Semen Production in the Quran: Difference between revisions

Towards the end of the 20th century and into the early 21st century, drawing on the work of a broad and largely Saudi-financed movement to demonstrate the concordance of Islamic scriptures and modern science, attempts have been made to not only defend the Qur'anic idea of semen production (found in Quran 86:6-7) from between the sulb and the tara’ib, but also to demonstrate it as an instance of divinely inspired scientific foreknowledge, or, as more commonly referred to, a scientific miracle of the Quran. Several specific interpretations advocating the miracle have been proposed, critiqued, and withdrawn - none, however, have been welcomed by the professional scientific or historian community.^[2]

Human semen comprises the product of 4 glands: the testes produce sperm cells, while the fluid in which they are carried comes from seminal vesicles (behind the bladder), the prostate gland (below the bladder), and from the bulbourethral glands (below the bladder).

Semen production in Islamic scriptures

Verses 86:6-7

There is relatively little disagreement over the proper translation of Quran 86:6. The only recurrent disagreement between translations is over whether the word maa should be translated literally as 'water' or generalized to 'fluid'. Most translations opt for the former translation, which is accurate to the Arabic text, as opposed to the latter, which amounts to a metaphorical interpretation. No scholar has expressed disagreement with the fact that the word for water (maa) was the standard Arabic euphemism for 'semen' - many translations have included this point in their footnotes on the verse.

As can be seen in the competing translations listed below, there is significant disagreement among Islamic translations and controversy surrounding the translation of the subsequent verse, Quran 86:7.

The word sulb, translated as 'loins'

Many Islamic translations opt to translate the word sulb in Quran 86:7 as 'loins', evoking the euphemistic sense of the word 'loins' which alludes to the reproductive organs of a male. This sense of the word 'loins' is secondary to its primary sense, which refers to the lumber portion of the back (hence the word sirloin, which refers to '(a piece of) meat from the back of an animal near the tail or from the top part of the back legs').^[3] Both senses of the word are accounted for in the Oxford English Dictionary.

The Lane's Lexicon of Classical Arabic definition for sulb includes the following:

Lane also quotes an Arab saying that features sulb, translating and explaining it as follows (sperma is a Late Latin word meaning seed, or semen):

Supporting evidence in other verses and hadiths

Independent corroboration that sulb in the Qur'an refers to the back or backbone is found in another verse on the same subject using a different word for back. Quran 7:172 says that the offspring of the children of Adam are 'from their backs (loins)'. Instead of sulb, the word here is thahr, which means the back^[4], as is also the case in other verses such as Quran 6:31.

One other verse in the Qur'an uses the word sulb. In this case there is no mention of tara'ib. It is an example of the simple Arabic phrase mentioned in Lane's Lexicon (see above), based on the belief that the seed of men proceed from their backs.

Slightly more explicitly, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari (also in Sahih Muslim 39:6733) uses sulb to say that the source of Adam's future progeny was in his back from before they were conceived.

Modern revisionary perspectives

Professional historians hold that the discussion of embryology found in the Quran, as with most discussion of natural phenomena in the scripture, was intended only to inspire awe in its audience by drawing their attention towards amazing natural phenomenon they already knew of (or thought they knew of). Historians hold this perspective because it would not have made sense for the Quran to discuss scientific facts with an audience who, unaware of what was being discussed, would have been unable to appreciate the discussion's significance. Classical Islamic scholars, living in ages prior to the advent of modern science, tended to agree with this view. By contrast, modern Islamic scholars have generally come to hold that these discussions of natural phenomena found in the Quran were intended as miracles predictive of modern science. In addition to entailing the reconciliation of the Quran with modern science, this modern perspective confounds traditional interpretations regarding the significance of these verse and can thus be considered revisionary.

The most common of these revisionary perspectives which advocate a miraculous interpretation of the Quran via its reconciliation with modern science include that of Drs. Maurice Bucaille and A. K. Giraud (according to which sulb and tara’ib refer to the sexual areas of the male and female), Ahmed A. Abd-Allah (according to which all acknowledged translations and tafsirs are in error, as sulb and tara’ib refer instead to to the male's “hardening” penis the female's erogenous zones other than the vagina), Dr. Zakir Naik (according to which sulb and tara’ib refer to the backbone and ribs of both sexes and where only the gonads in the embryonic stage are being described rather than a male and female in the act of sexual reproduction), Dr. Jamal Badawi (according to which the verses refer not to semen production but to the blood of the aorta as the ‘gushing fluid poured forth’), Muhammad Asad (according to which sulb refers to the male's loins and tara'ib to the female's pelvic arch), Moiz Amjad (according to which sulb and tara'ib refer to the blood supply for the testes emanating from the backbone and ribs, where only the gonads in the embryonic stage are being described rather than a male and female in the act of sexual reproduction, and where the sulb and tara'ib 'region' alluded to is a euphemism for the male sexual organ), and Yusuf Ali (according to which the backbone is only symbolically alluded to as a symbol of male strength where semen flows between the backbone and ribs).

While the implications pursued by the interpretations of modern and classical Islamic scholars differ (with only the former aspiring to a scientific miracle), some classical scholars also tried to explain the apparent disagreement of a reading entailing the backbone and ribs with what they conjecturally held to be the process behind semen production involving the testes. While the role of the testes in semen production would only be established incontrovertibly with modern science, the pre-modern intuition regarding the role of the testes was strong enough, at least in some cases, to bring classical scholars to attempt a reading similar to those almost universally favored by modern Islamic scholars today (listed in the preceding paragraph). One of the most famous pre-modern source to attempt such a reading is found in the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, which, while reading tara'ib as the female's 'breast-bones', takes sulb to mean the male's 'loins'. The classical Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs advances a similar reading, involving the male's 'loins' and female's 'ribs'. Other classical sources, such as Tafsir Ibn Kathir, straightforwardly read sulb and tara'ib to refer to the male's 'backbone' and female's 'chest' respectively.

Maurice Bucaille

Critics have pointed out that while a case can be made that sulb means “hardening” and thus, metaphorically, "penis", there is no comparable case that tara’ib can mean "vagina". Bucaille and Giraud hold that tara’ib means the ’sexual areas of the woman’ but do not provide evidence to this end save the quote produced by Bucaille above (which itself gives no justification for this reading). Critics also argue that if tara'ib does mean what Bucaille and Giraud take it to mean, 'sexual areas of the woman' is too vague and speculative an interpretation to be meaningfully accurate or constitutive of a scientific miracle.

Ahmed A. Abd-Allah

Abd-Allah extends Bucaille’s interpretation, providing dictionaries and tafsirs to support his case that sulb means ‘hardening’ and tara’ib means the sexual areas of the woman. Abd-Allah defines sulb as follows:

Critics note that almost all the commonly available translations of the Qur'an refer to sulb as the backbone, though some refer to loins. Even classical authorities such as Ibn Kathir accept the meaning of the word as "backbone". Additionally, Hans Wehr, a dictionary of modern standard rather than classical Arabic, is an unreliable source for determining the meanings of words in the Qur'an.

Critics also argue that Abd-Allah’s proposition is undercut by the definitions of tara’ib he provides. He does not show that the tafsirs and dictionaries explain tara’ib to mean vagina. Tara’ib is defined as the upper chest or ribs, or according to some sources can also mean the two legs, two arms or two eyes^[5]. While erogenous zones are important in foreplay, the sexual act must be consummated through the vagina.

Finally, critics argue that Abd-Allah’s reference to Ibn Kathir’s tafsir is misleading, as it includes only the half of the description which supports his case (i.e. that tara’ib refers to the woman) and excludes the other half that contradicts it (i.e. that tara’ib is the woman’s ribs).

Zakir Naik

The biology presented here is incorrect. The original position of the cells destined to develop into spermatogonia (sperm producing cells) is not ventro-medial to the kidneys (where they develop) but in the wall of the yolk sac:

If Naik’s assertion that the verse refers to the embryonic testes is accepted, it is not evident whether the gonads are located where he claims, i.e. between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. This cross-sectional diagram of the human embryo shows the gonads at or around the level of the placenta:

As a result, it is not correct that the embryonic testes is located specifically between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs as the gonadal or genital ridge (precursor of the gonads) is commonly believed to lie medial to the lower part of the mesonephros, while the adult kidney actually develops from the metanephros.

It is incorrect to assume the position of the embryonic gonads from the position of the adult kidneys, as the embryonic positions of gonads and kidneys are not the same as their adult positions. Gonads descend, while kidneys enlarge and ascend. It should also be noted that the developing gonads are ventro-medial to the mesonephros (i.e. the embryonic kidney) and not the metanephros (which would develop into the adult kidney). Zakir Naik's explanation does not differentiate between the mesonephros and the metanephros.

If Naik’s implied association between embryonic and adult anatomical positions were nonetheless accepted, the explanation is inaccurate because in the condition of cryptorchidism where the testes is undescended, the highest position of the undescended testes is below  the kidney.^[7]

It should also be noted that the inferior pole of the kidney lies around L3 (the third lumbar vertebra), such that the embryonic testes must be below L3. The twelfth rib does not extend below L2. And because the testes are below the kidneys, there is no possibility that the testes were ever between the ribs and the backbone either in the embryonic or the adult (as with cryptorchidism) stage.

The interpretation of a ‘drop emitted, proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs’ to mean the embryonic development of the testes appears disingenuous, as the ‘drop emitted’ suggests a fully developed and functional testes, rather than an embryonic structure. Embryonic testes do not emit, ejaculate, gush forth, pour forth, spurt or ejaculate any substance; only peri- and post-pubertal testes do.

Naik’s explanation of the nerve, blood and lymphatic circular from the abdominal aorta is irrelevant and appears to serve as a red herring. Verse 85:6 speak about ‘a drop emitted’, commonly taken to mean semen and semen only, as this drop is directly responsible for human reproduction, something which cannot be claimed for nerve signals, blood or lymph. Circulation and nerve supply also do not correlate with embryonic origin. For example, the blood supply, lymphatics and nerve supply of the lower limbs originate in the abdomen and pelvis. This does not mean the lower limbs embryonically originated in the abdomen and pelvis.

Jamal Badawi

Badawi’s proposition repeats the error found in Naik’s proposition regarding blood circulation.

Ibn Kathir

Semen does not emanate from the male’s backbone, nor do the female’s sexual secretions emanate from the ribs.

Muhammad Asad

Asad's definition of tara’ib takes it to refer to the pelvic arch which is a specific part of the pelvis, however this definition is nowhere evidenced (Asad says the word is "rendered by me"). Dictionaries define tara'ib as the upper ribs.^[5]

If Asad's definition of sulb as the male loins (in the modern sense of the word loins, rather than its old and primary meaning of the lower back) as well as his definition of tara'ib are accepted, his proposition that sexual reproduction is the consequence of a union between the male loins and the female pelvic arch is again inaccurate.

Hamza Tzortzis

Hamza Tzortzis, on his website, repeats Muhammad Asad's perspective while implying that the pelvic arch definition comes from Taj al-Arus, which he cites directly for this claim. Asad sought only to evidence the relationship of the word tara'ib to "female anatomy" by citing Taj al-Arus, while providing the definition of "pelvic arch" himself. Tzortzis, repeatedly made aware of this error, ultimately withdrew his lengthy paper.^[10]

Moiz Amjad

Moiz Amjad makes three claims:

1. Sulb and tara’ib refer to the blood supply of the testes emanating from between the man’s back and ribs.

This proposition repeats the error found in Naik’s proposition regarding blood circulation.

2. The embryonic gonads originate in the area (as per Zakir Naik).

This proposition repeats the error found in Naik’s general proposition.

3. The sulb and tara’ib region is a euphemism for the male sexual organ.

Amjad argues this point by drawing lines on pictures of a human skeleton, so that all parts of the body lying between the relevant bones and the opposing surface of the body are included.

Amjad also argues that the sulb and tara’ib are euphemisms for the male and female sexual organs. There exist in Arabic, however, numerous other, more direct euphemisms for these two organs, and sulb and tara'ib are no where else used euphemistically in this sense. Additionally, since sperm never flows between separate organs, and always flows inside a single organ, it is very strange that the Qur'an should make an unclear euphemistic reference to two organs in order to refer to just one of those organs, which could easily and clearly been described directly or through various, clear euphemisms.

Tahir Ul-Qadri

Tahir Ul-Qadri makes the following claim:

There is no evidence that tara'ib can be translated as pubic symphysis (see the Muhammad Asad section above). If Qadri's claim of a single word having a large number of meanings were true and applicable in this case, tara'ib could be taken to refer to many organs other than the pubic symphisis, which have no relationship with the place where semen flows. This appears to be a Texas sharpshooter fallacy, where the focus is only on the similarities between two sets of information so that a conclusion can be drawn while ignoring the differences. Qadri, in his analysis, also ignores the testicles which produce the essential sperms. These are not situated in the zone mentioned, and are rather below the symphisis.^[11]

Yusuf Ali

• Yusuf Ali does not state what he means by seed: Sperm, semen, ovum or zygote. This deserves to be clarified as the human embryo does not emerge from either male fluid or the female ovum alone, but from a combination of the two. It follows that if "seed" is taken to refer to one sex, this must be incorrect; but if it refers to both sexes, the interpretation of emergence from between backbone and ribs must be valid for both the male and female products.

• Ali takes the role of the backbone to be symbolic, suggesting that just as the backbone is crucial to the life of a man, so also it must be crucial to the production of a man's sperm, and hence child. This metaphorical interpretation, appears strained and lacks any sort of precedent or evidence; the backbone has never been understood to relate in any way to one's offspring.

• Mentioning the medulla oblongata here appears to serve no purpose relevant to Ali's interpretation.

Miscellaneous Claims

This claim takes the meaning of the verse to say that the force for ejaculation comes from between the backbone and the ribs. The verse itself, however, only mentions a "liquid flowing" and not its cause.

The ribs are above the seminal vesicles which are above the tip of the coccyx when a standing person's anatomy is viewed. The top of the seminal vesicles falls between the bottom of the coccyx and the bottom of the rib-cage on the above mentioned line, the vesicle is not between the loins and ribs.^[13] Additionally, the role of the prostate glands (source of 25-30% of semen), testes (2-5%) and bulbourethral glands (up to 1%) is not considered in this analysis.

Though the ribcage is roughly cylindrical, the uterus is never inside it. Further, the embryo is already "created" much before pregnancy since the verse refers to fertilisation. The liquid being discussed here never flows anywhere close to a woman's ribs.

This is partly similar to the claim of tara'ib meaning uterus; a baby has nothing to do with its mother's ribs. If one were to describe the emergence of a baby by referring to external organs, one would have better said "between backbone and abdomen", not ribs. In all major translations, verse 86:7 (Coming from between the backbone and the ribs) is an incomplete sentence which continues from 86:6 ("He is created from a gushing fluid"), hence it is only a fluid that is said to emerge.

This is not true. The entire process of spermatogenesis from a spermatogonium to a sperm occurs in various regions of the testicles.^[14]

Overarching concerns

These propositions are frequently conflicting, such that if any one is correct, the remainder must be incorrect. For instance, Ibn Kathir refers to tara’ib as a female organ, while other tafsirs claim it belongs to the man.^[15] Another conflict is the definition of sulb to mean either the backbone or the ‘hardening’ or the loins. These varying interpretations confirm the essential ambiguity of the scriptural texts.

Another point alluded to by Dr. Campbell, is that the phrase “min bain” which literally means “from between”. If this interpretation is accepted, which seems to be the case from a reading of the commonly accepted translations, then one must also note that semen emanates from the penis, and not from between the penis and the vagina. To be strictly correct, semen emanates from the penis into the vagina. This point seems to rule out tara’ib from anything to do with the female sexual partner.

See Also

• Scientific Miracles in the Quran
• Reproduction - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Reproduction
• Mistranslations of Islamic Scripture (English) - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Mistranslated Verses

External Links

• The Quran on Semen Production

• No Scientific Problems (Errors?!?) in the Quran

• Science in Quran: Ambiguity of Human Embryology

References