[Dowload PDF from here]

Pre-release version 0.5 February 2011

Commentators assert that the quranic view on human development was plagiarised from ancient Greek (Hellenic) embryology. They specifically claim that the Prophet Muhammad plagiarised the works of the ancient Greek philosopher and polymath Aristotle, and the 2nd century physician and philosopher Galen. To respond to this accusation, this section will articulate the mainstream Islamic scholarly position that the Prophet did not plagiarise or borrow ideas from Hellenic medicine.

Does similarity imply plagiarism?

To address the contention that the Prophet Muhammad borrowed or plagiarised Hellenic views on embryology, the philosophical implications of inferring plagiarism from similarity must be discussed. If there is a similarity between two things X and Y, to make the inference that X copied Y or Y copied X would require some form of evidence. Otherwise, the argument will be fallacious as it will commit the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratiam, in other words, arguing from ignorance. Take the following example into consideration: there are two patent applications that have arrived at the patent office in the UK. The patent officer examines both applications and they appear to have a similar design for a particular product. Can the patent officer claim plagiarism? No. To justify this claim the patent officer would require a practical link establishing a connection between both authors of the patents in question. In absence of a practical link, the assertion that they copied each other is speculative and untenable. This also applies to the assertion that the Prophet plagiarised Hellenic embryology.

In light of above, practical links establishing a valid connection between the Quran and Hellenic embryology must be specific and direct. Non-direct evidence, such as an assumed popularised culture of Hellenic embryology, is not enough to prove borrowing or plagiarism. An inference made from such an assumption is weak unless all other possible explanations have been shown to be wrong or explained as improbable. For example, historians claim that there was some cultural exchange between the Greeks, Romans and Arabs. Evidence to support such a claim includes trade routes, the practice of cupping and cauterisation. However, from this evidence, can the inference that the Prophet borrowed Hellenic views on embryology be made? The structure of the argument can be presented in the following way:

1. There were some cultural exchanges between Arabs and Greeks

2. The Prophet was an Arab

3. Therefore the Prophet plagiarised Hellenic views on embryology

In light of the above, how does the conclusion (point 3) logically follow? For the commentators to claim that the Prophet plagiarised Hellenic embryology based on the above argument is unwarranted. This is due to the fact they have assumed some hidden premises. These premises include:

a. The Prophet learned Hellenic embryology from someone who studied Greek medicine.

b. Hellenic medicine was known, adopted and utilised by Arabian (or Arabic speaking) society in the early 7th century.

c. The Prophet was a liar, as He claimed the Quran to be the word of God and not the borrowed knowledge of Hellenic embryology.

d. Hellenic and quranic views on embryology are similar.

These premises will be addressed below to provide a strong case against the plagiarism thesis.

Did the Prophet learn Hellenic medicine from someone who studied Greek medicine?

According to the various biographies of the Prophet Muhammad , the only person who may have studied Greek medicine and came into direct contact with the Prophet was the physician al-Harith bin Kalada. Bin Kalada was born in the middle of the 6th century in the tribe of Banu Thaqif in Taif. Some historians maintain that he received his medical education at the Jundishapur medical school where he learnt the teachings of Aristotle and Galen.[1] According to these historians:

The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam, Jundishapur was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time, combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine.[2]

Following this narrative, some historians and commentators believe the Prophet plagiarised Aristotelian and Galenic accounts of the developing human embryo via bin Kalada, and sought medical advice from him.[3] This is unfounded for various reasons:

1. Claiming the Prophet sought medical advice from bin Kalada neither implies nor stipulates the fact that he copied bin Kaladas apparent knowledge of Hellenic embryology. The onus of proof is on the one who is making the claim. From a historical perspective, there is no direct and explicit evidence that indicates the Prophet manufactured his views on embryology via bin Kalada.1. It is generally believed that bin Kalada graduated from the Persian medical school at Jundishapur. However, the existence of such a school has recently been questioned by a number of leading historians. For instance, the historian David C. Lindberg in his book, The Beginnings of Western Science, highlights the legendary status of the school:

An influential mythology has developed around Nestorian activity in the city of Gondeshapur [Jundishapur] in south-western Persia. According to the often-repeated legend, the Nestorians turned Gondeshapur into a major intellectual center by the sixth century, establishing what some enthusiasts have chosen to call a university, where instruction in all of the Greek disciplines could be obtained. It is alleged that Gondeshapur had a medical school, with a curriculum based on Alexandrian textbooks, and a hospital modeled on Byzantine hospitals, which kept the realm supplied with physicians trained in Greek medicine. Of greatest importance, Gondeshapur is held to have played a critical role in the translation of Greek scholarship into Near Eastern languages and, indeed, to have been the single most important channel by which Greek science passed to the Arabs. Recent research has revealed a considerably less dramatic reality. We have no persuasive evidence for the existence of a medical school or a hospital at Gondeshapur, although, there seems to have been a theological school and perhaps an attached infirmary. No doubt Gondeshapur was the scene of serious intellectual endeavour and a certain amount of medical practice it supplied a string of physicians for the Abbasid court at Baghdad beginning in the eighth century but it is doubtful that it ever became a major center of medical education or of translating activity. If the story of Gondeshapur is unreliable in its details, the lesson it was meant to teach is nonetheless valid.[4]

Roy Porter, a social historian of medicine, raises the contention if whether a medical school actually existed there. Porter in his book, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity, writes:

Jundishapur was certainly a meeting place for Arab, Greek, Syriac and Jewish intellectuals, but there is no evidence that any medical academy existed there. Only in the early ninth century did ArabIslamic learned medicine take shape.[5]

According to the academic medic and historian Plinio Prioreschi, there appears to be no evidence of a major medical school in either the 6th or 7th century. In his book, A History of Medicine, he brings to light that there are no Persian sources that substantiate the claim that Jundishapur played a significant role in the history of medicine.[6]It is also interesting to note, that from the 5th to the 7th century, Jundishapur does not seem to have any other students that can be authenticated historically. This raises an important question: how is it that such a noted and reputable ancient academic institution has no known students?

2. Historians such as Manfred Ullman and Franz Rosenthal are skeptical about the material referring to bin Kalada. They refer to him as a legendary figure,[7] which has literary allusions to characters of fictitious creation. Professor Gerald Hawting, in his essay, The Development of the Biography of al-Harith ibn Kalada and the Relationship between Medicine and Islam, writes:

In these latter sources, the information about al-Harith is fragmentary, references to his profession as a doctor are not consistent and, where they occur, tend to be incidental, and there seems to be little information about the nature of his medicine or detail about his life.[8]

From this perspective, using unreliable or inconclusive historical narratives concerning bin Kaladas profession as a doctor, serve to weaken the argument that the Prophet copied the 7th century physician.

3. There are historical reports stating that bin Kalada converted to Islam and was considered a companion of the Prophet . Ethnographer and linguist, William Brice in his book An Historical Atlas of Islam, writes:

He wasconverted to Islamand had acquired the status of one of the Prophets Companions.[9]

Lecturer and novelist, Abubakr Asadullah expresses a similar position:

According to nearly all traditional sources, the first known Arab physician was al-Harith ibn Kalada, a graduate of Jundishapur and aJewish convert to Islam, a contemporary of Prophet Mohammad.[10]

In light of this, the Prophet copying bin Kalada is highly improbable as it is irrational to assert that an educated physician would convert to Islam, and follow the Prophets message, had he known or suspected the Prophet of copying his work on embryology. However, it must be noted that there is uncertainty as to whether bin Kalada embraced Islam and reports relating to his conversion are not authentic.[11]

4. The traditional sources that elaborate on bin Kalada also convey information relating to the Prophet , including his miracles and the supernatural eloquence of the quranic discourse. One of these sources is Tarikh al-Rusul wal-Muluk.It underlines various aspects of the life and character of the Prophet including his truthfulness. Since this source is used for sound historical information, insight, and as a point of reference on bin Kalada, reason necessitates that it also be viewed as reliable with regard to its discussion on the unquestionable integrity of the Prophet . Therefore, to accept the historical sources that elaborate on bin Kalada would be tantamount to agreeing that Prophet was truthful, thereby undermining any claim of copying and plagiarism.

5. Bin Kalada was from al-Taif, a town which came into contact with Islam only in the 8th year of the Islamic calendar, and it was during this period that Islamic historical sources first mention the physician. Therefore, it would be impossible to suggest the Prophet Muhammad copied bin Kaladas views on the developing human, because chapter 23 of the Quran and its verses referring to embryology had already been revealed by the time bin Kalada met the Prophet .[13]

6. The link between bin Kalada and the Hellenic tradition is doubted by historians. Gerald Hawting explains that due to the scientific tradition in the Golden Age, historians and biographers of the time sought links to established institutions such as Jundishapur, to associate Islam with the science of the day:

In this context [Hawting sees] a motive for the elaboration of the links of al-Harith ibn Kalada with Persia and its Hellenistic tradition.[14]

7. Even if the historical reports concerning bin Kaladas role as a physician are assumed to be accurate and valid, his medical practice raises serious doubt as to whether he learned or adopted Hellenic medicine. Historians and relevant reports concerning bin Kalada clearly describe his approach and practice of medicine as folkloric and of the Bedouin type. For instance, in one report when bin Kalada treated Saad ibn Abi Waqqas, the treatment that bin Kalada prescribed was a drink mixture made up of dates, grain and fat. This treatment is reflective of the medical ideas and treatments of the Prophet and not of Hellenic medicine.[15]

In view of the above discussion, whether bin Kalada had any formal link to Galenic and Aristotelian views on the development of the human embryo remains inconclusive, and so adopting the plagiarism thesis via bin Kalada does not carry much weight. Additionally, the historical narratives concerning bin Kalada are conflicting, speculative, doubtful and untenable. Therefore, to use bin Kalada as a valid link connecting the Prophet and Hellenic medicine is baseless. For a lengthy discussion on this topic, please refer to Khalid al-Khazarajis and Elias Kareems essay, Was al-Harith bin Kaladah the Source of the Prophets Medical Knowledge.[16]

Hellenic medicine was known, adopted and utilised by Arabian (or Arabic speaking) society in the early 7th century

Commentators assert that Hellenic embryology was common in early 7th century Arabic speaking society. This view is based on the assertion that there were cultural exchanges between the Greeks, Romans and Arabs. Cultural exchanges did occur, and its beginnings predate the advent of Islam, however it doesnt logically follow that it included Hellenic views on embryology, or that Hellenic medicine was popularised and disseminated throughout the region. To maintain such a claim is untenable, as it would imply that there is historical evidence to show that Hellenic embryology was transferred or learned via these cultural exchanges. The following points comprehensively highlight that Hellenic embryology was not transferred or learned via Greco-Arab cultural exchanges:

1. The Prophet Muhammad could not have acquiredknowledge of Hellenic embryology via written works.

The first major translations of Hellenic embryology into Arabic began at least 150 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad . As Roy Porter in his book, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity from Antiquity to the Present, writes:

Only in the early ninth century did Arab-Islamic learned medicine take shape. The first phase of this revival lay in a major translation movement, arising during the reign of Harun al-Rashid (r. 786-809) and gaining impetus in the caliphate of his son, al-Mamun r.813-33). It was stimulated by a socioeconomic atmosphere favourable to the pursuit of scholarship, a perceived need among both Muslims and Christians for access in Arabic to ancient medicine, and the ready availability for the relevant arts.[17]

Crucial in this age of translations was the establishment in Baghdad, capital of the Islamic empire under the Abbasid caliphs, of the Bayt al-Hikma (832), a centre where scholars assembled texts and translated into Arabic a broad range of non-Islamic works. The initial translation work was dominated by Christians, thanks to their skills in Greek and Syriac. The main figure was Hunayn ibn Ishaq (d. 873), later known in the West asJohannitius, a Nestorian Christian from the southern Iraqi town of al-HiraWith his pupils, he translated 129 works of Galen into Arabic (and others into Syriac), providing the Arabic world with more Galenic texts than survive today in Greek.[18]

According to the historian of medicine Donald Campbell, the earliest possible translation of Greek medicine was done at least 50 years after the death of the Prophet by the Syrian Jew Maserjawaihi:

John the Grammarian and Aaron the Presbyter, who was also an Alexandrian, lived at the time of Mohamet (c. 622). Aaron compiled thirty books in Syriac, the material for which was derived chiefly from the Greek; these books were called the Pandects of Aaron and were said to have been translated into Arabic c. 683 by the Syrian Jew Maserjawaihi; this is of interest as it is the first definite attempt at the transmutation of the medicine of the Greeks into that of the Arabians.[19]

A Note on the 6th Century Syriac and Latin Translations

Other possible means of knowledge transfer would include non-Arabic texts, such as the Syriac and Latin translations of Galens books. However, the Prophet Muhammad did not know Syriac or Latin, therefore this is option is implausible. Also, the Prophet could have not been taught Hellenic embryology via some who had learned via these translations, as there is no evidence that he came into direct contact with anyone who had studied Greek medicine, as highlighted in the above discussion on al-Harith bin Kalada.

Significantly, historians maintain that there is no evidence of any acquisition of Hellenic medical knowledge before the beginning of the eighth century, and that it was only through double-translation, from Greek into Syriac, and from Syriac into Arabic, that the Arabs first became acquainted with the works of the Greeks. The historian John Meyendorff, in his paper Byzantine Views of Islam, highlights the points raised above:

Until the end of the Umayyad period, these Syrian or Coptic Christians were the chief, and practically the only, spokesmen for the Christian faith in the Caliphate. And it was through the intermediary of these communities and often by means of a double translation, from Greek into Syriac, and from Syriac into Arabic that the Arabs first became acquainted with the works of Aristotle, Plato, Galien, Hippocrates, and Plotinus.[20]

Since the first Arabic translations of Hellenic medicine appeared at least 50 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad , the view that he somehow had access to the Syriac translations is unfounded, because it was through these double translations that the Arabs first became acquainted with Hellenic medicine.

Further separating the Prophet and the Syriac and Latin translations is the lack of any positive or cogent answers to the following questions:

a. If the knowledge contained in these translations informed common knowledge then why are there no oral or written reports concerning knowledge of Hellenic embryology? (See The Prophet Muhammad could not have acquired Hellenic embryology from 7th century Arabian common knowledge.)

b. Why are the quranic verses that elaborate on the developing human dissimilar to Hellenic embryology? (see Are Hellenic and quranic views on embryology similar?)

c. The historical evidence strongly suggests that Hellenic embryology was not known in early 7th century Arabic speaking society. In this context, the contention assumes the Prophet was the only person who came into contact with the Syriac or Latin translations. This inevitable conclusion is irrational and conspiratorial, especially in a 7th century Arabian context, because many people would travel to regions where Syriac and Latin was spoken. Therefore, to claim the Prophet was the only one who somehow gained knowledge via these translations, even though Hellenic embryology was not common knowledge (see point 3 below The Prophet Muhammad could not have acquired Hellenic embryology from 7th century Arabian common knowledge below), raises far more problems than it solves.

2.The Prophet Muhammad could not have been influenced by popular medical practice with a supposedly Hellenic flavour.

There is no direct historical evidence indicating that Hellenic medical practices were utilised or known in early 7th century Arabic speaking society, as Roy Porter highlights, only in the early ninth century did Arab-Islamic learned medicine take shape. Supporting this view, Donald Campbell explains that Arab physicians were brought into high repute by the early part of the 8th century as a result of studying Greek medicine.[21]

Further distancing Hellenic medical practice from early 7th century Arabic speaking society, Ibn Khaldun classifies popularised medicine during the 7th century as Arab folk medicine:

Civilized Bedouins have a kind of medicine which is mainly based upon individual experience. They inherit its use from the shaykhs and old women of the tribe. Some of it may occasionally be correct. However, that kind of medicine is not based upon any natural norm or upon any conformity (of the treatment) to temper the humors. Much of this sort of medicine existed among the Arabs. They had well-known physicians, such as al-Harith b. Kaladah and others. The medicine mentioned in religious tradition is of the (Bedouin) type.[22]

Supporting Ibn Khalduns views, the historian of medicine, Plinio Prioreschi, confirms that 7th century Arabian popularised medicine, did not reflect Hellenistic medicine:

From the pre-Islamic to the early Islamic period, there were no significant changes in the practice of medicineIn these documents we find that such medicine continued to be practiced for some time, Camel urine and milk were common remedies, various vegetable products (e.g. henna, olive oil) and other animal products (e.g. sheep fat, honey) were also considered effective.[23]

The historian Vivian Nutton in her essay, The Rise of Medicine, explains how the Arabs had their own distinct medicine which further supports the claim that the Arabs did not utilise or adopt Hellenic medicine until after the death of the Prophet Muhammad .

The Arab conquests of the seventh century crafted a new political order onto a basically Christian, Syriac-speaking society. Although the Arabs had their own medicine, based on herbs and chants, they were not numerous enough to impose it on their new subjects.[24]

A contention against this position maintains that early 7th century Arabs had practices of cupping, which was a Hellenic practice, and therefore Hellenic medical practices were transferred from the Greeks to the Arabs. There is no direct evidence to justify this claim, just because some medical practices were similar, it doesnt imply that they exchanged this practice. One can argue that it could have been the Chinese, as they also practiced cupping. Even if some of these practices were as a result of direct cultural exchanges, it doesnt logically follow that Hellenic views on embryology were also transferred. Knowledge of Hellenic embryology and emulating medical practice are not the same. Where medical practices may be adopted, as they are not complicated, details about the development of a human embryo would require education, usually at an academic institution. This is proved by the fact that by 531 CE, in Alexandria, Hellenic texts formed the basis for the Alexandrian medical curriculum.[25] In light of this, there is no substantial historical evidence that the Prophet Muhammad interacted with anyone who learned Hellenic embryology from a medical academic institution.

3. The Prophet Muhammad could not have acquired Hellenic embryology from 7th century Arabian common knowledge.

An interesting view adopted by various commentators includes highlighting the difference between practice and knowledge. For instance, a culture X may have knowledge of medical practices Y yet continue to practice their own medicine. Modern African cultures are good examples to substantiate this view. For instance, there are some cultures in Africa that are aware of germ theory and the use of anti-biotics, but still persist on the practice of witch craft and magic.In similar light, society in early 7th century Arabia could have had knowledge of Hellenic embryology but practiced its own distinct Bedouin medicine. However, there is a striking difference between the two situations. There is evidence to show that African cultures have knowledge of germ theory and western medicine, but there is no evidence to show that early 7th century Arabian society had knowledge of Hellenic embryology, and to assert such a view would be to argue from ignorance. Even if the assertion is taken seriously, more questions arise that undermine the argument. For example, why is there no evidence to show that there was knowledge of Hellenic embryology, and why are there no pre-Islamic traditions that indicate an early 7th century knowledge of the science?

Continuing with the above questions, an understanding of the Arabs well developed oral traditions serve as a means to dismantle the assertion that Hellenic medicine was known, popularised, adopted and utilised during the life of the Prophet Muhammad . The Arabs had made poetry and the transmissions of oral traditions as the means to transfer knowledge, such as stories of the famous pre-Islamic wars, ethics and current affairs. In light of this, there is no evidence of any oral tradition elaborating or even briefly mentioning Hellenic views on embryology, Muhammad Salim Khan in his book, Islamic Medicine, explains this significant point:

The pre-Islamic Arabs were familiar with the working of the major internal organs, although only in general. Surgical knowledge and practices were limited to cauterisation, branding and cupping. The care of the sick was the responsibility of the women. There is no evidence of any oral or written treatise on any aspect of medicine. There was use of folk medicine, which has interesting connections with magic. It is also interesting to note that pre-Islamic Arabia had contacts with ancient Egypt, Greece, Persia and India, where medicine was highly developed, but there is no material to suggest that is was adopted or utilised by ancient Arabs. This is particularly surprising in view of the fact that the ancient Arabs were well developed in their poetry.[27]

Was the Prophet Muhammad a liar?

Early historical sources on the Prophet Muhammads life illustrate and emphasise the integrity of his character. He was not a liar and to assert as much is indefensible. The presumption that he plagiarised Hellenic embryology, while maintaining the Quran to be the word of God, is inconceivable. The reasons for this abound, for instance he was known even by the enemies to his message as the Trustworthy.[28]

Further proof of the Prophets reliability and credibility is enforced and substantiated by the fact that a liar usually lies for some worldly gain, but the Prophet rejected all worldly aspirations, and suffered tremendously for his message.[29]He rejected the riches and power he was offered to stop promulgating his message. Significantly, he was persecuted for his beliefs; boycotted and exiled from his beloved city Makkah; starved of food; and stoned by children to the point where his blood drenched his legs. His wife passed away and his beloved companions were tortured and persecuted.[30] The psychological profile of the Prophet was obviously incongruent with a liar, and to maintain that he was dishonest is tantamount of making bold claims without any evidence. The late Emeritus Professor in Arabic and Islamic Studies W. Montgomery Watt in, Muhammad at Mecca, explores this:

His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves.[31]

It was the Prophets truthfulness that was a key aspect of his success on both political and religious levels. Without his trustworthiness, which was an integral part of his moral behaviour, he could not have achieved so much in a relatively short space of time. This view is addressed by the historians Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in, History of the Saracen Empire:

The greatest success of Mohammads life was effected by sheer moral force.[32]

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence

Critics argue that the discussion thus far points towards an absence of evidence, and an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This criticism brings to light that even if there is no evidence to claim that Hellenic embryology was common knowledge, and that the Prophet Muhammad could not have learnt Hellenic medicine from the physicians of the time, it still does not prove that knowledge of Hellenic embryology was absent from early 7th century Arabic speaking society. As ever, this understanding of the above discussion is flawed. The discussion so far has presented a strong case showing that Hellenic embryology did not form part of early 7th century Arabian societys common knowledge. If it was common, it would most likely to have been recorded in the oral traditions, the written treatises, the medical practices and the historical narratives of the time. For these reasons, the claim that Hellenic embryology was common knowledge is highly unlikely. Therefore, to prolong the assertion that Hellenic embryology was common knowledge even though it is highly likely it wasnt, is almost irrational and conspiratorial.

Are Hellenic and quranic views on embryology similar?

Key Terms

Below is a linguistic breakdown of the relevant key terms used in the Quran to describe the development of the human embryo. An understanding of these will be required to understand this section.

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid (nutfah) in a safe place. Then We made that drop of fluid into a clinging form (alaqah), and then We made that form into a lump of flesh (mudghah), and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators.[33]

Drop of Fluid: nutfah

This word has various meanings. For instance:

1. By looking at the Arabic language, it can mean a dribble, a trickle, a drop or semen.[34]Nutfah can also mean a singular entity which is a part of a bigger group of its kind, as suggested by the classical dictionary Lisan Al-Arab, which explains a single drop of water remaining in an emptied bucket.[35]

2. According to Prophetic tradition, the Prophet Muhammad explained the nutfah as a combination of substances from a male nutfah and from a female nutfah.[36]

3. The Quran further clarifies that that the nutfah is a single entity or a drop from a larger group of its kind by stating that the nutfah comes from semen, maniyyin in Arabic.

Had he not been a sperm (nutfah) from a semen (maniyyin) emitted?[37]

This perspective on nutfah highlights how the intended use of this word is not to portray the meaning of semen but rather that it is a substance from semen, which supports the view that it is a single substance from a larger group of its kind. The classical exegete Ibn Kathir comments on this verse and clarifies that the nutfah is a substance from semen, he states:

meaning, was not man a weak drop of nutfah from a despised fluid known as semen.[38]

4. Explaining its view on the word nutfah, the Quran in another verse elucidates how the human being is made from an extract of a liquid disdained (semen).

Then He made his posterity out of the extract (sulaalah) of a liquid disdained.[39]

As previously discussed, the word sulaalah means an extract, something drawn out or the most subtle, purest and essential constituent. The above meanings and explications bring to light that the intended use of the word nutfah is a drop of a single extract, containing a specific substance like an egg or sperm, from the male semen and the female equivalent. Therefore, the word nutfah is not just another synonym for semen.

5. The companion of the Prophet Muhammad, and the quranic exegete, Ibn Abbas mentions that the nutfah is:

from a weak drop of the water/fluid of man and woman.[40]

Ibn Abbas explanation seems to elude to the fact that the nutfah is just a fluid. Therefore, some commentators assert that this illustrates the word nutfah is a synonym for the word semen. This assertion lacks a holistic understanding, in other words it fails to take into account the other quranic verses and the Prophetic traditions referring to the nutfah. In the Prophetic traditions, when describing semen in context of its appearance and form, the words mani and maniyyan are used. This is consistent throughout various Prophetic traditions that can be found in the collections of Muslim, Nisai, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud and Bukhari. For example, in the book of Taharah (purification) in the collection of Sunan at-Tirmidhi, Aisha (the wife of the Prophet ) narrates that she washed maniyyan from the Prophets garments.[41] If the whole corpus of exegetical material is used to form an accurate perspective on the word nutfah, Ibn Abbas statement should be taken in the context of the nutfah being a specific drop of fluid from the semen and not the semen itself. This is because the Prophetic traditions use of the words mani and nutfah in different contexts, and therefore clearly differentiate between the two terms, further highlighting they are not synonyms. Additionally, the quranic verses pertaining to the word nutfah clearly mention that the nutfah is from the semen, and not the semen itself, and that it is an extract of semen.

In light of the above, the word nutfah can mean a drop of a single extract coming from the semen (and the female equivalent), containing essential substances like a sperm or egg. The word nutfah can also mean a single spermfrom a collection of millions of sperms contained in semen, or a single drop of fluid containing a female egg, or a single egg from a group of many other eggs in the Ovaries.

6. In addition to the above, the Quran mentions another meaning for the word nutfah by describing it as a combination of mingled (al-amshaj) substances: We created man from a drop (nutfah) of mingled fluid.[42]

This verse, from a grammatical perspective, portrays an image of the nutfah as an entity made up of a combination of substances coming from the mother and the father. The word al-amshaj (mingled) is a plural adjective and it is used here with the singular noun nutfah. Grammatically, this highlights the verses concept of nutfah as being a single entity or drop produced by a combination of substances.

A Clinging form: alaqah

This word carries various meanings including: to hang, to be suspended, to be dangled, to stick, to cling, to cleave and to adhere. It can also mean to catch, to get caught, to be affixed or subjoined.[43] Other connotations of the word alaqah include a leech-like substance, having the resemblance of a worm; or being of a creeping disposition inclined to the sucking of blood. Finally, its meaning includes clay that clings to the hand, blood in a general sense and thick, clotted blood because of its clinging together.[44]

A Lump of Flesh: mudghah

Visit link:
Did the Prophet Muhammad Plagiarise Ancient Greek ...