World Dawah Quran & Sunnah through understanding of Salaf
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Introduction
One of the most frequently repeated objections in modern times is the claim that the Qur’an contains a scientific error in its description of man’s origin. The objection is based on Allah’s statement:
«“So let man observe from what he was created. He was created from a gushing fluid, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.” (Qur’an 86:5–7)»
Those who raise this objection claim that the verse states that the male reproductive fluid emerges from between the backbone and the ribs, whereas modern medicine maintains that semen is discharged from the testes. They therefore conclude that the Qur’an contains a scientific mistake.
However, this objection rests upon two assumptions for which no evidence has been established.
The first assumption is that the pronoun in Allah’s statement, “emerging” (yakhruju), can only refer to the gushing fluid.
The second assumption is that the verse is intended to describe the immediate anatomical location from which semen is discharged during ejaculation.
If these two assumptions prove unnecessary, or if the verse reasonably admits another interpretation, then the objection collapses from its very foundation.
Accordingly, the response to this claim consists of two parts.
The first is to demonstrate that the interpretation adopted by the objector is not the only interpretation supported by the context, and that the entire passage is concerned with using man’s first creation as evidence for the Resurrection.
The second is that the other well-known interpretation of the verse—namely, that the pronoun refers to the gushing fluid—likewise does not entail the scientific contradiction alleged by the objector. Indeed, nothing in the verse contradicts any established scientific fact.
—
First Response: The Context of the Sūrah Shows That Its Purpose Is to Establish the Resurrection, Not to Teach Anatomy
Among the greatest principles of Qur’anic interpretation is that the Qur’an explains itself, and that no verse should be understood in isolation from what precedes and follows it.
Allah says:
«“Indeed, every soul has a guardian over it. So let man observe from what he was created. He was created from a gushing fluid, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs. Indeed, He is surely Able to return him, on the Day when the secrets are laid bare.” (Qur’an 86:4–9)»
These verses form one continuous passage whose central theme is reminding man of his first creation so that it may serve as evidence of Allah’s ability to resurrect him after death. This is a recurring method throughout the Qur’an: arguing from the beginning of creation to the reality of resurrection.
For this reason, when Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari commented on Allah’s statement,
«“Indeed, He is surely Able to return him.”»
he mentioned the various opinions concerning the antecedent of the pronoun, then concluded:
«*“The strongest of these opinions is that it means: Allah is certainly able to restore the human being who was created from a gushing fluid to life after his death, just as he was before dying. I considered this the strongest view because of His statement, ‘On the Day when the secrets are laid bare.’ The fact that this follows His saying, ‘Indeed, He is surely Able to return him,’ indicates that it is speaking about one of the events of the Resurrection, showing that what precedes it is likewise connected to that subject. Thus His saying, ‘On the Day when the secrets are laid bare,’ means that Allah is able to bring him back to life after his death on that Day.”»
Source: Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī.
Notice al-Ṭabarī’s reasoning. He did not prefer this interpretation merely because it was linguistically possible; rather, he preferred it because the entire context—from beginning to end—is about man and his resurrection on the Day of Judgment. This demonstrates that the sūrah was not revealed to teach anatomical details, but to establish the certainty of resurrection.
Likewise, Ibn al-Qayyim said:
«*“Regarding His statement, ‘Indeed, He is surely Able to return him,’ the correct view is that the pronoun refers to the human being; that is, Allah is able to restore him on the Day of Resurrection, the Day on which all hidden secrets shall be exposed. As for those who say that the pronoun refers to the water—meaning that Allah is able to return it to the urethra, to the chest, or prevent it from coming out—they have gone far from the correct interpretation, even though Allah is certainly able to do that. However, the context rejects such an interpretation. The Qur’an’s method here is to infer the Resurrection from the beginning of creation and the first origination. Furthermore, Allah restricted it by the temporal phrase, ‘On the Day when the secrets are laid bare.’ The purpose is that Allah addresses the humanity reflect upon the beginning of his creation and his provision, for that clearly points him toward his resurrection and return to his Lord.”»
Source: Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn.
Ibn al-Qayyim’s words clarify the primary purpose of these verses Allah addresses the humanity to contemplate his first creation as evidence for the possibility of resurrection—not to teach the anatomical details of the reproductive system.
Accordingly, it is mistaken to isolate Allah’s statement,
«“Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs,”»
from its context, assign it a single interpretation, and then build an allegation of scientific error upon that interpretation. The broader context of the sūrah does not support such an approach; rather, it makes clear that the principal objective is to establish the Resurrection by means of the first creation.
This alone does not settle the scholarly disagreement regarding the antecedent of the pronoun in “emerging (yakhruju),” for the exegetes held two well-known opinions on that question. Rather, the point here is simply that the objector’s interpretation is not the only valid interpretation of the verse, and that a claim of scientific error cannot stand where more than one recognized interpretation exists.
We now turn to the second interpretation—namely, that the pronoun in “emerging” refers to the gushing fluid. This was the view adopted by a number of Qur’anic exegetes, and we shall demonstrate that even according to this interpretation, the verse entails nothing that supports the claim of a scientific contradiction.
Second Response: Even According to the View That the Pronoun Refers to the Gushing Fluid, the Alleged Scientific Contradiction Does Not Follow
The view that the pronoun in Allah’s statement,
«“Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs,”»
refers to the gushing fluid is not a later innovation. Rather, it was held by a number of the early scholars and Qur’anic exegetes. It was the view adopted by Abu Abd Allah al-Qurtubi in his commentary on this verse, and likewise by Muhammad al-Tahir Ibn Ashur, among others.
Even according to this interpretation, however, the objection against the Qur’an remains invalid for several reasons.
First: The Verse Is Not Seeking to Teach Something That Was Unknown to Its First Audience
Those who raise this objection claim that the Qur’an erred by stating that the male reproductive fluid emerges from between the backbone and the ribs, whereas people today know that semen is discharged from the testes.
This objection is peculiar because it assumes that the Qur’an came to inform people of something they did not know—and then supposedly got it wrong.
In reality, the Arabs, like the nations before them, already knew that the testes were directly connected to reproduction and that removing them prevented procreation. Castration had been practiced for centuries before Islam, both in humans and in animals.
It is authentically reported from Abd Allah ibn Masud that he said:
«”We used to accompany the Messenger of Allah ﷺ on military expeditions while having no wives with us, so we said: ‘Shall we castrate ourselves?’ But he forbade us from doing so…”»
Source: Sahih al-Bukhari (4788).
Had it not already been understood that castration prevents procreation, the Companions would never have suggested it in the first place, nor would the narration make any sense.
Indeed, the castration of slaves and livestock was well known among ancient civilizations, demonstrating that people were fully aware of the connection between the testes and reproduction.
If this was already known to the original audience, then it is inconceivable that the Qur’an intended to teach them the anatomical site from which semen is discharged while describing something contrary to their own daily observation. Had that been the case, the Prophet’s contemporaries would have objected before anyone else, yet no such objection has been transmitted from any of them.
This demonstrates that the verse is not intended in the manner imagined by the objector.
—
Second: The Verse Does Not Say That Semen Emerges from the Backbone; Rather, It Says, “From Between the Backbone and the Ribs.”
This is a fundamental distinction overlooked by those advancing the objection.
The Qur’an does not say:
«Semen emerges from the spinal column.»
Nor does it say:
«Semen emerges from the bones of the chest.»
Nor does it say:
«The testes are not the site from which semen is discharged.»
Rather, it simply says:
«”Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.”»
An objection can only be raised against what the Qur’an actually says—not against words substituted for it.
To replace the Qur’anic wording with one’s own paraphrase, and then build an objection upon that paraphrase rather than upon the actual text, is not a sound method of argument.
Accordingly, the first thing the objector must establish is that Allah’s statement,
«”From between the backbone and the ribs,”»
cannot possibly bear any meaning other than the one he has assumed.
If he cannot establish that, then the objection collapses at its very foundation.
—
Third: Attributing Something to Its Origin or Source Is a Well-Known Feature of Language
It is well known in Arabic—as indeed in many languages—that something may be attributed to its origin or source even though its immediate emergence occurs elsewhere.
If one were to say:
«This river comes from that mountain range,»
no one would regard that as erroneous, even though the water actually flows from a particular spring within those mountains.
Likewise, if one were to say:
«This fruit came from this tree,»
no one would understand that the fruit literally emerged from the trunk. Rather, it emerged from one of the branches, yet it is rightly attributed to the tree as its source.
Similarly, if someone says:
«The child came out of the house,»
no one imagines that the child emerged through the walls; he exited through the door, yet his departure is naturally attributed to the house as a whole.
If this is an accepted linguistic convention, then there is no basis for claiming that the Qur’an erred merely because it did not mention the precise anatomical location from which semen is discharged during ejaculation. The verse never claims to do so in the first place.
—
Fourth: Ibn Ashur Explains That the Verse Is Not Describing the Anatomical Pathway of Semen
Among those who explicitly clarified this point was Ibn Ashur. After adopting the view that the pronoun refers to the gushing fluid, he wrote:
His statement, {Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs} (Qur’an 86:7): the pronoun refers back to {a gushing fluid}, which is the most apparent interpretation. Accordingly, the clause “emerging” functions as a circumstantial qualifier describing the “gushing fluid”, meaning that this fluid proceeds after having been produced from between the man’s backbone and ribs. This was the view of Sufyān and al-Ḥasan. That is, the origin of this fluid’s formation and its development is from between the backbone and the ribs—not that it literally passes through a space between the backbone and the ribs, for no such passage can be conceived. What lies between them is the cavity of the chest and ribcage, containing the heart and lungs.
Man is thus described as being created from the man’s fluid because the human body cannot begin to form in the woman’s womb until it is mixed with the man’s fluid. When the man’s fluid mixes with what is called the woman’s fluid—a moist substance containing tiny ova—the one from which the embryo develops remains, while the rest is discarded.
This is an address to people in terms they could understand at the time, expressed in general language, while also alluding to the fact that human creation results from both the man’s fluid and the woman’s fluid by mentioning the ribs (tarāʾib), since the best-known usage of this word is for the area between a woman’s breasts.
There is no doubt that offspring are produced from both the man and the woman. The man’s fluid is a liquid containing minute bodies known in medicine as sperm cells. These are elongated structures consisting of a flattened, oval-shaped head and a thin, thread-like tail. These cells are what fertilize the offspring in the woman’s womb. Their place of origin is the two testes, from which they are discharged into the woman’s womb.
Likewise, the woman has a fluid corresponding to the man’s semen, known as the woman’s fluid. It consists of tiny, spherical ova suspended in a fluid. These are contained within follicles found in the two ovaries, which correspond to the man’s testes. The ovaries are two glands located on either side of the woman’s uterus. Each ovary contains a number of follicles, ranging from ten to twenty. The ovum leaves the follicle once the follicle has completed its growth. When its growth is complete, the follicle ruptures, releasing the ovum into a tube that carries it to the uterine cavity. The ovum reaches maturity and is released only around the time of the woman’s menstrual cycle. Hence, conception is more likely if intercourse occurs near the end of her menstruation.
Source: Al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr
> Therefore, if the interpretation on which the objector bases his argument is not considered binding by the exegetes, then the claim of a scientific error collapses from its very foundation.
Third Response: Medical Facts Do Not Contradict the Verse; Rather, They Remove the Misunderstanding Behind the Objection
Having established that the verse does not necessarily carry the meaning assumed by the objector, we may now consider what modern medicine has established and ask: Does it actually contradict the verse?
The answer is: No.
In fact, modern embryology has revealed a fact that was not known in such detail in earlier times: the testes do not originally develop within the scrotum. Rather, they first develop inside the abdominal cavity before gradually descending to their well-known location prior to birth.
This demonstrates that the objector presents the issue as though there are only two possibilities: either the source of the reproductive fluid is the testes, or it is between the backbone and the ribs. This is a false dichotomy, because the testes themselves did not originate in the scrotum; they migrated there after their embryonic development.
First: The Testes Develop Inside the Abdomen Before Descending into the Scrotum
Modern medical references explain that, during embryonic development, the testes first form within the abdominal cavity, near the level of the kidneys. They subsequently descend through the inguinal canal until they reach the scrotum before birth.
Medscape states under the heading “Embryology”:
«”The testes are embryologically derived from the same level as the kidneys and, therefore, share a common level of innervation, that being the T10-L1 level for pain conduction and T10-L2 for sympathetic innervation. As the fetus matures, the testes descend into the scrotum.”»
Source: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/82983-overview
Likewise, a study published by John Wiley & Sons, based on prenatal MRI imaging, concluded:
«”Our results chart the time course of testicular descent on prenatal MRI, which may be helpful in the identification of normal male sexual development and in the diagnosis of congenital abnormalities, including the early detection of cryptorchidism.”»
Source: https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.8964
Similarly, a study published in SciELO states:
«”The human testis develops in the abdomen and migrates to the scrotum during the second trimester of gestation, completing the process near the 30th week after conception. Testicular migration is divided into two phases; the first phase corresponds to the migration of the testis from the abdomen to the internal inguinal ring, whereas the second phase corresponds to the passage of the testis through the inguinal canal, until its final destination in the scrotum.”»
Source: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext
These well-established medical facts demonstrate that the testes do not originate in the scrotum. Rather, they first develop within the abdominal cavity before descending to their final position.
Second: What Do We Learn from These Findings?
We do not claim that these medical findings constitute the only interpretation of the verse, nor do we claim that the Qur’an is a textbook of embryology or that every new scientific discovery must necessarily be read into its verses. The Qur’an is, first and foremost, a book of guidance, revealed in clear Arabic. It is interpreted primarily through the Qur’an itself, then through the Sunnah, the explanations of the early generations, and the established principles of the Arabic language.
For this reason, we do not base the truthfulness of the Qur’an upon scientific theories that may later be refined or revised. Nor do we make every new scientific discovery the foundation upon which the meanings of revelation are interpreted.
Rather, our point is much more modest and methodologically sound: the allegation of scientific error fails because scientific error can only be established if a text unambiguously teaches a single meaning that is demonstrably false. If, however, the text legitimately admits more than one interpretation within the framework of Arabic and classical exegesis—and one of those interpretations is entirely compatible with established scientific knowledge—then the allegation of contradiction collapses from the outset.
This highlights the difference between two flawed approaches. Some attempt to reinterpret every Qur’anic verse in light of the latest scientific theory, so that whenever scientific understanding changes, their interpretation changes with it. Others hastily accuse the Qur’an of error whenever they imagine a conflict between their own reading of a verse and certain scientific facts. Neither approach is sound.
The correct methodology is to interpret the Qur’an according to the recognized principles of tafsīr, and only then ask whether any established scientific fact genuinely contradicts that interpretation. If no such contradiction exists, then the allegation of conflict has no basis, and the verse should not be burdened with meanings it was never intended to convey.
Accordingly, we do not claim that embryology has proven the Qur’an to be true. The Qur’an was true before these discoveries were made and remains true regardless of them. Rather, what modern embryology demonstrates is that the objector’s interpretation is not imposed by the scientific evidence. On the contrary, the scientific facts are entirely compatible with a legitimate understanding of the verse. Consequently, the claim that the Qur’an contains a scientific error is without foundation.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing discussion, it becomes clear that the allegation of a scientific error in Allah’s statement:
«“He was created from a gushing fluid, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.” (Qur’an 86:6–7)»
is an allegation without foundation. It arises from assigning the verse a single interpretation and then claiming that this is the only meaning its wording can possibly bear, whereas this is simply not the case.
The discussion has demonstrated:
– That the entire context of the sūrah is devoted to establishing the reality of the Resurrection by appealing to man’s first creation, as explained by al-Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Qayyim, rather than to presenting a purely anatomical discussion.
– That the exegetes held two recognized interpretations regarding the antecedent of the pronoun in Allah’s statement, “emerging” (yakhruju). Consequently, it is incorrect to claim that the objector’s interpretation is the only possible one.
– That even according to the view that the pronoun refers to the gushing fluid, the verse does not state that it is describing the immediate anatomical location from which semen is discharged during ejaculation, nor do its words indicate such a meaning.
– That the Arabs—as well as the nations before Islam—were already aware of the relationship between the testes and human reproduction. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the verse intended to teach something that contradicted what was already universally known to its first audience.
– That modern embryology does not contradict the verse. Rather, it demonstrates that the testes initially develop within the abdominal cavity before descending to their final position, thereby removing the alleged contradiction altogether.
The purpose of this study has not been to make the Qur’an dependent upon scientific discoveries, nor to reinterpret every verse in light of modern scientific theories. Rather, its purpose has been to refute the claim of scientific error and to demonstrate that the Qur’an does not contradict any established scientific fact. The alleged contradiction arises only from imposing upon the verse a meaning that is neither necessary nor required by its wording.
This is the proper methodology for approaching such claims. The Book of Allah must first be understood according to the Arabic language, the context of the verses, and the explanations of the early scholars. Only then should one ask whether any established scientific fact genuinely contradicts that interpretation. If no such contradiction exists—and in this case none does—then the allegation of conflict collapses from the outset.
It therefore becomes evident that this objection is without evidence and falls far short of undermining either the truthfulness or the miraculous nature of the Qur’an. At most, it is the product of isolating a verse from its context and imposing upon it a meaning that its wording does not require.
And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
الحمد لله رب العالمين
