Refutation of ‘Embryology in the Qur’an: Much Ado About Nothing’

Martin Taverille wrote another piece trying to disprove the Qur’an.[1] His earlier piece can be found here. Martin comes from the mindset where he must find a way to disprove the Qur’an so he could comfort himself and those who find the menacing warnings in the Qur’an somewhat disturbing and wish to gain peace of mind.[2] It is not rational enquiry or critical analysis but the subconscious fear of punishment which forces him to spill out absurdities and distortions.

1. Methodological flaw: False win condition

Claim in the paper

The Qur’an is treated as making explicit biomedical claims, and any lack of precise alignment with modern embryology is framed as ‘error’.

Refutation

This is a category mistake. The Qur’an explicitly presents descriptions of human creation as āyāt (signs) meant to provoke reflection, not as technical manuals. Classical exegetes consistently understood these verses as phenomenological stage-descriptions, not laboratory descriptions.

No classical mufassir claims the Qur’an is giving:

microscopic anatomy,
cellular biochemistry,
or modern developmental timelines.

This methodological error is foundational: once imposed, every verse is judged against a standard the Qur’an never claims for itself.[3][4][5]

2. Sulālah min Ṭīn (Extract of clay)

Claim in the paper

‘Sulālah’ is misrepresented; the phrase allegedly implies an absurd chemical claim.

Refutation

Sulālah in Arabic denotes an extracted, selected, or refined portion, not a chemical analysis. Classical Arabic usage employs material-origin language metaphysically and rhetorically, not reductionistically.

The Qur’an frequently speaks of humans as originating from dust, clay, water, and sperm, without asserting mutual exclusivity. These are different descriptive levels: material origin (earth), biological proximate cause (reproductive fluid), theological agency (Allah ﷻ).

The critic commits a reductionist fallacy by collapsing layered discourse into one plane.[6][7][8]

3. Nutfah (نطفة)

Claim in the paper

Muslims falsely equate nutfah with a single sperm cell; contradictions allegedly arise with Q.86:6-7.

Refutation

This criticism successfully refutes a strawman, not the Qur’an.

Lexically, nutfah means a small quantity of fluid. It does not mean a single spermatozoon, nor a modern microscopic entity.

Classical scholarship consistently treated nutfah as reproductive fluid as a category, not a precision unit. The Qur’an makes no claim requiring a one-cell interpretation.

Thus, if a modern apologist claims ‘one sperm’, that claim may be weak but the Qur’anic term itself remains valid and non-falsified.[9][10][11]

4. Qarar makīn (Secure lodging)

Claim in the paper

The argument is trivial or invalid.

Refutation

This objection is philosophically unserious.

The uterus is a protected, regulated environment. The Qur’an does not specify anatomy, hormones, or implantation mechanics. It states a functional reality observable across cultures. No falsification is demonstrated.[12][13]

5. ʿAlaqah (علقة)

Claim in the paper

The word means ‘blood clot’, embryos are not clots, therefore this is an error.

Refutation

This is the strongest rhetorical move in the paper and it still fails.

ʿAlaqah in Arabic has a semantic field, including:

something that clings,
something suspended,
something attached,
congealed blood-like matter.

Classical Arabic does not require exclusivity to one sense. Qur’anic language often condenses multiple visual and functional aspects into one term.

Moreover, early embryonic stages implant into the uterine wall, appear dark/reddish, and depend on attachment for sustenance.

The critic’s demand that ʿalaqah must mean ‘modern hematological clot’ is anachronistic literalism.[14][15][16]

6. Mudghah (مضغة)

Claim in the paper

‘Chewed lump’ is apologetic metaphor-making.

Refutation

Mudghah literally means a morsel that can be chewed. This is a visual analogy, not an anatomical claim.

Sacred texts routinely use analogy, phenomenological resemblance, and scale-relative language. Demanding a histological description is a category error. The Qur’an does not say “somites,” nor does it need to.[17][18]

7. ‘Bones then flesh’ (Q.23:14)

Claim in the paper

Muscle forms before bone; the Qur’an gets the sequence wrong.

Refutation

This argument collapses under basic developmental biology. Bone formation begins as cartilaginous and mesenchymal models, ossification occurs later. Muscle and skeletal systems develop in coordinated stages

The verse states bones are clothed with flesh – a process description, not an exclusivity claim.

Arabic sequencing particles do not require absolute temporal isolation.[19][20][21]

8. Q.86:6-7 (Backbone and ribs)

Claim in the paper

The verse makes an anatomically false claim about sperm origin.

Refutation

This critique assumes one interpretation and ignores others. Classical interpretations include:

reference to male and female contribution,
reference to parental origin zones,
rhetorical description of human origin.

The Qur’an does not state that sperm is produced in the spine.

Failure to disambiguate is not the same as falsification.[22][23]

9. Hadith of 40 Days

Claim in the paper

Hadith contradict embryology timelines.

Refutation

The paper attacks one literalistic reading and ignores variant narrations, classical reconciliations, and linguistic flexibility in temporal phrasing. Islamic theology does not hinge on a single hyper-literal reading.[24][25]

10. Galenic borrowing argument

Claim in the paper

Similarity to Greek embryology implies copying.

Refutation

Similarity does not equal dependency. To prove copying, one must demonstrate:

Direct access
Transmission pathway
Textual dependence
Lack of independent explanation

The paper demonstrates none conclusively.

Stage-based descriptions arise naturally from observation. Similarity does not falsify truth.[26][27]

Conclusion

Much Ado About Nothing:

Critiques modern apologetics
Fails to falsify the Qur’an
Relies on anachronistic literalism
Treats linguistic richness as error
Imposes scientific standards the Qur’an never claims
It is a refutation of a style of argument, not of Islam.

References and footnotes:

[1] When the sun, moon and the stars were mentioned, they were so with the examples that did not contradict the intellectual and mental state of the time, but sufficient flexibility was retained such that after centuries, when the astronomical beliefs change, the explanation of the words of the commentary of the Qur’an do not confuse the mind. Roundness of the earth and its rotation and the movements of the sun and the moon – all these had not been mentioned in that time openly. The engineers of Greece and India, astronomers of Iraq and Egypt; all were of the view that the sky is the name of a big and vast roof in which the stars, moon are placed and fixed. If it had been mentioned, then who would have considered this Book worthy of believing and so many arguments, intellectual and mental, would have taken away the real purpose of guidance. The wisdom of the Almighty chose such a miraculous way of speech in which the apparent meaning made sense to the people of that time but sufficient flexibility and space was kept so that when the intellect and knowledge of men reach its peak, then that same Book become a permanent evidence, and apart from pure believers and truthful ones, others also get benefit from it. [Tafsir Majidi, Introduction 2, pg. 21, 22]

[2] Dhul Qarnayn and the muddy spring

[3] Toshihiko Izutsu, God and Man in the Qur’an, Islamic Book Trust, pp. 133-135

[4] Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an, University of Chicago Press, ch. 4

[5] Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, commentary on Q 23:12-14

[6] Lane, Arabic–English Lexicon, root س-ل-ل

[7] Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Mufradāt Alfāẓ al-Qurʾān, entry “سلالة”

[8] Q.32:7-8; Q.23:12

[9] Lane, Lexicon, root ن-ط-ف

[10] Al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, commentary on Q.23:13

[11] Ibn al-Qayyim, Tibyān fī Aqsām al-Qurʾān

[12] Q.23:13

[13] Maurice Bucaille (critical but useful reference), The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, ch. 7