Sources of Islamic Theories of Reproduction: Difference between revisions

In 2023, Thomas Eich and Doru Constantin Doroftei's ''Adam und Embryo'' academic book was published (open access) 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-shop.de/de/p/adam-und-embryo-gr-978-3-98740-064-3 ''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.''], Ergon Verlag<BR />The book is in German, though can be downloaded as an open access (free) ebook format via the link and it is easy to then 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 {{Quran|23|14}} (pp. 162-66, 206-214). They also argue that hadiths relating to such verses merely reflect this reinterpretation and contemporary ideas.

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 Syriac ''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, explicitly to create Adam).  

Their view that {{Quran|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 {{Quran|18|37}} and {{Quran|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 {{Quran-range|75|37|39}} and {{Quran-range|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: {{Quran|16|4}}, {{Quran|36|77}}, and {{Quran-range|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 {{Quran-range|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. {{Quran-range|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 {{Quran|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 {{Quran|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 {{Quran|23|14}} as an interpolation. But in addition, {{Quran|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 {{Quran|22|5}} and {{Quran|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 {{Quran-range|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).