Embryology in the Quran: Difference between revisions

The propagation of Qur'anic Embryology as a tool of [[w:Dawah|da'wah]] began in earnest when books were published by non-Muslim medical experts [[Dr.]] [[Dr. Keith Moore and the Islamic Additions|Keith Moore]] (alongside his co-author Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist")<ref name="Loyalist">[{{Reference archive|1=http://web.archive.org/web/20100314033922/http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js1190.htm|2=2013-04-10}} United States Designates bin Laden Loyalist], United States Department of the Treasury, JS-1190, February 24, 2004</ref> and Dr. [[Bucailleism|Maurice Bucaille]]. These claims are repeated by Dr. [[Zakir Naik]], [[Harun Yahya]] and many others. There is good evidence of Dr. Keith Moore's [[Dr. Keith Moore and the Islamic Additions#Moore.27s Current Views|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<ref>Marshall Clagett, “Greek Science in Antiquity”, pp.180-181, New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1955; Dover, 2001</ref>. 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|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 [[Embryology in the Quran#External links|many responses]] available. So here we will collate some of the best points, concentrating solely on the Qur'anic verses, because inclusion of the [[hadith]]s would clearly show up the [[Embryology in Islamic Scripture|unscientific nature of Qur'anic embryology]].

* 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).

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,[{{Reference archive|1=http://web.archive.org/web/20060214032231/http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/embryo.html|2=2011-12-05}} here], and can read the relevant sections [http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com 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).

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-range|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).<ref>[{{Reference archive|1=http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000286.pdf|2=2012-07-23}} Nasl - Lane’s Lexicon] p.3032</ref>

#Mudghah<ref>مُضْغَةً mudghah - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000275.pdf Lane's Lexicon] Suppliment, page 3021</ref> (bite-sized morsel of flesh, shaped and without shape)  

#'Itham<ref>عِظَٰمًا 'itham - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000372.pdf Lane's Lexicon] Volume 5, page 2087</ref> (bones, especially of the limbs)  

#'Itham covered with Lahm<ref>لَحْمًا lahm - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000262.pdf Lane's Lexicon] Suppliment, page 3008 and [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000263.pdf page 3009]</ref> (flesh)  

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.<ref>http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000419.pdf 'Alaq - Lane’s lexicon page 2134</ref> The stalk evidently has a certain amount of stiffness and does not hang vertically under gravity like a bucket in a well.

{{Quote||While we will return to the issue of mudgha below, we should now move on to the issue of izhaam (bones). As was noted above, after the alaqa is turned into a mudgha, the Qur'an states fa-khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, or "then we formed the morsel into bones." Moore and his cohort try to change the translation to "out of the mudgha we formed bones," so as to give the impression that the bones are forming inside the embryo, rather than the entire object becoming bones. This brings to light the duplicitous nature that these people are taking to the text.  

When we reach izhaam we find another problematic part of the verse. Consider that the text reads: khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, fa-kasawnaa al-izhaaman laHman. First note that ''khalaqnaa'' is past tense, and the pre-fix ''fa'' means "then." So the verse reads: "we formed the morsel into bones, then we clothed the bones with flesh." Thus, it implies bone forms before soft tissue, which is a blatant error, not to mention one that parallels Galen.  

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)<ref>ghudhroof, alternatively spelt ghurdoof - Lane's Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000032.pdf Volume 6/ 32] - StudyQuran.org></ref> but bone (izhaam).<ref>'azam - Lane’s Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000372.pdf Volume 5/ 372] - StudyQuran.org</ref>

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.  

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.  

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.

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.  

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.

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.