The following is an excerpt from an incredibly detailed, 173 page paper titled “Embryology in the Qur’an: Much Ado about Nothing” authored by Captaindisguise who specialises in countering Islamic apologetics, Martin Taverville who also specialises in countering Islamic apologetics who has also authored other papers. 3 Saudi Arabians also contributed to the paper named “GodlessSaudi”, “AntiGoebbels” and “AtheistGhost”. It is a response paper to a pro-Quranic embryology paper by a man named Hamza Tzortis. Because of this paper, Hamza retracted his paper and urged muslims to stop promoting the “scientific miracles in the Quran” myth. All credit goes to them. The full study can be read here.

.

Sura 86:6-7 – Origin of semen between Backbone and Ribs

.

Sura 86 verses 6 to 7 from the Qur’an are very popular among the critics of Islam. Especially for those oriented with a scientific mindset, these verses would count as a factual error in the “holy text” of Quran. The verses state the following:

.

Transliteration: Khuliqa min ma’in dhafiqin yakhruju min bayni al-sulbi wa al-taraib

Translation: “He was created from a fluid (ma’in), ejected, Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.”

.

At first sight, the verse seems to suggest that the substance from which humans are created originates from the backbone. This was also a commonly held view during ancient times as it can be observed in the teaching of Hippocrates who described the origin of semen in the brain which subsequently descends through “the spine to the sex organs”;[1]

Due to the fact that this has been a very common criticism of the veracity of the Qur’an, Hamza Tzortzis does address this contention in his paper. The following is his response,[2]

While there is a nugget of truth in Hamza’s rebuttal, he seems to have missed the larger picture of the criticism, all the while engaging in his usual academically dishonest tactics. The two keywords that need examination are “sulb” (translated as backbone) and “tara’ib” (translated as ribs). Beginning with “sulb”, Hamza’s defense of this word seems to be that it can also mean “the loins” and that “it is well known that the sperm and semen come from an area referred to as the loins.” There was no surprise in realizing that this too is an absurd assertion.

.

Misrepresenting the Meaning of “sulb”

.

Perhaps Hamza ought to have performed a lexical analysis on the word in question. Here are the relevant meanings given for “sulb” in Lane’s lexicon;[3]





The most accurate definition of this term is that of the backbone. However, does Hamza’s defense using the meaning of “loins” solve the problem for the Qur’an? Certainly not! What Hamza fails to realize or willfully ignores is that “the loins” as “a euphemism for genitalia or sex organs” is the product of the English language and Hamza provides no evidence to suggest that the same euphemism was maintained among the ancient Arabs. In contrast, the primary definition of loins is also provided in the lexicon as “the lumbar portion”. This can also be verified using the Oxford English Dictionary;[4]

The secondary, euphemistic meaning of loins, related to the private parts, is also explained in OED as well as the Online Etymology dictionary as follows.[5] (Note: the year of origin of this euphemism);

This euphemistic definition is explained as a secondary “biblical and poetic” metaphor for one’s private parts and one that originated only in the early 16th century. Thus, it is unreasonable for Hamza to assign a definition, which specifically arose in 16th century English, to an Arabic word used in the 7th century. Interestingly, Lane’s lexicon also provides an account for another metaphorical idea associated with “sulb” among the Arabs;

The lexicon explains the metaphorical idea expressed in the sayings of the Arabs; the origin of which was due to the belief that “the sperma of the man is held to proceed from the “sulb”(i.e. backbone) of the man” and then proceeds to site the contested verse, 86:7 as an example.

The take home point for Hamza or any other apologist is that there is no evidence to suggest that the 16th century English euphemistic meaning of the word “loins” applies to the Arabic “sulb”. An analogy of Hamza’s claim is that of a person looking up the definition of the Arabic term “sa’eed (سعيد)” in a dictionary and finding its meaning as “happy, gay” etc. However, the person then incompetently concludes that the Arabic word “sa’eed (سعيد)” means “homosexual” due to the double meaning of the word “gay” in English. Hamza’s defense is equally ludicrous.

Thus, the realistic and rational definition of “sulb” in the context of the verse 86:7 is certainly that of the “backbone”.

.

Distorting the meaning of “taraib”

.

The next keyword in sura 86:7 that needs examination is “tara’ib” which has been translated as “ribs”. Hamza’s defense for this word is yet again incompetent and deceitful. Hamza states the following,

Hamza’s plan of action is to suggest that “tara’ib” can also mean “the pelvic arch” from which “the ovum comes”. Hamza gives the following source for the meaning of “tara’ib” as “the pelvic arch”,[6]

Taj Al Arus is a 19th century lexicon of Classical Arabic similar to Lisan al-Arab. However rather than providing a direct and proper reference from Taj al-Arus, Hamza points to a footnote of an English translation of the Qur’an authored by a 20th century translator named Muhammad Asad. From the reference given the reader is supposed to understand that Muhammad Asad found the definition of “pelvic arch” in Taj al-Arus.

Now to ask the important question, is Hamza being dishonest again? The answer may not surprise you as it is a “big fat Yes”. The following is the footnote from Muhammad Asad’s translation,[7]

Muhammad Asad, who is certainly a more honest man than Hamza, openly admits that his translation of “pelvic arch” is his own rendering. Asad proceeds to mention the meanings of “tara’ib” as “ribs” and “arch of bones” (very likely referring to rib arches). The reference from Taj al-Arus is given regarding his statement that “tara’ib” refers “to female anatomy” and not to the invented definition of the “pelvic arch” as Hamza would have his readers believe.

Secondly, the assertion that Taj al-Arus defines “tara’ib” as the “pelvic arch” is weakened by Lane’s lexicon which heavily utilizes Taj al-Arus (abbreviated as TA) in its content. The following is the entry for “tara’ib” in Lane’s lexicon;[8]





Lane’s lexicon does not mention the meaning of “the pelvic arch”. Besides what is the purpose of language if two distinct terms in a related field are referred to by the same word. For an analogy, imagine a word such as HamDay which is defined by certain enthusiasts as both Monday and Friday”. What purpose is there for such a word other than to cause confusion? A sentence such as, “My birthday is this Hamday” would always require further clarification and thus would be nonsensical to assume such a word would even exist. Likewise, a word defined as two distinct anatomical parts is nonsensical. Therefore, apart from the fact that Hamza has no evidence for his claim regarding pelvic arches, it would also be unreasonable to think that “taraib” would have such a meaning. With this data in mind, the most sensible understanding of “taraib” would be of “ribs” or “breastbone” etc.

Having displayed a lack of lexical analysis skills with “sulb” and a lack of academic integrity with “taraib”, Hamza delivers yet another mind-bogglingly bad argument in order to vindicate his holy book. Here Hamza begins to assert that even if “sulb” and “taraib” were translated as “backbone” and “ribs” respectively, the Qur’an would not be in error. Hamza states the following,

Hamza also presents the following cartoon-ish “smirk-provoking” diagram, for which no reference was given,

Before analyzing Hamza’s claim, a factual error in his paragraph needs to be addressed. He stated that “semen is made up of sperm”. This is not an accurate representation of the relationship between semen and sperm. Semen should be considered as a vehicle that carries a distinct substance called sperm. Every credible biologist understands and explains semen and sperm as two distinct substances. That being corrected, what is Hamza’s argument here?

His argument attempts to show that semen is mostly produced in the seminal vesicle which, according to Hamza, is between the backbone and the ribs. While the cartoon-ish-image seems exaggerated, Hamza has finally delivered a statement that is not “technically” inaccurate. If one were to generously allow the meaning of “sulb” to extend the tip of the coccygeal bone, then Hamza’s statement would be “technically” accurate since the seminal vesicle is, more or less, in the adjacent area. That being said, Hamza has bought “accuracy” for this verse at the price of maximum ambiguity.

.

Maximum Ambiguity

.

This difficulty is a rather a discreet and nuanced one that would require considering the broader applications of Hamza’s reasoning. Ignoring whether the “fluid” (ma’in) mentioned in sura 86:6-7 is sperm (in a fluid as of version 2.1b) or semen, Hamza would still have to answer the consequences of the logical extension of his explanation for the alleged error in the verse.

What was Hamza’s alternative explanation for the alleged error in the verse if his pelvic arch and loin defenses were rejected? He stated that the semen is produced in the seminal vesicle which, according to Hamza, is between the “ribs” and the “backbone”. Of course, for this to be true, it is necessary to define the backbone as extending to coccyx (or tail bone) where the seminal vesicle is found in the nearby area. Yet if one is allowed to extend the definition of backbone to reach its very bottom, one could also define it to reach the very top i.e. the vertebrae extending into the skull. Similarly, the ribs can be defined as extending from the very top pair to the very bottom pair.

What is the consequence of this? It ultimately allows one to interpret the following words in Sura 86:6-7, “between the backbone and the ribs” as referring to the area encompassing the entire viscera of the human body. Below is a graphical representation of this point.[9]

Given the importance placed on semantics in Islamic apologetics, an apologist could also make the claim that the area “between backbone and ribs” can include the brain as well as the testicles the same way one can think of one’s head as situated between the two shoulders. However, what are the consequences of such reasoning? Would Islamic apologists be able to accurately claim that their verse (86:6-7) is factually correct? The answer is “technically” yes. However, the apologists would be buying the security of their “technical” accuracy at a price far more damaging to the veracity of their holy book. This is because of the principle of ‘maximum ambiguity”.

What is maximum ambiguity? Bertrand Russell, the celebrated philosopher and historian, once said, “I propose to prove that all language is vague, and that therefore my language is vague.”[10] Ambiguity of a sentence or a paragraph or an essay or a book maybe described mathematically as the amount of “vagueness” expressed in the language. The principle of maximum ambiguity states that if the language used in a statement allows for every practically possible interpretation to be accurate, then the language used is maximally ambiguous. This is to say that the language has attained the greatest possible level of ambiguity i.e. it would be impossible for anyone to make it more ambiguous and unspecific. The following is a concrete example involving mathematics. Imagine a student named Hamzter taking a math test in his class. He glances over the first question which is as follows,

The correct answer to this question is that out of 7 billion people, six billion, nine hundred and ninety-three million will burn in hell according to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings upon him and the 0.1% elite heaven-dwellers).

However is this, the only correct answer that could have been given to this question? What if Hamzter answered by saying, “it is a very big number”? This would be “technically” correct as well. What if Hamzter answered it is “a number between 0 and 7 billion”? This would also be “technically” correct.

What if Hamzter answered every question on the test with the following words, “some number”? Would Hamzter have given a correct answer to all the questions? Yes. Is there any reasonable teacher who would give this student an A+ on this test? Absolutely not! Along with accuracy, it is also important to have “precision”. Hence the teacher would grade the test with a 0 due to the absence of precision which is just as important as accuracy.

How does this relate to sura 86:6-7? If one were to logically extend Hamza’s reasoning in his defense of the verse’s veracity, the words “between the backbone and ribs” would necessarily encompass the entire human viscera including the brain and the testicles. If Hamza’s reasoning is considered valid then the Qur’an’s verse is a maximally ambiguous statement due to the fact that the Qur’an would be effectively saying that “the part of the body that produces semen is located in the body.” This statement would encompass every logically possible answer to the question of semen or sperm production. Consequently, that quranic verse would also be graded with a zero for the absolute lack of precision.

.

[1] Bernard, R. W. 1994. The Mysteries of Human Reproduction. Health Research Books. Page 32

[2]. Tzortzis, Hamza 2012. Embryology in the Quran: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23. Version 2.1. page 63

[3]. “صلب (sulb)” Edward William Lane. An Arabic-English Lexicon. Librairie Du Liban. 1968. Vol.4, page 1712 http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000436.pdf

[4]. “loin, n.” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edition, 1989; online version June 2012. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109878; accessed 02 July 2012

[5]. “Loin”. Online Etymology Dictionary. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=loin&allowed_in_frame=0

[6]. Tzortzis, Hamza 2012. Embryology in the Quran: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23. Version 2.1. page 79

[7]. Muhammad Asad. The Message of the Qur’an. E-book. Pages 860-861

[8]. “taraib” Edward William Lane. An Arabic-English Lexicon. Librairie Du Liban 1968 Vol 1 page 301 http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000338.pdf

[9]. Image acquired from http://www.anatronica.com. accessed 02 July 2012

[10]. Bertrand Russell 1923. Vagueness.http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/vagueness