhaps somewhat challenged by the fact that many verses just mention creation of man from dust, and others just mention a nutfah (or liquid disdained as a synonym for nutfah), though {{Quran-range\|25\|53\|54}} which says man was made from water after describing the world's creation could perhaps be offered in response to that point (p. 152).		Another possible weakness is that the verses that mention dust and nutfah separate them chronologically with the word thumma ("then") but never say "dust and nutfah" (in their theory these two elements are combined to create Adam). Similarly, the theory is also perhaps somewhat challenged by the fact that many verses just mention creation of man from dust, and others just mention a nutfah (or liquid disdained as a synonym for nutfah), though {{Quran-range\|25\|53\|54}} which says man was made from water after describing the world's creation could perhaps be offered in response to that point.<ref>Ibid. p. 152</ref>

	Eich and Doroftei present virtually no positive evidence that the nutfah and later stages were ever interpreted by early Muslims as descriptions of Adam's creation (nor would this be expected if they are correct that the Quran had already been edited to reframe the meaning to a pre-natal context). Nevertheless, even if they are correct that Q. 23:14 and some other verses were edited or interpolated to reframe the original context of nutfah, alaqah, and mudghah, the Quran as we have it ''today'' certainly uses these terms with a pre-natal meaning in at least some passages, reflecting the influence of pre-scientific contemporary beliefs which are also apparent to an even greater extent in hadiths, as demonstrated in this article.		Eich and Doroftei present virtually no positive evidence that the nutfah and later stages were ever interpreted by early Muslims as descriptions of Adam's creation (nor would this be expected if they are correct that the Quran had already been edited to reframe the meaning to a pre-natal context). Nevertheless, even if they are correct that Q. 23:14 and some other verses were edited or interpolated to reframe the original context of nutfah, alaqah, and mudghah, the Quran as we have it ''today'' certainly uses these terms with a pre-natal meaning in at least some passages, reflecting the influence of pre-scientific contemporary beliefs which are also apparent to an even greater extent in hadiths, as demonstrated in this article.

Lightyears: /* Theory that verses about Adam were repurposed as embryology */

2025-05-22T13:09:41Z

Theory that verses about Adam were repurposed as embryology

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:09, 22 May 2025
Line 298:		Line 298:

	==Theory that verses about Adam were repurposed as embryology==		==Theory that verses about Adam were repurposed as embryology==
	In 2023, Thomas Eich and Doru Constantin Doroftei's ''Adam und Embryo'' academic book was published in which they argue that the Quranic verses about reproduction and embryology have been misinterpreted and instead relate to the creation of Adam.<ref>Eich & Doroftei, 2023. [https://www.nomos-~~elibrary~~.de/~~10.5771~~/~~9783987400650-19~~/~~teil~~-i-~~zur~~-~~entwicklung~~-~~der~~-~~adamsgeschichte~~-~~bis~~-~~zum~~-~~7-jahrhundert?page=1~~ ''Adam and Embryo. A contribution to the study of the story of Adam in Jewish, Christian and Islamic texts up to the end of the first millennium.'']<BR />The book is in German, though it is easy to ~~download and~~ use google document translation for each chapter</ref> In this theory, the Quranic nutfah is not semen, but rather water that was mixed with dust to create the first man; alaqah is not clotted blood, but rather a lump of clay; and mudghah is not a bite sized lump of meat but rather the creation when it has become flesh. The theory requires that some of the relevant verses were edited or interpolated to reframe them in a pre-natal context, most notably {{Quran\|23\|14}} (pp. 162-66, 206-214). They also argue that hadiths relating to such verses merely reflect this reinterpretation and contemporary ideas.		In 2023, Thomas Eich and Doru Constantin Doroftei's ''Adam und Embryo'' academic book was published (open access) in which they argue that the Quranic verses about reproduction and embryology have been misinterpreted and instead relate to the creation of Adam.<ref>Eich & Doroftei, 2023. [https://www.nomos-shop.de/de/p/adam-und-embryo-gr-978-3-98740-064-3 ''Adam and Embryo. A contribution to the study of the story of Adam in Jewish, Christian and Islamic texts up to the end of the first millennium.''], Ergon Verlag<BR />The book is in German, though can be downloaded as an open access (free) ebook format via the link and it is easy to then use google document translation for each chapter.</ref> In this theory, the Quranic nutfah is not semen, but rather water that was mixed with dust to create the first man; alaqah is not clotted blood, but rather a lump of clay; and mudghah is not a bite sized lump of meat but rather the creation when it has become flesh. The theory requires that some of the relevant verses were edited or interpolated to reframe them in a pre-natal context, most notably {{Quran\|23\|14}} (pp. 162-66, 206-214). They also argue that hadiths relating to such verses merely reflect this reinterpretation and contemporary ideas.

	The authors identify occurances of the Syriac word nuṭptā (cognate to Arabic nutfah) in the works of early church fathers of the Syriac Church of the East, also known as the Assyrian Church. Ephraim the Syrian (d. 373) wrote:		The authors identify occurances of the Syriac word nuṭptā (cognate to Arabic nutfah) in the works of early church fathers of the Syriac Church of the East, also known as the Assyrian Church. Ephraim the Syrian (d. 373) wrote:

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:21, 9 December 2025
Line 255:		Line 255:
	The hadith refers to a fluid that a woman can see, which would rule out oviductal secretions or the jelly-like coating of the ovum produced by the ovarian folicle during her monthly ovulation (in any case it is the ovum that is the source of the female genetic contribution, not this coating). The hadith further says that resemblance is caused by a semen released during the female orgasm. Critics note that orgasm has nothing to do with the genetic contribution of the woman to the embryo. There are many narrations of this hadith in which the imagined female semen is released during orgasm, as Hippocrates and Galen believed.<ref>Jean Claude Guillebaud, “The Tyranny of Pleasure”, p.171, New York: Algora Publishing, 1999</ref>		The hadith refers to a fluid that a woman can see, which would rule out oviductal secretions or the jelly-like coating of the ovum produced by the ovarian folicle during her monthly ovulation (in any case it is the ovum that is the source of the female genetic contribution, not this coating). The hadith further says that resemblance is caused by a semen released during the female orgasm. Critics note that orgasm has nothing to do with the genetic contribution of the woman to the embryo. There are many narrations of this hadith in which the imagined female semen is released during orgasm, as Hippocrates and Galen believed.<ref>Jean Claude Guillebaud, “The Tyranny of Pleasure”, p.171, New York: Algora Publishing, 1999</ref>

	==Other apologetic ~~claims~~==		==Other apologetic interpretations==

	Apologists sometimes use other arguments to find a reference to sperm (not just semen) or the female ovum in the Qur’an. These are described below as well ~~as responses from~~ critics. Qur’an translations are Sahih International’s.		Apologists sometimes use other arguments to find a reference to sperm (not just semen) or the female ovum in the Qur’an. These are described below as well the views of critics. Qur’an translations are Sahih International’s.

	===Single entity that is part of a bigger group of its kind===		===Single entity that is part of a bigger group of its kind===

	The apologist Osama ~~Abdullah~~ makes the following claim about the word nutfah in an attempt to make it sound like a single sperm:		The apologist Osama Abdallah makes the following claim about the word nutfah in an attempt to make it sound like a single sperm:

	{{Quote\|\|نطفة (nutfah) is a single entity that is part of a bigger group of its kind:		{{Quote\|\|نطفة (nutfah) is a single entity that is part of a bigger group of its kind:
Line 267:		Line 267:
	النطف (al-nutaf): هي القرطة والواحدة من كل ذلك نطفة Nutaf are the karats, and a single one is a nutfah.<ref>Osama Abdallah - [{{Reference archive\|1=http://www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm\|2=2012-07-23}} Detailed meanings of the Scientific Words in the Scientific Verses in the Holy Quran using Lisan Al-Arab (The Arabs' (of old) Tongue) Dictionary and other similar dictionaries:] - Answering Christianity, accessed July 23, 2012 </ref>}}		النطف (al-nutaf): هي القرطة والواحدة من كل ذلك نطفة Nutaf are the karats, and a single one is a nutfah.<ref>Osama Abdallah - [{{Reference archive\|1=http://www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm\|2=2012-07-23}} Detailed meanings of the Scientific Words in the Scientific Verses in the Holy Quran using Lisan Al-Arab (The Arabs' (of old) Tongue) Dictionary and other similar dictionaries:] - Answering Christianity, accessed July 23, 2012 </ref>}}

	The first line is ~~the apologist~~'s generalization based on the second line, which is his attempted translation of a definition in the Lisan al-Arab dictionary of classical Arabic.<ref>[http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%81 Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, Book 5, Pages 725]</ref>		The first line is Abdallah's generalization based on the second line, which is his attempted translation of a definition in the Lisan al-Arab dictionary of classical Arabic.<ref>[http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%81 Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, Book 5, Pages 725]</ref>

	Critics ~~note~~ that the quotation has been truncated, mistranslated, and is of the definition for the wrong word (na<U>t</U>af – pearls or earrings), which has the same n-t-f root as nu<U>t</U>fah.		Critics have noted that the quotation has been truncated, mistranslated, and is of the definition for the wrong word (na<U>t</U>af – pearls or earrings), which has the same n-t-f root as nu<U>t</U>fah.

	Abdallah's claim has been copied on other Islamic websites, ~~one~~ even attempting to evolve the claim further by suggesting that this 'mistaken' generalization actually appears in the Lisan al-Arab definition. Lisan al-Arab’s actual definition of nu<U>t</U>fah is a little amount (qalil, قليل) of water (see beginning of this article). Critics note that even supposing that nu<U>t</U>fah had meant a single drop, a sperm is a discrete object from among many of the same discrete objects, unlike a drop of fluid, which is an amount of something from a larger amount.		Abdallah's claim has been copied on other Islamic websites, a once prominent publication even attempting to evolve the claim further by suggesting that this 'mistaken' generalization actually appears in the Lisan al-Arab definition (this claim was retracted in later editions). Lisan al-Arab’s actual definition of nu<U>t</U>fah is a little amount (qalil, قليل) of water (see beginning of this article). Critics note that even supposing that nu<U>t</U>fah had meant a single drop, a sperm is a discrete object from among many of the same discrete objects, unlike a drop of fluid, which is an amount of something from a larger amount.

	===Sperm from semen emitted===		===Sperm from semen emitted===
Line 311:		Line 311:
	Their view that {{Quran\|23\|14}} was edited or interpolated is a common one among scholars for stylistic and rythmic reasons.<ref>Ibid. pp. 162-66</ref> Their interpretation provides a simple reason for the dust stage being mentioned in some verses before other stages. It works particularly well for {{Quran\|18\|37}} and {{Quran\|35\|11}},<ref>Ibid. pp. 147-151</ref> in the latter of which pairs/mates would refer to Adam and Eve rather than the birth of males and females (though others may note that the verse immediately then mentions normal pregnancy and childbirth, and comparisons with {{Quran-range\|75\|37\|39}} and {{Quran-range\|53\|45\|46}} may suggest that the conventional interpretation is stronger). Eich and Dorotei also observe that a number of verses which only mention nutfah can be interpreted as the creation of the first man rather than conception: {{Quran\|16\|4}}, {{Quran\|36\|77}}, and {{Quran-range\|76\|1\|2}}, the first of which they note is surrounded by verses about the creation of the world.<ref>Ibid. pp. 170-181</ref> They cleverly offer a reinterpretation of {{Quran-range\|80\|17\|23}} as the conception, life, death and resurrection of Adam.		Their view that {{Quran\|23\|14}} was edited or interpolated is a common one among scholars for stylistic and rythmic reasons.<ref>Ibid. pp. 162-66</ref> Their interpretation provides a simple reason for the dust stage being mentioned in some verses before other stages. It works particularly well for {{Quran\|18\|37}} and {{Quran\|35\|11}},<ref>Ibid. pp. 147-151</ref> in the latter of which pairs/mates would refer to Adam and Eve rather than the birth of males and females (though others may note that the verse immediately then mentions normal pregnancy and childbirth, and comparisons with {{Quran-range\|75\|37\|39}} and {{Quran-range\|53\|45\|46}} may suggest that the conventional interpretation is stronger). Eich and Dorotei also observe that a number of verses which only mention nutfah can be interpreted as the creation of the first man rather than conception: {{Quran\|16\|4}}, {{Quran\|36\|77}}, and {{Quran-range\|76\|1\|2}}, the first of which they note is surrounded by verses about the creation of the world.<ref>Ibid. pp. 170-181</ref> They cleverly offer a reinterpretation of {{Quran-range\|80\|17\|23}} as the conception, life, death and resurrection of Adam.

	At the same time, various difficulties and problems may be observed in their theory. {{Quran-range\|37\|7\|9}} provides context to verses that mention dust before other stages. It clarifies that the first man was created from dust, and his progeny from "liquid disdained" (a synonym for nutfah, as discussed in this article). The authors try to explain "disdained" here by appealing to an obscure and certainly metaphorical mid 7th century Syriac passage on baptismal theology which compares the race of Adam to water polluted by the devil. <ref>Ibid. p. 101, pp. 154-161</ref> As ~~argued elsewhere~~ in this article, another passage, {{Quran-range\|77\|20\|22}} mentions liquid disdained placed in a firm lodging (similar to {{Quran\|23\|13}} which instead uses the word nutfah), and is easily understood as semen placed in the womb in line with Greek and Talmudic concepts. Eich and Dorotei interpret the "firm lodging" as a prominent fixed place and attempt a connection with the creation story, though their evidence may seem very thin here.<ref>Ibid. pp. 156-61</ref> Some may also find it hard to see how the disdained liquid being placed there for a known extent/determination in {{Quran\|77\|22}} sounds like the creation of Adam more than gestation in the womb.		At the same time, various difficulties and problems may be observed in their theory. {{Quran-range\|37\|7\|9}} provides context to verses that mention dust before other stages. It clarifies that the first man was created from dust, and his progeny from "liquid disdained" (a synonym for nutfah, as discussed in this article). The authors try to explain "disdained" here by appealing to an obscure and certainly metaphorical mid 7th century Syriac passage on baptismal theology which compares the race of Adam to water polluted by the devil. <ref>Ibid. p. 101, pp. 154-161</ref> As noted above in this article, another passage, {{Quran-range\|77\|20\|22}} mentions liquid disdained placed in a firm lodging (similar to {{Quran\|23\|13}} which instead uses the word nutfah), and is easily understood as semen placed in the womb in line with Greek and Talmudic concepts. Eich and Dorotei interpret the "firm lodging" as a prominent fixed place and attempt a connection with the creation story, though their evidence may seem very thin here.<ref>Ibid. pp. 156-61</ref> Some may also find it hard to see how the disdained liquid being placed there for a known extent/determination in {{Quran\|77\|22}} sounds like the creation of Adam more than gestation in the womb.

	Eich and Doroftei's theory relies crucially on editorial processes and interpolations to explain verses that do not fit a first man interpretation. Like many scholars, they regard {{Quran\|23\|14}} as an interpolation. But in addition, {{Quran\|75\|37}} uses a noun and verb relating to seminal emission to remind man that he was a nutfah of semen emitted. They accept that this verse refers to semen, but suggest that an editorial insertion has occurred.<ref>Ibid. pp. 194-99</ref> Perhaps the greatest difficulty arises in {{Quran\|22\|5}} and {{Quran\|40\|67}}. The authors attempt to divide the part mentioning various stages from the part about pregnancy and childbirth in Q. 22:5, which they consider to be a revision and expansion of Q. 40:67 to add an element about the creation of the first man. They attempt to explain Q. 40:67 itself as a deliberate parallelism of prenatal development with the creation of primordial man.<ref>Ibid. pp. 199-206</ref>		Eich and Doroftei's theory relies crucially on editorial processes and interpolations to explain verses that do not fit a first man interpretation. Like many scholars, they regard {{Quran\|23\|14}} as an interpolation. But in addition, {{Quran\|75\|37}} uses a noun and verb relating to seminal emission to remind man that he was a nutfah of semen emitted. They accept that this verse refers to semen, but suggest that an editorial insertion has occurred.<ref>Ibid. pp. 194-99</ref> Perhaps the greatest difficulty arises in {{Quran\|22\|5}} and {{Quran\|40\|67}}. The authors attempt to divide the part mentioning various stages from the part about pregnancy and childbirth in Q. 22:5, which they consider to be a revision and expansion of Q. 40:67 to add an element about the creation of the first man. They attempt to explain Q. 40:67 itself as a deliberate parallelism of prenatal development with the creation of primordial man.<ref>Ibid. pp. 199-206</ref>
Line 317:		Line 317:
	Another possible weakness is that the verses that mention dust and nutfah separate them chronologically with the word thumma ("then") but never say "dust and nutfah" (in their theory these two elements are combined to create Adam). Similarly, the theory is also perhaps somewhat challenged by the fact that many verses just mention creation of man from dust, and others just mention a nutfah (or liquid disdained as a synonym for nutfah), though {{Quran-range\|25\|53\|54}} which says man was made from water after describing the world's creation could perhaps be offered in response to that point.<ref>Ibid. p. 152</ref>		Another possible weakness is that the verses that mention dust and nutfah separate them chronologically with the word thumma ("then") but never say "dust and nutfah" (in their theory these two elements are combined to create Adam). Similarly, the theory is also perhaps somewhat challenged by the fact that many verses just mention creation of man from dust, and others just mention a nutfah (or liquid disdained as a synonym for nutfah), though {{Quran-range\|25\|53\|54}} which says man was made from water after describing the world's creation could perhaps be offered in response to that point.<ref>Ibid. p. 152</ref>

	Eich and Doroftei present virtually no positive evidence that the nutfah and later stages were ever interpreted by early Muslims as descriptions of Adam's creation (nor would this be expected if they are correct that the Quran had already been edited to reframe the meaning to a pre-natal context). ~~Nevertheless, even if~~ they are correct that Q. 23:14 and some other verses were edited or interpolated to reframe the original context of nutfah, alaqah, and mudghah, the Quran as we have it ''today'' ~~certainly~~ uses these terms with a pre-natal meaning in at least some passages~~, reflecting~~ the influence of pre-scientific contemporary beliefs which are also apparent to an even greater extent in hadiths, as ~~demonstrated in~~ this article.		Eich and Doroftei present virtually no positive evidence that the nutfah and later stages were ever interpreted by early Muslims as descriptions of Adam's creation (nor would this be expected if they are correct that the Quran had already been edited to reframe the meaning to a pre-natal context). If they are correct that Q. 23:14 and some other verses were edited or interpolated to reframe the original context of nutfah, alaqah, and mudghah, the Quran as we have it ''today'' nevertheless uses these terms with a pre-natal meaning in at least some passages. This may reflect the influence of pre-scientific contemporary beliefs which are also apparent to an even greater extent in hadiths, as is the main topic of this article.

	==See Also==		==See Also==

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 15 November 2025
Line 62:		Line 62:
	\|571-632 AD		\|571-632 AD
	\|Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh		\|Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh
	\|“Allah's Apostle, 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.”<ref>{{Bukhari\|4\|54\|~~430~~}}</ref>		\|“Allah's Apostle, 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.”<ref>{{Bukhari\|\|\|3208\|darussalam}}</ref>
	“The Prophet said, "Allah puts an angel in charge of the uterus and the angel says, 'O Lord, (it is) semen! O Lord, (it is now) a clot! O Lord, (it is now) a piece of flesh.' And then, if Allah wishes to complete its creation, the angel asks, 'O Lord, (will it be) a male or a female?”<ref>{{Bukhari\|8\|77\|~~594~~}}</ref><BR>"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; 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!"<ref>{{cite Quran\|23\|12\|end=14\|style=ref}}</ref>		“The Prophet said, "Allah puts an angel in charge of the uterus and the angel says, 'O Lord, (it is) semen! O Lord, (it is now) a clot! O Lord, (it is now) a piece of flesh.' And then, if Allah wishes to complete its creation, the angel asks, 'O Lord, (will it be) a male or a female?”<ref>{{Bukhari\|\|\|6595\|darussalam}}</ref><BR>"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; 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!"<ref>{{cite Quran\|23\|12\|end=14\|style=ref}}</ref>
	\|}		\|}

Line 162:		Line 162:
	===Semen stage lasts 40 days===		===Semen stage lasts 40 days===

	{{Quote\|{{Muslim\|33\|~~6395~~}}\|Abu Tufail reported: I visited Abu Sariha Hudhaifa b. Usaid al-Ghifari who said: I listened with these two ears of mine Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The semen [nu<U>t</U>fata] stays in the womb for forty nights, then the angel, gives it a shape. Zubair said: I think that he said: One who fashions that and decides whether he would be male or female…}}		{{Quote\|{{Muslim\|\|2645c\|reference}}\|Abu Tufail reported: I visited Abu Sariha Hudhaifa b. Usaid al-Ghifari who said: I listened with these two ears of mine Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The semen [nu<U>t</U>fata] stays in the womb for forty nights, then the angel, gives it a shape. Zubair said: I think that he said: One who fashions that and decides whether he would be male or female…}}

	{{Quote\|{{Bukhari\|9\|93\|~~546~~}}\|Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud: Allah’s Apostle the true and truly inspired, narrated to us, "The creation of everyone of you starts with the process of collecting the material for his body within forty days and forty nights in the womb of his mother. Then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period (40 days) and then he becomes like a piece of flesh for a similar period…}}		{{Quote\|{{Bukhari\|\|\|7454\|darussalam}}\|Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud: Allah’s Apostle the true and truly inspired, narrated to us, "The creation of everyone of you starts with the process of collecting the material for his body within forty days and forty nights in the womb of his mother. Then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period (40 days) and then he becomes like a piece of flesh for a similar period…}}

	See also {{quran-range\|23\|12\|14}} to see how the nu<U>t</U>fah and subsequent stages fit together. Now let us compare with the Talmud:		See also {{quran-range\|23\|12\|14}} to see how the nu<U>t</U>fah and subsequent stages fit together. Now let us compare with the Talmud:
Line 174:		Line 174:
	===Gender determined after 40 days===		===Gender determined after 40 days===

	{{Quote\|{{Muslim\|33\|~~6392~~}}\|Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported directly from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) that he said: When the drop of [nu<U>t</U>fati] (semen) remains in the womb for forty or fifty (days) or forty nights, the angel comes and says: My Lord, will he be good or evil? And both these things would be written. Then the angel says: My Lord, would he be male or female? And both these things are written…}}		{{Quote\|{{Muslim\|\|2644\|reference}}\|Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported directly from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) that he said: When the drop of [nu<U>t</U>fati] (semen) remains in the womb for forty or fifty (days) or forty nights, the angel comes and says: My Lord, will he be good or evil? And both these things would be written. Then the angel says: My Lord, would he be male or female? And both these things are written…}}

	See also {{Muslim\|33\|~~6395~~}} quoted above, for example. Once again, we see that this is an idea from the Talmud:		See also {{Muslim\|\|2645c\|reference}} quoted above, for example. Once again, we see that this is an idea from the Talmud:

	{{Quote\|Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 60a\|Within the first three days a man should pray that the seed should not putrefy; from the third to the fortieth day he should pray that the child should be a male;<ref name="Berakoth 60a">[http://halakhah.com/berakoth/berakoth_60.html Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth (Berakoth 60a)] - Halakhah.com, accessed July 23, 2012</ref>}}		{{Quote\|Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 60a\|Within the first three days a man should pray that the seed should not putrefy; from the third to the fortieth day he should pray that the child should be a male;<ref name="Berakoth 60a">[http://halakhah.com/berakoth/berakoth_60.html Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth (Berakoth 60a)] - Halakhah.com, accessed July 23, 2012</ref>}}
Line 184:		Line 184:
	===Resemblance of the child to its parents===		===Resemblance of the child to its parents===

	{{Quote\|{{Bukhari\|4\|55\|~~546~~}}\|…As for the resemblance of the child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her…}}		{{Quote\|{{Bukhari\|\|\|3329\|darussalam}}\|…As for the resemblance of the child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her…}}

	A similar idea is found in the Talmud:		A similar idea is found in the Talmud:
Line 199:		Line 199:
	The first thing to point out is that the word translated “sperm” in the apologists’ translation is actually m<U>a</U>a in the Arabic, which as mentioned above, means water/fluid and is a euphemism for semen. This is also apparent in another translation of the exact same hadith:		The first thing to point out is that the word translated “sperm” in the apologists’ translation is actually m<U>a</U>a in the Arabic, which as mentioned above, means water/fluid and is a euphemism for semen. This is also apparent in another translation of the exact same hadith:

	{{Quote\|{{Muslim\|8\|~~3381~~}}\|Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (semen) and when Allah intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence).}}		{{Quote\|{{Muslim\|\|1438k\|reference}}\|Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (semen) and when Allah intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence).}}

	A somewhat similar idea is found in the Talmud:		A somewhat similar idea is found in the Talmud:
Line 211:		Line 211:
	While on the subject of ‘azl, and another practice, ghila, which is a man having intercourse with his wife while she is suckling, we see that Muhammad openly admits to his knowledge of and interest in the reproductive practices of the Byzantines (“Romans”) and Sassanids (“Persians”):		While on the subject of ‘azl, and another practice, ghila, which is a man having intercourse with his wife while she is suckling, we see that Muhammad openly admits to his knowledge of and interest in the reproductive practices of the Byzantines (“Romans”) and Sassanids (“Persians”):

	{{Quote\|{{Muslim\|8\|~~3394~~}}\|Sa’d b. Abu Waqqas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a person came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I do ‘azi [‘azil] with my wife. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Why do you do that? The person said: I fear harm to her child or her children. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (way peace be upon him) said: If that were harmful it would harm the '''Persians and Romans'''.}}		{{Quote\|{{Muslim\|\|1443\|reference}}\|Sa’d b. Abu Waqqas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a person came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I do ‘azi [‘azil] with my wife. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Why do you do that? The person said: I fear harm to her child or her children. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (way peace be upon him) said: If that were harmful it would harm the '''Persians and Romans'''.}}

	{{Quote\|{{Muslim\|8\|~~3392~~}}\|Judama daughter of Wahb, sister of Ukkasha (Allah be pleased with her). reported: I went to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) along with some persons and he was saying: I intended to prohibit cohabitation with the suckling women, but I considered the '''Greeks ["Romans" in the Arabic] and Persians''', and saw that they suckle their children and this thing (cohabitation) does not do any harm to them (to the suckling women). Then they asked him about ‘azl, whereupon he said. That is the secret (way of) burying alive, and Ubaidullah has made this addition in the hadith transmitted by al-Muqri and that is:" When the one buried alive is asked."}}		{{Quote\|{{Muslim\|\|1442b\|reference}}\|Judama daughter of Wahb, sister of Ukkasha (Allah be pleased with her). reported: I went to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) along with some persons and he was saying: I intended to prohibit cohabitation with the suckling women, but I considered the '''Greeks ["Romans" in the Arabic] and Persians''', and saw that they suckle their children and this thing (cohabitation) does not do any harm to them (to the suckling women). Then they asked him about ‘azl, whereupon he said. That is the secret (way of) burying alive, and Ubaidullah has made this addition in the hadith transmitted by al-Muqri and that is:" When the one buried alive is asked."}}

	Of the two centers of Galenic study mentioned above, Syria was under the Sassinid empire and Egypt was under both the Sassinids and Byzantines at different times during Muhammad’s career. Muhammad did not live in a bubble. These hadith suggest that Muhammad would have had access to and had interest in the practices and ideas regarding sexual matters and reproduction transmitted by these other cultures.		Of the two centers of Galenic study mentioned above, Syria was under the Sassinid empire and Egypt was under both the Sassinids and Byzantines at different times during Muhammad’s career. Muhammad did not live in a bubble. These hadith suggest that Muhammad would have had access to and had interest in the practices and ideas regarding sexual matters and reproduction transmitted by these other cultures.
Line 243:		Line 243:
	Here, blood refers to the mother’s blood, some fine and some thick, which Galen believed is drawn via the uterus and membrane into the combined male and female semens after they have mixed in her womb.<ref>Philip De Lacy (editor and translator). “Galen: On Semen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.3.1.)”, pp.87-91, Berlin: Akademie. Verlag, 1992</ref> That Galen and the Talmud say the fleshy parts are formed from the woman’s blood rather than her semen barely detracts from the other striking similarities with the hadith.		Here, blood refers to the mother’s blood, some fine and some thick, which Galen believed is drawn via the uterus and membrane into the combined male and female semens after they have mixed in her womb.<ref>Philip De Lacy (editor and translator). “Galen: On Semen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.3.1.)”, pp.87-91, Berlin: Akademie. Verlag, 1992</ref> That Galen and the Talmud say the fleshy parts are formed from the woman’s blood rather than her semen barely detracts from the other striking similarities with the hadith.

	In any case, this hadith is graded as having weak authenticity. {{Muslim\|3\|~~614~~}} is a similar hadith, which instead of mentioning nutfah and saying what is formed from each semen, gives the resemblance theory mentioned above after saying that the man’s water (m<U>a</U>a) is white and the woman’s water (m<U>a</U>a) is yellow. {{Muslim\|3\|~~608~~}} is a version of the hadith we look at next, but adds that the man’s water is thick and white and the woman’s water is thin and yellow.		In any case, this hadith is graded as having weak authenticity. {{Muslim\|\|315a\|reference}} is a similar hadith, which instead of mentioning nutfah and saying what is formed from each semen, gives the resemblance theory mentioned above after saying that the man’s water (m<U>a</U>a) is white and the woman’s water (m<U>a</U>a) is yellow. {{Muslim\|\|311\|reference}} is a version of the hadith we look at next, but adds that the man’s water is thick and white and the woman’s water is thin and yellow.

	==="Then why does a child resemble (its mother)?"===		==="Then why does a child resemble (its mother)?"===

	{{Quote\|{{Bukhari\|4\|55\|~~545~~}}\|Narrated Abu Salama: Um Salama said, "Um Salaim said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Allah does not refrain from saying the truth! Is it obligatory for a woman to take a bath after she gets nocturnal discharge [ahtalam - have wet-dream]?’ He said, ‘Yes, if she notices the water [m<U>a</U>a](i.e. discharge).’ Um Salama smiled and said, ‘Does a woman get discharge? [ahtalam]‘ Allah’s Apostle said. ‘Then why does a child resemble (its mother)?}}		{{Quote\|{{Bukhari\|\|\|3328\|darussalam}}\|Narrated Abu Salama: Um Salama said, "Um Salaim said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Allah does not refrain from saying the truth! Is it obligatory for a woman to take a bath after she gets nocturnal discharge [ahtalam - have wet-dream]?’ He said, ‘Yes, if she notices the water [m<U>a</U>a](i.e. discharge).’ Um Salama smiled and said, ‘Does a woman get discharge? [ahtalam]‘ Allah’s Apostle said. ‘Then why does a child resemble (its mother)?}}

	This, again, is Galen’s idea about “female semen”. Even Muhammad’s reasoning in the hadith is clearly the same as Galen’s, whose main thesis in the 2<sup>nd</sup> part of 'On Semen' is that a generative female semen exists and causes resemblance to the mother. Like Muhammad in this hadith, Galen explicitly uses fluid emitted during nocturnal orgasm as evidence for the existence of a female semen that causes resemblance:		This, again, is Galen’s idea about “female semen”. Even Muhammad’s reasoning in the hadith is clearly the same as Galen’s, whose main thesis in the 2<sup>nd</sup> part of 'On Semen' is that a generative female semen exists and causes resemblance to the mother. Like Muhammad in this hadith, Galen explicitly uses fluid emitted during nocturnal orgasm as evidence for the existence of a female semen that causes resemblance: