2,885
edits
Sources of Islamic Theories of Reproduction: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Sources of Islamic Theories of Reproduction (view source)
Revision as of 17:02, 21 May 2025
, 21 MayChonk on academicquran (seems to have been copied here from there) completely misunderstood Eich and Doroftei's argument. The Syriac nupta quotes are about the creation of man, not embryology. Added some of my detailed notes on the book though perhaps too advanced for this page. Also changed all verses to Sahih International translation for consistency.
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (Chonk on academicquran (seems to have been copied here from there) completely misunderstood Eich and Doroftei's argument. The Syriac nupta quotes are about the creation of man, not embryology. Added some of my detailed notes on the book though perhaps too advanced for this page. Also changed all verses to Sahih International translation for consistency.) |
|||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
==Evidence of influence== | ==Evidence of influence== | ||
This section documents the influence of ideas from other cultures on the Qur’an and hadith regarding reproduction. It will go without saying that these ideas are inaccurate compared with current [[Islam and Science|scientific]] knowledge of [[reproduction]] and [[embryology]]. All Qur’an quotes are from | This section documents the influence of ideas from other cultures on the Qur’an and hadith regarding reproduction. It will go without saying that these ideas are inaccurate compared with current [[Islam and Science|scientific]] knowledge of [[reproduction]] and [[embryology]]. All Qur’an quotes are from the Sahih International translation. | ||
===A mingled drop=== | ===A mingled drop=== | ||
{{Quote|{{Quran|76|2}}| | {{Quote|{{Quran|76|2}}|Indeed, We created man from a sperm-drop mixture [nu<U>t</U>fatin amsh<U>a</U>jin] that We may try him; and We made him hearing and seeing.}} | ||
Ibn Kathir’s [[Tafsir|commentary]] on this verse gives a very useful definition of nu<U>t</U>fah from Muhammad’s companions. | Ibn Kathir’s [[Tafsir|commentary]] on this verse gives a very useful definition of nu<U>t</U>fah from Muhammad’s companions. | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
Galen said that the embryo is initially formed out of the male semen mixed (μίγνυται) with what he called the female semen, which also forms an additional membrane entwined (ἐπιπλεκονταί) with that of the male semen. He believed that blood from the woman is subsequently drawn in via the uterus and membrane, and this combined material literally goes on to form the fetus.<ref>Philip De Lacy (editor and translator). “Galen: On Semen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.3.1.)”, pp.85-89, Berlin: Akademie. Verlag, 1992</ref> This will be explained a little more later. Unlike Galen (and before him, Hippocrates) with the two-semens theory, Aristotle believed that there was only a male semen, which does not itself provide material for the embryo, but triggers its formation from menstral blood.<ref>Philip De Lacy (editor and translator). “Galen: On Semen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.3.1.)”, p.65, Berlin: Akademie. Verlag, 1992<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> The quoted comments from Muhammad’s companions are good evidence for Galenic influence in 7<sup>th</sup> century Arabia. | Galen said that the embryo is initially formed out of the male semen mixed (μίγνυται) with what he called the female semen, which also forms an additional membrane entwined (ἐπιπλεκονταί) with that of the male semen. He believed that blood from the woman is subsequently drawn in via the uterus and membrane, and this combined material literally goes on to form the fetus.<ref>Philip De Lacy (editor and translator). “Galen: On Semen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.3.1.)”, pp.85-89, Berlin: Akademie. Verlag, 1992</ref> This will be explained a little more later. Unlike Galen (and before him, Hippocrates) with the two-semens theory, Aristotle believed that there was only a male semen, which does not itself provide material for the embryo, but triggers its formation from menstral blood.<ref>Philip De Lacy (editor and translator). “Galen: On Semen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.3.1.)”, p.65, Berlin: Akademie. Verlag, 1992<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> The quoted comments from Muhammad’s companions are good evidence for Galenic influence in 7<sup>th</sup> century Arabia. | ||
The Qur’anic verses that are most explicit in stating that the embryo is initially formed out of semen, as per Galen and Hippocrates, are | The Qur’anic verses that are most explicit in stating that the embryo is initially formed out of semen, as per Galen and Hippocrates, are shown below. | ||
{{Quote|{{Quran-range|80|18|19}}|From what | {{Quote|{{Quran-range|80|18|19}}|From what substance [shay-in, which means “thing”] did He create him? From a sperm-drop [nu<U>t</U>fatin] He created him and destined for him;}} | ||
Just as Galen taught about the mixed semens, this nu<U>t</U>fah is stored in the womb | Just as Galen taught about the mixed semens, this nu<U>t</U>fah is stored in the womb before undergoing the next stage of development. | ||
{{Quote|{{ | {{Quote|{{Quran-range|23|13|14}}|Then We placed him as a sperm-drop [nutfatan] in a firm lodging.<br>Then We made the sperm-drop [nutfata] into a clinging clot […]}} | ||
The Qur’an itself confirms that it is semen that is developed in the womb in an almost identical verse. Here m<U>a</U>a (water), the euphemism for semen, is used instead of nu<U>t</U>fah. In this instance it probably just means male semen (see the “Extract of | The Qur’an itself confirms that it is semen that is developed in the womb in an almost identical verse. Here m<U>a</U>a (water), the euphemism for semen, is used instead of nu<U>t</U>fah. In this instance it probably just means male semen (see the “Extract of liquid disdained” section later). | ||
{{Quote|{{quran-range|77|20|22}}| | {{Quote|{{quran-range|77|20|22}}|Did We not create you from a liquid disdained [m<U>a</U>-in maheen'''in''']? And We placed it in a firm lodging For a known extent.}} | ||
In both cases, the | In both cases, the “firm lodging” (qararin makeenin) obviously refers to the womb, with 77:22 adding that it is for a “known extent”. It certainly does not mean the female ovum, which is only penetrated by a single sperm cell and not the “liquid disdained”. | ||
=== The four stages of embryo development === | === The four stages of embryo development === | ||
| Line 264: | Line 255: | ||
==Other apologetic claims== | ==Other apologetic claims== | ||
Some Islamic apologists have hence turned to other arguments to find a reference to sperm (not just semen) or the female ovum in the Qur’an. They are considered below. Qur’an translations are | Some Islamic apologists have hence turned to other arguments to find a reference to sperm (not just semen) or the female ovum in the Qur’an. They are considered below. 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=== | ||
| Line 282: | Line 273: | ||
===Sperm from semen emitted=== | ===Sperm from semen emitted=== | ||
{{Quote|{{Quran|75|37}}| | {{Quote|{{Quran|75|37}}|Had he not been a sperm from semen emitted? [nu<U>t</U>fatan min manayyin yumn<U>a</U>]?}} | ||
Some | Some apologetics websites claim that this verse shows that nutfah does not refer to the same substance as maniyy, translating the phrase as “sperm-drop from semen”, whereas pretty much all others translate it as “drop [nutfatan] of [min] semen [maniyyin]”, or words to that effect (Sahih International's translation shown above is very much an exception). | ||
However, as demonstrated above, nu<U>t</U>fah meant a small quantity of liquid, in this context in reference to semen that | However, as demonstrated above, nu<U>t</U>fah meant a small quantity of liquid, in this context in reference to semen that was believed to form the embryo, whereas maniyy is simply semen. Whenever the Qur’an mentions nu<U>t</U>fah, which indicates the small quantity of liquid, it is emphasizing the humble beginnings of man. In the hadiths that use maniyy, it is a different context where the quantity is irrelevant. We also saw in the Lisan al-Arab dictionary above that maniyy is called nutfah because it is a small amount of liquid. | ||
In addition, verse 53:46 has virtually the same phrase with the same verb as 75:37, but this time just mentions nu<U>t</U>fah, without maniyy. | In addition, verse 53:46 has virtually the same phrase with the same verb as 75:37, but this time just mentions nu<U>t</U>fah, without maniyy. | ||
{{Quote|{{Quran|53|46}}|From a drop | {{Quote|{{Quran|53|46}}|From a sperm-drop [nu<U>t</U>fatin] when it is emitted [tumn<U>a</U>];}} | ||
Tumn<U>a</U> in 53:46 and yumn<U>a</U> in 75:37 is the same verb meaning "to emit", and from the same root as maniyy. The same verb is understandably used if it is talking about the emission of the same thing, semen, but without explicitly stating the type of liquid in 53:46. In any case, the evidence is unanimous that nu<U>t</U>fah is always used for a liquid. | Tumn<U>a</U> in 53:46 and yumn<U>a</U> in 75:37 is the same verb meaning "to emit", and from the same root as maniyy. The same verb is understandably used if it is talking about the emission of the same thing, semen, but without explicitly stating the type of liquid in 53:46. In any case, the evidence is unanimous that nu<U>t</U>fah is always used for a liquid. | ||
===Extract of | ===Extract of liquid disdained=== | ||
{{Quote|{{Quran-range|32|7|8}}|Who | {{Quote|{{Quran-range|32|7|8}}|Who perfected everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay. Then He made his posterity out of the extract of a liquid disdained.}} | ||
The word translated | The word translated “posterity” in Sahih International’s translation is nasl, which means progeny (i.e. descendants).<ref>[http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000286.pdf Lane’s Lexicon Vol. 8 p.3032]</ref> It is a reasonable assumption that ma-in m<U>a</U>heen'''in''' (liquid disdained) means male semen here (see 86:6-7, which too uses maa). Some apologists like to read sul<U>a</U>latin<ref>[http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000121.pdf Lane’s Lexicon Vol. 4 p.1397]</ref> (“extract”) as a reference to sperm. There are a couple of problems with this. First, it ignores the role of the female ovum (this is a problem with pretty much any interpretation of the verse). Secondly, we can compare 32:8 with 77:20, which has the exact same last 3 words, and without the word extract. | ||
{{Quote|{{Quran|77|20}}|Did We not create you from a | {{Quote|{{Quran|77|20}}|Did We not create you from a liquid disdained? [min m<U>a</U>-in maheen'''in''']}} | ||
This suggests that the extract is or is of the same substance as the disdained | This suggests that the extract is or is of the same substance as the disdained liquid. As we saw above, the next two verses, 77:21-22, indicate that this liquid is gestated in the womb. There are various possible meanings for this verse, but even if it is interpreted as saying that only a special part of semen forms the embryo, that belief would have been common among the Jews with whom Muhammad was acquainted, as we saw from the Talmud quoted earlier: | ||
{{Quote|Babylonian Talmud, Nidda 31a|It teaches that man is not fashioned from all the drop but only from its purest part.<ref name="Nidda 31a"></ref>}} | {{Quote|Babylonian Talmud, Nidda 31a|It teaches that man is not fashioned from all the drop but only from its purest part.<ref name="Nidda 31a"></ref>}} | ||
==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 Q. 23:14 (pp. 162-66, 206-214). He also argues that hadiths relating to such verses merely reflect this reinterpretation and contemporary ideas. | |||
The authors identify occurances of the Syriac cognate word (nuṭptā) in the works of Syriac churchmen: | |||
{{Quote|Eich & Doroftei, 2023. <i>Adam and Embryo. p. 95. </i>|"He is very foolish and blind; for he is also enclosed together with all - in the hollow hand of the Creator. A single grain of dust, - a single drop of water (nuṭptā), which formed together - became the human form through the mercy of the Creator."}} | |||
And Babai the Great (c.551–628CE), an early church father of the Syriac Church of the East, also known as the Assyrian Church.<ref>Amar, J. P. ''Babai the Great (c.551–628).'' 2011. Wiley. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470670606.wbecc0106</nowiki></ref> | |||
{{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 Jewish *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). Eich's view that Q. 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 Q. 18:37 and Q. 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 Q. 75:37-39 and Q. 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: Q. 16:4, Q. 36.77, and Q. 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 Q. 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. Q. 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 Q. 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 Q. 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 Q 23:14 as an interpolation. But in addition, Q. 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 Q. 22:5 and Q. 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). | |||
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 Q. 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). | |||
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. | |||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||