Embryology in the Quran: Difference between revisions

This article analyzes the apologetic claim that Qur'anic embryology is scientifically accurate.

Introduction

The propagation of Qur'anic Embryology as a tool of da'wah began in earnest when books were published by non-Muslim medical experts Dr. Keith Moore (alongside his co-author Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist"^[1]) and Dr. Maurice Bucaille. These claims are repeated by Dr. Zakir Naik, Harun Yahya and many others. There is good evidence of Dr. Keith Moore's lack of sincerity and competence to compare the Qur'an with contemporary science.

Many have written about the remarkable similarities between Qur'anic embryology and that taught by Galen. He was a highly influential Greek physician (b. 130 CE), whose works were studied in Syria and Egypt during Muhammad's time^[2]. Some of the most obvious links with Galen (and also with the Talmud) are in statements about the nutfah stage of embryology in the Qur'an, and even more so in the hadith. See the article Greek and Jewish Ideas about Reproduction in the Quran and Hadith for the compelling evidence. Striking similarities exist between the other Qur'anic embryo stages and Galen too. However, while interesting and very probable, these influences cannot be proven for the Qur'an, and it is in any case unnecessary when exposing the weaknesses in the Qur'anic descriptions. Thus this article will concentrate solely on showing that Qur'anic embryology is incorrect, and that Islamic websites and public figures make false, illogical or unproven assertions in its defence.

There are already many responses available. So here are collated some of the best points and evidences, and some new ones, concentrating solely on the Qur'anic verses, because the hadiths provide an even greater exhibition of the unscientific nature of Islamic embryology.

Summary of the Main Errors in Qur'anic Embryology

The author of the Qur'an imagined a sequence of stages, which when examined without the false definitions and arbitrary assumptions made by apologists, clearly has no resemblance to the actual development process of a child in the womb. The main errors can be summarised as follows and are further discussed in the rest of this article.

1). A number of verses collectively demonstrate a belief that the earliest, nutfah stage of development is made of semen, perhaps mixed with a female fluid, which is placed in the womb for a known term, and where it undergoes various stages of development (as also taught by Galen and in the Jewish Talmud). See this article for the most comprehensive explanation and evidence. Futhermore, there is no sign that the author of the Qur'an was aware of the female egg (ovum).

In reality, a single sperm cell penetrates and fuses with the female ovum. This fertilised egg, called a zygote, is then pushed down the fallopian tube for a few days. On the way, cell division begins, and this multi-celled cluster, now called a blastocyst, implants in the uterus (womb).

2). The embryo is then congealed blood. All the classical tafsirs (commentaries) understood the meaning of 'alaqah to be blood or congealed blood, and clotted blood is a definition of the word in classical Arabic dictionaries. Regardless of alternative meanings for this arabic word, it would be very foolish even to use a word whose main definitions include an explicit biological meaning (clotted blood) in a description of a biological process (embryology) if that meaning was not the one you intended. The choice of word now causes a well justified suspicion of inaccuracy, and for centuries misled people into thinking that the embryo is at one stage congealed blood (an actual embryo is at no point blood or a clot of blood). Similarly, for the same reason it would also be foolish to use this word while intending blood clot as a mere visual analogy.

3). Bones are formed before being clothed with flesh. In fact cartilage models of the bones start to form at the same time as and in parallel with surrounding muscles, and this cartilage is literally replaced with bone.

Analysis

Debating Technique

Proponents of Qur'anic embryology often defend their position by claiming that words like 'alaqah can have several meanings, and that some or all of these meanings apply at the same time. Thus, we hear that the 'alaqah is a leech, or looks like a leech if viewed in a certain angle, or is a leech-like structure, is a clot of blood, or looks like a blood clot, or hangs from or clings to the endometrium. Some of these are genuine definitions of 'alaqah, others are not. Each one is problematic and will be addressed below.

The best method of refuting Qur'anic embryology is by questioning every claim as to its validity, and to make its proponents justify every claim. This would include why they chose to make a choice when there are several other equally valid possibilities, why they chose to ignore clearly nonsensical phrases, and why they assume certain phrases to be metaphorical while others to be literal. Some will also benefit from seeing the definitions of the significant words from Lane's Lexicon of classical arabic, cited and linked throughout this article.

If, the reader is so inclined, they can read a good summary of the arbitrary assumptions and heavily selective debating technique used by apologists, with a particular focus on Keith Moore's claims, here, and can read the relevant sections here to see how many of the word definitions used in Islamic apologetics are based on misquotes of Arabic dictionaries and are incompatible with how those same Arabic words were used in the hadith (such as the claims that the word 'alaqah meant a "leech-like substance", that a mudghah is not merely a small piece of meat, but one that has been chewed).

Original Creation from Dust / Clay / Mud

Confusion is sometimes caused by statements about dust (tubarin تُرَابٍ), mud (hamain حَمَإٍ), clay (teenin طِينٍ), or sounding clay (salsalin صَلْصَٰلٍ) in the Qur'anic embryology verses. Clarification is provided in Quran 32:7-8 that this refers to the creation of Adam only, and that the subsequent statements relate to the development of humans since then. This was also the opinion of classical scholars such as ibn Kathir.

The word translated “seed” in Pickthall’s translation is nasl, which means progeny (i.e. descendants).^[3]

These verses clearly state that the first man was made from clay (min مِّنْ means 'from' or 'of'), and that clay was a building material, that was moulded and shaped, and not a catalytic compound, as some apologetics claim in an attempt to link the Qur'an with one theory about the origin of all life on Earth.

While again not strictly related to embryology, another claim on some Islamic websites is that clay and humans have similar compositions. The Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology defines clay as, "a fine textured, sedimentary, or residual deposit. It consists of hydrated silicates of aluminum mixed with various impurities". The essential elements in clay are thus silicon, aluminum, hydrogen and oxygen. Silicon and Aluminum have extremely limited, if any, roles to play in the maintenance of life.^[4] Other human-required elements (such as nitrogen, sodium etc) are only found in trace amounts in clay and can be regarded as contaminants. There is no similarity between the compositions of clay and humans.

The Qur'anic Embryology Verses

These verses form the basis for Qur'anic embryology. Other verses that relate to individual stages are also quoted throughout this article.

These verses clearly delineate the stages of Qur'anic embryology thus:

(references provide links to Lane's Lexicon of classical Arabic)

1. Dust/mud/clay (creation of Adam only)
2. Nutfah^[5] (drop of semen)
3. Alaqah^[6] (leech and certain creatures that cling and suck blood, or blood, thick blood or clotted blood)
4. Mudghah^[7] (bite-sized morsel of flesh, shaped and without shape)
5. 'Itham^[8] (bones, especially of the limbs)
6. 'Itham covered with Lahm^[9] (flesh)
7. Another creation / child

The Nutfah (Semen) Stage and the Missing Female Ovum

The first stage of Qur'anic embryology is the nutfah stage. The word nutfah^[5] literally meant a small amount of liquid, and was a euphemism for semen. The Lisan al Arab dictionary of classical Arabic gives these definitions (translated from the Arabic):

A nice example of nutfah usage can be found in a pre-Islamic poem where it is used to mean “the small quantity of wine that remained in a wineskin”.^[11]

Verses 80:18-19, and 77:20-22 together with 23:13 strongly imply that it is semen that is stored in the womb and developed into the embryo, as the hadiths confirm, and Jews and Greeks believed.

Verses 77:20-21 closely parallel 23:13 quoted below, which too says "We placed it (jaAAalnahu) in a safe abode (qararin makeen)", and uses the word nutfah instead of maa' maheenin ('water distained' - maa' was another euphemism for semen). The 'hu' ending to jaAAalnahu can mean him or it, and probably means the former in 23:13 ('We placed him'). However, 77:20 uses the 2nd person "you", so the latter meaning, 'it' is clearly intended in the next verse, in reference to the liquid ('We placed it').

The Qur'an never explicitly explains how and if the female parent contributes genetic material. It is merely the assumption, and an assumption only, of apologists that 'nutfatun amshajin' (amshajin means mixed^[12]) in verse 76:2 includes the female gamete (ovum).

The term ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ could just as easily refer to the sperm-menstrual blood union of Aristotle and the ancient Indian embryologists, or the two semens hypothesis of Hippocrates and Galen, or even the readily observed mingling of semen and vaginal discharge during sexual intercourse. In other words, the fact the Qur'an does not explicitly state that ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ contains the ovum, together with the existence of other possible explanations, means that it is illogical to assume the former and not the latter.

The insistence that it explains the former is pure conjecture devoid of evidence, and constitutes the logical fallacy of equivocation, and its adoption is merely wishful thinking or 'reinterpretation after the fact.’

Some critics argue that in fact, the Qur'an itself provides the evidence of its doctrinal omission or rejection of the role of the ovum in procreation, for verse 2:223 states that wives are tilth. This is saying they are like the earth, which contributes nutrients only, receiving the seed from the male.

This one isn't a particularly strong criticism, however, as the 7th century Arabs must have recognised that a child can inherit characteristics from its mother, though again, it must be stated that there is no sign that this was by means of a female ovum in any Islamic sources, Qur'an or hadith. The resemblance of a child to its mother was a question that interested the early Muslims, as can be seen in the hadith. See the article Greek and Jewish Ideas about Reproduction in the Quran and Hadith regarding this and many other common arguments used by proponents of Qur'anic embryology concerning the nutfah stage.

The 'Alaqah Stage

The concensus in the tafsirs for the embryology verses was that 'alaqah meant blood. In numerous tafsirs it is variously described as blood (al dam الدم), congealed blood (al dam al jamid الدم الجامد), or simply, red 'alaqah ('alaqah hamra علقة حمراء). Nevertheless, in modern times some Muslims, especially those who know that this contradicts the biological reality, have tried to reinterpret the word using some of the other dictionary definitions for 'alaqah or 'alaq. Each of these alternatives is problematic, as indeed is the mere fact that 'alaqah has clotted blood^[6] as one of its main meanings.

Clinging Thing

Those who claim that 'alaqah is used in the sense of a clinging thing in the Qur'an should consider that the embryo does not cease to be attached to the uterine wall when the musculo-skeletal system begins to develop around the 5^th week. Yet the Qur'anic stages appear to describe a transition between a succession of states. Moreover it would be self-evident from aborted fetuses that at some stage the embryo becomes attached to something.

Hanging / Suspended

Also flawed is a related claim, that 'alaqah is used here in its meaning of a suspended, or hanging thing, because the early embryo is attached via a connecting stalk to the uterine wall. The problem is that not all embryos hang downwards below their connecting stalk. Rather it depends where in the uterus implantation occurs. The uterus lies fairly horizontal at this time, so depending on the side of the uterus implantation occurs, the early embryo can also be above its stalk, as this diagram^[13] of twins at 4 weeks demonstrates :

Various studies of placentas and ultrasound scans have found that between 26% and 53% of implantations occur on the anterior (frontal) wall of the uterus (like the lower twin in the diagram).^[14] Clearly apologists should expect better of the Qur'an's author than to say that as early embryos, humans are "hanging things" when such a description is untrue for a significant percentage of the population, not even a general rule.

This scientific inaccuracy should be considered before even raising the doubts above concerning the suitability of the word 'alaqah to describe embryos that are on the posterior wall, and thus below their connecting stalks. For it is highly doubtful that 'alaqah in the sense of “hanging” would be a good way to describe the embryo in relation to the connecting stalk. Lane’s lexicon strongly indicates that 'alaq is not just the thing which is hung, but the entire apparatus or vertical rope by which means it is suspended, or even just the rope itself, giving the example of a suspended bucket in a well.^[15] The stalk evidently has a certain amount of stiffness and does not hang vertically under gravity like a bucket in a well.

Leech

Apologists who are fond of leech metaphors should consider that unlike a leech, which simply sucks blood from its host, the embryo circulates and exchanges blood and waste products with its mother.^[16] A leech has many characteristics such as size, behaviour, shape, color, appearance. Why would the author use 'alaqah intending such a metaphorical meaning when his listeners could not be expected to know in what respect the analogy applies? It is a typical Texan Sharpshooter fallacy^[17] of apologists to choose one characteristic - shape - then to an arbitrarily very limited degree find a similarity with an embryo, and draw any conclusions, particularly as the early embryo passes through a wide range of shapes and is itself a biological organism. Moreover, such apologetics have to conveniently ignore the embryo's yolk sac when depicting the embryo.

Congealed Blood

Given that one of the meanings of 'alaqah is congealed blood, which was also the understanding given in numerous tafsirs, it would be most unwise to use such a word with a specific biological meaning to describe a biological process (embryology) if that meaning was not the intention. For the same reason it would be foolish even to use clotted blood merely as a visual metaphor. A perfect author would avoid arousing any such suspicion of inaccurate biology with his choice of words.

The poet al-Nabigha alja'di النابغة الجعدي (died c.670 AD), who was a contemporary of Muhammad, in one of his poems says:

This further underlines the suspicion just mentioned, and moreover, suggests some influence in 7^th century Arabia of the ideas of the Greek physician, Galen, whose works were studied at that time by groups in Alexandria and Syria. Indeed, other similarities between Galenic embryology and that of the Qur'an are well known.

The Mudghah Stage

The word mudghah meant a bite sized morsel of meat suitable for chewing^[7]. Islamic websites frequently claim, without citing any evidence, that it means a piece of meat that has actually been chewed, or even that has teeth marks on it. They do this, quite laughably, so that they can invite the reader to admire the supposed similarities between an image of the somites of an embryo next to a piece of chewing gum with a row or two of teeth marks. The problems with this ridiculous argument, which highlights the poverty of Islamic apologetics, include:

1. They are using a false definition of the word mudghah, as mentioned above.
2. It is a lot easier to leave neat teeth marks in chewing gum than on a piece of meat.
3. Somites (bilateral rows of blocks of cells that will migrate and develop into segments of the body) are protrusions, but teeth marks are indentations.

Verse Quran 22:5 (quoted above) mentions that the mudghah is formed and without form. Given that this stage appears before the 'itham (bones) stage, such a 'clarification' gives no additional information whatsoever. Such vagueness of description is typical of an author who is merely pretending to have true knowledge.

The Formation of Bone and Clothing with Flesh

There is a clear mistake in the Qur'anic idea of the formation of bone and surrounding muscles. Drs Needham and Needbeer of freethoughtmecca explain this well.

Unless and until a proponent of Qur'anic embryology can adequately explain why the syntax of stage transformation is somehow different in the 'itham stage compared to all the other stages, one can logically conclude that the Qur'an is in error in believing that the mudgha turned totally into 'itham.

Some may simply say that the syntax allows both interpretations, i.e. khalaqna might mean made into or made within. However, no proof has been provided for this assertion. It is easy to make assertions. Supporting them up with evidence is another matter. Therefore, in the failure of evidence otherwise, the conclusion must be that the syntax of verse 23:12-14 must reveal the Qur'an to be in error. Verse 2:259 (quoted below) lends further support to this interpretation. Even if it means that bones formed within the mudghah, it would be no different to the embryology of Galen, in which the basic outlines of the organs are present before the bones are clothed in flesh.

Secondly, they have to explain why the author of the Qur'an was incorrect in their description and mentioned not cartilage (ghudhroof)^[19]) but only bone ('itham).^[8] Cartilage models of the bone are literally replaced with actual bone (ossification).

Thirdly, muscle and bone (or their precursors) develop contemporaneously, although muscle begins developing before cartilage and bone. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for the Qur'anic claim of a stage in which bone is later covered with flesh after its own formation. The prefix fa before khalaqna means "and then", indicating an uninterrupted sequence.^[20] Muscles begin developing in week four. There are 40 pairs of developing muscles in the five-week embryo, and they begin to move by week six when the skeletal system is still totally cartilage which forms in week five or six. By week seven, the muscles and nerves begin work together, when ossification (i.e. bone formation) begins.

It can be argued that since cartilage does not begin forming until week five or six and muscles begin forming in the fourth week, the Qur'anic verse 23:14 got the embryology completely reversed, and therefore, incorrect.

Here is the scientific evidence for the contemporaneous development of cartilage/bone and muscles:

Ossification (in upper limb) occurs at the end of the 7th week. - The Developing Human, 6th Edition Clinically Oriented Embryology Keith L. Moore, Ph..D., FIAC, FRSM T.V.N. Persaud, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., FRCPath W.B. Saunders Company (Philadelphia), 1998 p. 96

According to Rugh in Conception to Birth Roberts Rugh, Ph.D., Landrum B. Shettles, Ph.D., M.D. Harper & Row, (New York), 1971, muscles appear in pelvis by 6th week (p 43). Movement of the muscles is being controlled by the nervous system by the 6th week (p 34). All of the muscle blocks have appeared by day 36 after conception (p 46).

Thus bone appears after muscles have formed.

Even if we were to accept that the Qur'an was only referring to precursors of bone and not bone itself, even though it used the Arabic word for bone, 'itham, the embryology is still wrong.

Muscle precursors begin developing into muscle soon after mesenchymal (skeletal) condensation.^[21]

Muscle forms contemporaneously with cartilage formation and is not delayed until bone has formed. Muscle development starts on Day 28.^[22]

Building blocks are present for 40 pairs of muscles, which are located from the base of the skull to the bottom of the spinal column. Day 28 after conception (Rugh, p 35) Muscles appear in the pelvic region. Day 31 after conception (Rugh, p 43) All of the muscle blocks have appeared. Day 36 after conception (Rugh, p 46) Muscular layers of the stomach, esophagus, and intestines begin to proliferate. Day 56 after conception (Rugh, p 53) The first indication of limb musculature is observed. 7th week of development (Sadler, 7th edition, p 168)

Cartilage first appears in week 5.^[23] But the cartilage skeleton begins forming by week 6.^[24]

Thus, when the bone precursors were developing, muscles were also developing at the same time. The cartilage model of the skeleton begins developing by week 6^[24] and is only developed by the 7th week.^[25]

Mesenchymal models of the bones in the limbs undergo chondrification to form hyaline cartilage. Week 6 (Moore: The Developing Human, 6th ed., p. 420, fig. 15-15D)

At this time, all the muscle blocks have already appeared. (Rugh p 46)

Thus, Keith Moore and his co-author are wrong. Muscles do not take their positions around the bone forms at the end of the seventh week and during the eighth week. All the muscle blocks have already appeared around the developing skeleton by day 36 – i.e. early week 5. Bone and Muscle develop contemporaneously. In fact, muscle appears before bone and around the same time as the cartilage precursor.

A week 6 embryo (Carnegie Stage 16) already has musculature when the cartilage is forming.

A very detailed account of musculo-skeletal development in the human limb by clinical-geneticist Robert Jan Galjaard can be read online.^[26][27]It details that muscle precursor cells migrate from the somites into the limb buds (ca. day 26), well before the condensing core of mesenchyme has started to chondrify into cartilage bone models in the upper part of the limb (ca. day 37), followed by the lower part (ca. day 41). The muscle precursor cells aggregate around these cores and have grouped into distinct muscle masses by day 41.

Furthermore, Lane's Lexicon gives no indication that lahm means muscles specifically rather than flesh in general.^[28][29] Thus Qur'an embryology is even more inaccurate as it suggests that there is a stage when the bones are unclothed without any kind of flesh. We have more evidence supporting this interpretation elsewhere in the Qur'an. Verse 2:259 uses the same Arabic words as does 23:14 for 'bones', 'clothed' and 'flesh' to describe the resurrection of a donkey which had been dead for 100 years. Verse 22:5 (see quote in next section) suggests that embryological development has similarities with resurrection.

The resurrected donkey's bones clearly had no flesh on them (were unclothed), and then Allah clothed them. This rather suggests that when the same words are used in 23:14 to describe the developing fetus, the author had in mind a small bare skeleton (or perhaps that the bones are within what was the mudghah, but with no muscles), which is then clothed with flesh.

The Beginning of the Fetal Stage

Proponents of Qur'anic embryology also claim that it correctly denotes the start of the Fetal stage by referring to the creation of ‘another creation’ after the 'itham/lahm stage (bone clothed with flesh), which supposedly occurs at week eight.

An experienced embryologist would know that the delineation of the embryo and fetal stages is arbitrary.

Other Apologetic Claims

The Least Period of Conception

Another claim is that the Qur'an correctly states that the least period of conception is 6 months. They base this claim on two verses.

Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman claims that ‘the two texts taken together leave only six months (22 weeks i.e., five and half Gregorian months are equal to about six lunar months. of pregnancy).’ Here, Dr. Abdul Rehman’s sleight of hand to fit 22 weeks into six lunar months is ludicrous as each lunar month consists of four weeks, while five and a half Gregorian months consist of about 23.8 weeks.

Dr. Al-Ghazal also claims that according to ‘scientific facts’ the least period of conception is 22 weeks.

Even assuming the arbitrary claim by Drs Al-Ghazal and Abdul Rehman of 22 weeks, being the ‘most cases’ scenario (which is false according to medical statistics – see below), one is left with the conclusion that the Qur'an is still in error as six lunar months is 24 weeks, not 22 weeks.

This two-week difference is very important to the development and survivability of the fetus. Hence, it should not be summarily dismissed and rounded to the nearest month. If anything, it should be rounded to five lunar months, not six.

Regardless, the claim of six lunar months or 22 weeks as the least period of conception or ‘minimum period for fetal viability’ is unsupported by modern medical science.

Thus, it can be seen that the minimum period of fetal viability has changed, at least in recent history. It was never 22 weeks or 6 lunar months prior to the era of modern medicine, being likely to have been at least 30 weeks. Now, it has shrunk to only 19 weeks in countries with advanced pediatric medicine. We would suggest the minimum period of fetal viability in many third-world countries would still be around 30 weeks. Thus, Qur'anic embryology's proposition of the least period of conception is false.

Gender Determination

Some claim that verses 35:11 and 53:45-46 show knowledge that gender is determined by sperm cells (which contain either an x or y chromosome to go with the x chromosome of the female ovum).

This does not hold water for three reasons:

1. Verses 75:37-39 show that the author believed that gender was determined after the 'alaqah stage. Both 53:45 and 75:39 use the exact same phrase, "alzzawjayni alththakara waalontha" 'of the two spouses, the male and the female', and 35:11 too uses the word for male / female pair (azwajan).

In light of these verses, the ones used by apologists are merely saying that male and female babies start off as a nutfah (drop of semen).

2. If apologists want to take 53:45 literally as indicating 'when' gender is determined, then the Qur'an would still be wrong, because millions of sperm are emitted, some with an x chromosome, some with a y chromosome. Gender is determined not when the semen is emitted, but when the egg is fertilised by one of the sperm cells, which can take anything from half an hour to 12 hours for the first of them to reach the egg, and then more time for one of the many that arrive to successfully penetrate it.

3. Again, it should be noted that the evidence is unanimous that nutfah means a small quantity of fluid, a euphemism for semen – there is no indication of sperm cells within the fluid.

Furthermore, there are hadith even more explicit than Qur'an 75:37-39 which say that gender is decided after the 'mudghah stage:

Others interpret 75:39 to mean that the external genitalia and gonads are formed after the 'alaqah stage. This is a more plausible interpretation, but is still problematic. For the gender of the child has already been determined genetically at the moment of conception as stated above.

Intersex People

Furthermore, not everyone is simply a male with XY sex chromosomes, or a female with XX sex chromosomes. A small minority are called w:intersex due to certain types of genetic or phenotypic sex variations, including:^[32]

• Those who are 46, XY intersex. The person has the chromosomes of a man, but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous, or clearly female.

• Those who are 46, XX intersex. The person has the chromosomes of a woman, the ovaries of a woman, but external (outside) genitals that appear male.

• True Gonadal intersex. Such people have both male and female gonads (ovaries and testes), and may have ambiguous external genitalia.

• Other genetic configurations include XXX, and XXY (1 in 1000 people)^[33]. These people have no discrepancy between their gonads and external genitalia, but there may be problems with sex hormone levels, and overall sexual development.

According to Leonard Sax, when the term intersex is "restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", around 0.018% of the population are intersex. This definition excludes Klinefelter syndrome and many other variations.^[34]

Sperm within Semen

Others claim that verses 35:37 and 32:7-8 hint at sperm within the semen. These claims are debunked by means of very similar verses and other reasons at the end of the article Greek and Jewish Ideas about Reproduction in the Quran and Hadith

Womb has Three Layers

The word butun (بطن)^[35] means belly/abdomen/midriff, though some translators like to use the more specific word "womb". There are many more layers in the human body such as the endometrium, myometrium, perimetrium, peritoneum, besides the cervix uteri, corpus uteri, abdomen (with walls), and placenta (with layers). The idea of three membranes around the fetus (chorion, allantois, and amnion) was taught by the highly influential Greek physician, Galen. It is likely that the Qur'anic author is simply repeating this erroneous idea.

The End of Cell Differentiation

Some proponents of Qur'anic embryology state that the mudghah stage, which is described in one verse, "partly formed and partly unformed" or "shaped and shapeless" refers to the incomplete cell differentiation observed in this stage.

This claim is not backed by the scientific evidence.

Remembering that this mudghah stage occurs before the 'itham (bones) stage, so it must occur before week six, when the progeny is still in the “embryo” stage. However, modern embryologists know that cell differentiation occurs well before the ‘mudghah’ stage and well into the “fetal” stage. Hence the Qur'anic embryology claim must be incorrect.

Conclusion

Qur'anic Embryology can be seen to be false due to the following points:

1. The Qur'an itself omits mention of the ovum in human reproduction. Moreover, the choice of the words nutfah (small amount of liquid) and maa' maheenin (water/liquid disdained), which are placed in a safe place (the womb) in key passages indicate a belief that the embryo is formed out of semen, with no knowledge of the sperm cell.
2. The word 'alaqah probably means blood clot in the embryology verses, which corresponds to no actual embryological stage. Even if this was not the intended meaning, the foolishness of using a word with such an explicit biological meaning in a description of a biological process (embryology) means that the Qur'an can not be divine in origin.
3. The stages of bone formation then clothing with flesh is in error, even assuming that 'itham means both bone and cartilage.
4. The Qur'anic view of cell differentiation at the Mudgha stage is incorrect, as modern embryology has discovered cell differentiation occurring before and after the putative ‘Mudgha’ stage.
5. The claim that the Qur'an correctly predicted the beginning of the fetal stage is shown to be in error because the transition between the embryo and the fetus is arbitrary.
6. The claim that the Qur'an correctly states the least period of conception at 24 weeks is in error, as according to modern medical knowledge this period is closer to 21-22 weeks or even less with advanced medical science, and at least 30 weeks without modern medical assistance. Similarly, other apologetic claims regarding sperm, the womb, and gender determination are disproved by other verses and scientific knowledge.

See Also

• Embryology - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Embryology
• Qur'an Describes Gender Determination By Sperm

External Links

• Qur'anic Embryology - Dr. Yusuf Needham and Dr. Butrus Needbeer, FreeThought Mecca
• Embryology in the Qur'an - Dr. Lactantius, Answering Islam
• Islamic embryology: overblown balderdash - Dr. PZ Myers' response to Hamza Andreas Tzortzis’ paper, Embryology in the Qur’an
• Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado About Nothing - Captain Disguise and Martin Taverille's response to Hamza Andreas Tzortzis’ paper, Embryology in the Qur’an

References