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, the 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 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 we will collate some of the best points, concentrating solely on the Qur'anic verses, because inclusion of the hadiths would clearly show up the unscientific nature of Qur'anic embryology.

Summary of the Main Errors in Qur'anic Embryology

The main errors can be summarised as follows and are further discussed in the rest of this article.

• 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). Futhermore, there is no indication 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).

• The embryo is then congealed blood, which is how all the classical tafasirs (commentaries) understood the meaning of 'alaqah, and is a definition of the word in classical Arabic dictionaries. Regardless of alternative meanings for this arabic word, it would be foolhardy to even use a word that has an explicit biological meaning in a description of a biological process 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.

• 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 thing, 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. Every 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, 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.

Basis of Qur'anic Embryology

These verses form the basis for Qur'anic embryology.

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

1. Dust/wet earth/clay (creation of Adam only)
2. Nutfah (drop of semen, claimed by apologists to be sperm)
3. Alaqa (leech, clot, clinging thing)
4. Mudgha (lump of meat, partly formed and partly unformed)
5. Izhaam/Aitham (bones)
6. Izhaam covered with Lahm (muscles and flesh)
7. Another creation (fetus?)

The Role of the Female Gamete

The Qur'an never explicitly claims that the female parent contributes genetic material. It is merely the assumption, and an assumption only, of apologists that 'nutfatun amshaajin' (mixed drop or mingled sperm) includes the female gamete.

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 sperm 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.’

One might contend that the Qur'an does not claim a role for the ovum at all, or is even ignorant of its existence.

Apologists claim that the Qur'an correctly states that the sex of the progeny is determined by the sperm from the male parent, based on verses 53:45-46.

There are only two logical explanations of nutfatin itha tumna; that it is the sperm emitted, or the blastocyst (i.e. zygote) implanted. If it is the latter, there is no case to argue that the Qur'an correctly states that gender is determined by the sperm of the male parent. Hence, nutfatin itha tumna must refer to the sperm emitted.

It is possible the Qur'anic verses 53:45-46 state that the male and female progenies, and not merely the genders, are created from the sperm. This is a possibility totally discounted without evidence and suggests a biased interpretation of the verses in light of modern knowledge. For where is the mention of the ovum? Not in these verses nor anywhere else in the Qur'an.

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 receiving the zygote (i.e. seed) from the male.

Therefore, if read in the context of verse 2:223, ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ cannot contain the ovum because tilth does not contribute genetic material to the development of the seed (i.e. zygote), and must mean the semen mingled with some unspecified non-genetic material-contributing female secretion.^[5]

In light of these facts, backed by the Qur'anic verses, it is apparent that the Qur'an’s view of human conception and reproduction is that the male parent contributes the diploid seed (nutfatin itha tumna) and the female parent, as tilth, contributes the environment and nutrients for the growth and development of this diploid seed.

Furthermore, 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 Jews and Greeks believed.

Verses 20-21 closely parallel 23:13, which too says "We placed it (jaAAalnahu) in a safe place (qararin makeen)", and uses the word nutfah instead of maa' maheenin (liquid disdained). The 'hu' ending to jaAAalnahu can mean him or it, and probably means the former in 23:13. 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.

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 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^[6] 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).^[7] 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.^[8] 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.^[9] 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^[10] 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 Formation of Bone

There is a clear mistake in the Qur'anic idea of the formation of bone. 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 izhaam stage compared to all the other stages, one must logically conclude that the Qur'an is in error in believing that the mudgha turned totally into izhaam.

Some may simply say that the syntax allows both interpretations, i.e. khalaqna can 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.

Secondly, they have to explain why the author of the Qur'an was deficient in their language and forgot to mention cartilage (ghudhroof)^[12] but bone (izhaam).^[13]

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. 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, izhaam, the embryology is still wrong.

Muscle precursors begin developing into muscle soon after mesenchymal (skeletal) condensation.^[14]

Muscle forms contemporaneously with cartilage formation and is not delayed until bone has formed. Muscle development starts on Day 28.^[15]

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.^[16] But the cartilage skeleton begins forming by week 6.^[17]

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^[17] and is only developed by the 7th week.^[18]

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.^[19][20]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.^[21][22] 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, which is then clothed with flesh.

The End of Cell Differentiation

Proponent of Qur'anic embryology state that mudgha stage in which the phrase “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 mudgha stage occurs before the izham stage, 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 ‘mudgha’ stage and well into the “fetal” stage. Hence the Qur'anic embryology claim must be incorrect.

The Beginning of the Fetal Stage

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

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

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.

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, with doctrinal evidence that it regards the progeny to be the resulting union between the seed from the male parent and the female parent as tilth. As tilth do not provide genetic material to the seed, it is clear that the Qur'an regards the nutfah (semen) as the diploid seed. Moreover, the choice of the words nutfah (small amount of liquid) and maa' maheenin (water/liquid disdained) in key passages indicate a belief that the embryo is formed out of semen, with no knowledge of the sperm cell.

2. The Qur'an includes an initial dust stage that cannot be reconciled with modern embryology.

3. The missing stages of verse 40:67 contradict the other embryology verses.

4. The stages of bone formation then clothing with flesh is in error, even assuming that izhaam means both bone and cartilage.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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