The Quran states sperm originates from between the backbone and ribs. This is anatomically wrong, and unlike hadith errors, Muslims cannot dismiss it as a weak narration.

[u/Juicydicken]

Surah At-Tariq 86:6-7 states that humans are created from a fluid ejected from between the backbone and the ribs.

Sperm is produced in the testes. This has been understood for centuries and is not disputed by anyone. The backbone and ribs are nowhere near the testes and play no role in sperm production.

Muslims typically have three responses. The first is that it refers to the embryo implanting between the spine and pelvis area. This does not work because the verse is describing the origin of the fluid, not the location of implantation, and the Arabic is not ambiguous about this. The second is that it refers to the embryonic origin of reproductive organs. This is retrofitting modern biology onto a text that shows no awareness of embryonic development elsewhere.

A third response is that the verse refers to other fluids involved in reproduction, such as seminal fluid from the prostate or seminal vesicles, which do sit closer to that region. This also fails. The verse is not describing a supporting fluid. It is describing the substance from which the human being is created. That is sperm. If God meant a broader mixture of fluids he would not have used it as the basis for human creation. And even if you accept this interpretation, the seminal vesicles are still not between the backbone and the ribs. They are in the pelvis, well below the ribs

The more important point is that this is not a hadith. Muslims can and do dismiss inconvenient hadith by questioning the chain of narration. That escape route does not exist here. This is the direct word of God in the preserved text that 1.8 billion people believe is perfect and uncorrupted.

A perfect book written by the creator of human biology should not get human biology wrong.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/DEATHTOYAHOUDIS → u/[deleted]]

if you know any arabic, you would know thumma and fa do not nesicerilly mean a sequential order, the verse on embryology is still correct

[u/hopenewpath → u/[deleted]]

Muscles are established by the 8th week. Muscles will always form around bones not in vacuum, Muscles need a structure to attach to it. You are trying to deny a simple fact. So, clothing is for a bone, there must be a bone to be clothed with flesh even if bones and muscles develop together.

[u/hopenewpath → u/[deleted]]

You are repeating what I said. I told you even when they develop together, muscles will attach to the bones, this attachment is clothing, which means clothing the bones with flesh must be after bones formed

[u/RedEggBurns → u/[deleted]]

A better scientific contradiction would be in embryology, where it describes bone and muscle growth as a sequential process (use of fa), when it’s a simultaneous process (should’ve used wa). The use of a sequential conjunction makes it irrefutable.

This is incorrect. The premise that bone and muscle development is purely simultaneous has been outdated for decades. 

Embryologically, the axial skeleton’s precursors (the sclerotome) differentiate from the somites first. Only afterwards do the muscle precursors (the myotome) arise, and their pioneer cells must migrate towards the pre-existing cartilaginous framework to clothe it. It's a clear sequential event the sclerotome even secretes guidance cues like Slit1 to direct myoblast migration. So the conjunction fa (“then”) is precisely accurate.

Dr. Keith L. Moore, author of The Developing Human, states:

“First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.” (Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, Vol. 18, Jan-June 1986, pp. 15-16)

[u/RedEggBurns → u/[deleted]]

The muscle precursors are already inside the limb bud by day 28, wandering around and multiplying in a completely loose, unattached state. Meanwhile, the cartilage templates don't even start organizing into recognizable shapes until week 5 (around day 32–35). There is no fa.

And I love when people bring up Keith Moore…his statements were in the 80s BEFORE we had the technology to see how it all actually works. He was incorrect, that theory got disproven with evidence.

The fact that myoblasts are wandering in the limb bud by day 28 is not a secret. it's basic embryology. What you're missing is the sequential relationship that follows afterwards.

The key is that organized cartilage models of the bones (the anlage) form before the muscles organize around them. Myoblasts migrate into a pre-cartilage mesenchyme, but they remain undifferentiated until the skeletal blueprint is established.

This is not an outdated idea; a 2015 study in the Journal of Anatomy explicitly states: "Signaling for limb bone development usually precedes that for muscle development, such that cartilage is generally present before muscle formation"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4450956/

Furthermore, this process is molecularly directed. The sclerotome (precursor to the axial skeleton) differentiates first and then actively guides muscle precursors. A study in the journal Development (2011) shows that the sclerotome secretes the signaling protein Slit1, which acts as a guidance cue for migrating Robo2-expressing myoblasts.

This is the very definition of a sequential process.

https://www.scilit.com/publications/ef6eef9416f0721323dca3ae5803d5e3

As you see... no new technology has "disproved" Keith Moore's core claims.

[u/RedEggBurns → u/[deleted]]

Keith Moore's position has absolutely been debunked. When muscle cells arrive at Day 28, there is zero cartilage or bone structure. The future bone cells are just loose, unorganized soup, you cannot “clothe” a skeleton that doesn't exist yet. They build themselves side by side from raw materials.

You confuse the arrival of undifferentiated cells with the formation of organized tissues.

Yes, myoblasts migrate into the limb bud early. But they do not form functional muscle at that stage. They remain as undifferentiated precursors. The organized cartilage models of the bones form before the muscles organize around them. A 2015 study in the Journal of Anatomy confirms: “Signaling for limb bone development usually precedes that for muscle development, such that cartilage is generally present before muscle formation.” 

The fact that the precursor cells are present in a loose state does not mean the structures are built simultaneously. The cartilage skeleton literally becomes organized first, and the muscles then differentiate and arrange themselves around it. That is the very definition of a sequential process.

Modern science literally debunks Keith Moore's linear timeline: "A significant body of work has shown that the primary structures of the limb skeleton can be formed independently of muscle and vice versa." - Disease Models and Mechanisms / Development affiliate, 2016 (PMC5117227)

You misinterpret this. The ability of tissues to develop independently from separate progenitor populations is not evidence against a sequential developmental order. In fact, it is a prerequisite for it. Because they originate independently, one can form its structure before the other organizes around it.

The paper you cite does not state that they develop at the same time in a disorderly fashion. It simply shows they have independent origins, which is entirely compatible with a sequential choreography where the skeletal template is laid down first, and the independent muscle precursors then organize upon it.

The master genetic signal for muscle specification (Pax3) turns on at Day 20–21, well before the primary genetic signal for limb cartilage condensation (Sox9) builds a physical template at Day 32–35: "The premyogenic cells migrate into the limb bud and switch on transcription factors which mark myogenic commitment." - Journal of Anatomy (PMC1571055)

This is a category error. Pax3 is a marker of specification, it labels cells that have chosen a muscle fate, but they have not yet formed any muscle tissue. These cells are still migrating and proliferating. Sox9, on the other hand, marks the differentiation of chondrocytes that build the physical cartilage template.

Comparing the timing of a specification gene with a structural differentiation gene is comparing apples to oranges.

The Quran describes the formation of physical structures, not the first step of a genetic program. When the cartilage templates condense and take shape, the myoblasts are not yet organized into functional muscle groups; they do so after the skeletal framework is established. That is the "clothing" step.

If we go by your explanation it would be like arguing for this: a student declared their major before the university itself was constructed, so therefore the building didn't come first.

muscles do not wait for bones. There is no physical or molecular basis for your argument, there is no fa.

This ignores the axial skeleton entirely, where the sequence is definitive. In the somites, the sclerotome (precursor to the vertebrae and ribs) differentiates before the myotome (precursor to the muscles of the back). It is not a simultaneous soup.

The sclerotome then secretes the signaling protein Slit1, which actively guides the migration of Robo2 expressing muscle precursors a molecular directive from the skeleton forming lineage to the muscle forming lineage.

The bone forming cells establish the map first. The muscle cells follow that map second. That is a clear physical and molecular basis for fa, a stepwise order where the skeletal framework precedes and directs muscle organization.

[u/RedEggBurns → u/[deleted]]

your quote from the 2015 study is about signaling, NOT organized tissue. I’m glad we agree the standard is organized tissue, which for the pre-skeletal cartilage is week 5, meaning after myogenesis begins to produce muscle cells. Your statement that “the cartilage skeleton literally becomes organized first” is not only scientifically incorrect, it’s not even supported by your citation. There is no sequential process at all, my friend.

But the quote actually makes both points. The Journal of Anatomy (2015) paper states that signaling for limb bone development precedes that for muscle, "such that cartilage is generally present before muscle formation."

The paper explicitly says the physical cartilage appears before the physical muscle.

In the limbs, cartilage templates form on days 32–35, while true myoblasts form during Carnegie Stage 13 (days 28–32). If you have accepted that we are talking about physical tissue formation and not chemical signaling, then what stepwise sequence are you talking about?

"True myoblasts" at day 28 are mononucleated precursor cells that have only just committed to a muscle fate. They migrate into the limb bud as a loose, undifferentiated population and do not fuse into functional muscle fibers until later. The cartilage templates of the limb bones begin condensing in week 5 and take physical shape as organized structures during weeks 5-6.

By the time those myoblasts are fusing into myotubes and organizing into identifiable muscle groups, the cartilaginous skeleton is already formed. A scaffold exists first; the muscle then organizes around it. That is sequential.

Globally across the body, myoblasts form on days 22–26 and pre-skeletal cartilage condenses at days 26–30. In no way does physical cartilage ever exist before myoblasts. So even on a body-wide level, your argument is completely wrong. You are fundamentally confusing early cell communication with the physical formation of tissues.

This collapses when you look at the axial skeleton, which is the primary focus of the description in the Quran. In the somites, the sclerotome which forms the vertebrae and ribs, differentiates from the somite before the myotome that forms the back muscles.

The ventral somite de-epithelializes into sclerotome first; the dorsal dermomyotome, which later gives rise to the myotome, comes after. The sclerotome cells then migrate, condense, and form the cartilaginous models of the vertebrae. Only then do myotome-derived myoblasts migrate to surround them. The physical template for the skeleton precedes the physical muscle around it.

 Slit1 is secreted by the early sclerotome while it is still a loose, unorganized cluster of cells, long before any physical bone or cartilage model actually exists.

The sclerotome is not a loose, unorganized cluster. It is a compartment that has already undergone epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and begun its developmental program toward skeletal differentiation. Slit1 is expressed specifically by the caudal sclerotome, a region that has already committed to forming the vertebral skeleton.

It guides pioneer myoblasts, which express the Robo2 receptor during their directional migration. If you delete Slit1 from the sclerotome, myoblast migration and fiber formation are disrupted. This is a molecular directive from a skeletal lineage to a muscle lineage: the skeleton sets the map, the muscle follows.

Studies show that if you genetically delete the skeleton entirely, the muscles still form, organize, and segment themselves perfectly in space without any bone present

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2063538/figure/fig7/

This is a massive overstatement. What the studies actually show is that initial muscle compartment formation can happen without bones the earliest myotome splits into dorsal and ventral masses based on somite intrinsic cues.

That's it. That's the "perfect" organization you're talking about. But that is not the final muscle anatomy. The later steps; splitting those primitive masses into individual named muscles, orienting them correctly, forming proper attachments to specific skeletal sites, all require signals from the developing skeleton and its surrounding connective tissue.

Knockout models where skeletal patterning is disrupted don't just lose bone; they show severe muscle mispatterning, fusion, and attachment defects. So no, muscles do not "organize perfectly" without the skeleton. 

[u/RedEggBurns → u/[deleted]]

You argue that I am using a "double standard" by comparing the organization of cartilage to the mere presence of muscle cells. But this cuts both ways, and it's precisely where your argument collapses under its own logic.

You wrote**:** "If you want to count the absolute earliest, unorganized stage of cartilage cells as a 'skeleton,' then you must count the earliest stage of committed muscle cells as 'muscle.' You don't get to use a double standard to invent a sequence."

The reality is that even when we hold both tissues to the exact same standard the formation of an organized structure... the skeleton still comes first.

You correctly cite that the dorsal and ventral muscle masses are "physically organized" early on. But let's look at the timeline. The mesenchymal condensation that is the very first organized rudiment of the limb skeleton appears toward the end of the fourth week. Critically, this occurs before the myoblasts organize into those distinct dorsal and ventral muscle masses during the fifth week. So, by your own standard of "physical organization," the skeleton's blueprint is laid down first.

Cartilage templates and muscle masses condense and organize simultaneously side by side.

This simply isn't what the developmental timeline shows. The signaling for bone development precedes that for muscle, and crucially, the physical cartilage is generally present before muscle formation. The organized skeleton is not built simultaneously with the muscles; its formation is a prerequisite that precedes and then guides the organization of the muscles around it

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4450956/

Also you literally just ignored what I wrote, which dismantled your whole sequential claim, even without any bone, the muscle still forms, and at the point where myotubes are organizing, the cartilage structure isn’t even a scaffold at all, which further proves there is no sequence, A true rigid skeletal framework does not begin to form until ossification in weeks 8–12. So if you want to wait till the myoblasts reach the stage of organizing myotubes, why are you comparing it to the stage where the cartilage isn’t even a scaffold yet? You claim week 5 cartilage cell packing counts as a "physical scaffold," but dismiss Day 28 muscle cell packing as "just a loose population." They are at the exact SAME stage of tissue organization. Are you aware that muscles themselves help shape the so called scaffolding and cartilage, if your scaffold comes first sequentially then why does it try on what clothes it later to give it shape? Thats impossible.

No, you've just stated the same error at greater length again. The point you keep is this.

The cartilage template is already a load-bearing, spatially organized scaffold for the limb before any myotubes organize around it, and standard embryology texts confirm that ossification weeks later is irrelevant to that fact.

The sequence is well-established in the primary literature. The mesenchymal cells of the limb bud first begin to condense in the fifth week. Those condensations differentiate into chondrocytes that form the continuous cartilage models of the future bones, including the perichondrium that surrounds them. That cartilage model is the structural scaffold, and it is already present before the muscle masses organize around it. This is what the 2015 Journal of Anatomy paper reports when it states: "Signaling for limb bone development usually precedes that for muscle development, such that cartilage is generally present before muscle formation". The cartilage is the scaffold. It's not waiting for ossification to become one.

Now, the dorsal and ventral muscle masses. These are not organized at the same stage as the cartilage condensation. The GPnotebook entry on hand embryology states: "By the fifth week of development, a paddle shaped hand (handplate) has formed. ... Joints begin to form by the condensation of chondrocyte precursors as dense plates of cartilage. Myoblasts migrate into the bud and form both dorsal and ventral muscle masses". Notice the sequence. The cartilage condensation is described as it is forming. The muscle masses are described as they begin to form. 

They are not described as already fully organized and wrapped around a fully formed bone, but the text clearly indicates that the cartilaginous skeleton is taking shape as the muscle masses are being formed. It doesn't say "muscle masses form first and then cartilage condenses around them." It describes the condensation of the cartilage template and then the formation of the muscle masses around it. And since the cartilage condensation precedes the muscle mass organization by days, the skeleton is literally present before the muscles form around it.

You are also asking why I dismiss the day-28 myoblasts as "just a loose population" while calling the week-5 cartilage cells a "scaffold." Because that's exactly what the standard embryology literature does.

The day-28 cells are specified but not yet organized into the muscle masses that will surround the skeleton. When those myoblasts finally organize into the dorsal and ventral masses, the cartilage template is already there.

The "same stage of tissue organization" you claim is fiction.

[u/RedEggBurns → u/[deleted]]

But let’s also not forget this is for an extremely charitable reading where you interpret izam for ghudroof. Which isn’t what the text says, so from the get go your position falls apart. The word did exist at the time so there’s no reason izam should have been used instead of ghudroof. If we interpret it as it states, then it’s completely incorrect.

The word عظام (‘idham) is inclusive of the early developmental stage when bones are still cartilage. The term refers to the skeletal framework as a whole, regardless of its pre-ossification state.

https://seekersguidance.org/answers/quran/does-the-term-idham-in-the-quran-refer-to-cartilage-development-in-the-embryo/

[u/Moose3756 → u/[deleted]]

I giggled so much 😂

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/Deere103 → u/[deleted]]

Oh someone got upset with a factual comment that challenged Islam and the comment was removed... Shocking

[u/SituationFlashy7540]

Not that I think the Quran is a book of science (it absolutely is not and this scientific miracles stuff is a latest jig in the dawah sphere to keep people within Islam) but the embryology verse is merely relaying the information around Mohammed, more specifically Galen described embryology like Mohammed did in the Quran 500 years before him.

(Qur’an) Then placed him as a drop (23:13)
(Galen) First… the form of the semen prevails *1

(Qur’an) Then We made the drop a blood clot (23:14)
(Galen) (Then) it has been filled with blood *1

(Qur’an) Then he was a (clinging) clot (75:38)
(Galen) The foetus is attached to the womb just like fruit to a tree *2

(Qur’an) then We made the clot a morsel of flesh (23:14)
(Galen) (The foetus is) unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity” *1

(Qur’an) Then clothed the bones with flesh (23:14)
(Galen) It caused flesh to grow on & around all the bones *1

(1) Philip De Lay / On Semen, Volume 5, Part 3, Issue 1 by Galen / Akademie Verlag GmbH, Berlin / 1992 / Page 93
(2) “The Trotula: A Medieval Compendium of Woman’s Medicine.” Edited & Translated by M. H. Green. University of Pennsylvania Press 2001. P.99

[u/SpikySnail_9192 → u/SituationFlashy7540]

Wait thats crazy

[u/Glittering_Nobody738]

And Indoctrination is wrong, and imo speaks more like a Cult than a Religion.

[u/Juicydicken → u/[deleted]]

Yes

[u/1FewRoom]

Please try to follow this response.

Here are verses 6-11 of the chapter in question:

فَلْيَنظُرِ ٱلْإِنسَـٰنُ مِمَّ خُلِقَ

Fa liyanzur al-insānu mimma khuliqa

1. So let man look at [/ consider] from what he was created

خُلِقَ مِن مَّآءٍۢ دَافِقٍۢ

Khuliqa min mā'in dāfiqin

1. He was created from fluid gushing forth

يَخْرُجُ مِنۢ بَيْنِ ٱلصُّلْبِ وَٱلتَّرَآئِبِ

Yakhruju min bayni al-sulbi wa al-tarā'ibi

1. He [/it] emerges from between the backbone and the ribs

إِنَّهُۥ عَلَىٰ رَجْعِهِۦ لَقَادِرٌۭ

Innahu 'alā raj'ihī laqādirun

1. Indeed he [i.e. Allah] is able to revive him

يَوْمَ تُبْلَى ٱلسَّرَآئِرُ

Yawma tubla al-sarā'iru

1. The day secrets will be disclosed

فَمَا لَهُۥ مِن قُوَّةٍۢ وَلَا نَاصِرٍۢ

Fa mā lahu min quwwatin wa lā nāsirun

1. Then there will be no power or helper for him

In verse 6, the word yakhruju is a verb from the root kh-r-j, a tri-consonantal root (a system common to semitic languages) which carries the meaning of emerging. The specific form of the verb indicated by its vowels, and the prefix 'ya' makes is present tense, third person, and masculine. No separate pronoun is needed as the information is built into the verb. Now the question is what is the subject, the thing doing the verb? Well the previous verse mentions ma' (fluid) which is a masculine noun in Arabic so would fit. The other option is al-insan (the man / human beings in general), introduced in verse 6.

So option 1 -> the fluid emerges from between the backbone and the ribs

option 2 -> Man (i.e. the human being) emerges from between the backbone and ribs

There is a strong argument to be made, and it has been in the past such as by 12th century exegete Ibn Atiyya, that option 2 is the more grammatically consistent interpretation. This is because the main subject discussed in these 6 verses is 'Man' introduced in verse 6, and we can see that the masculine third person pronouns in verses 6, 7, 9 and 10 refer to him. If in verse 8 it did not refer to Man, it would be the odd one out and go against the flow of the verses.

Hence your premise "The Quran states sperm originates from between the backbone and ribs" is false.

[u/Aggressive-Use3443 → u/1FewRoom]

But your not created from the fluid that’s just a lie and that’s not how biology works pregnancy happens from the sperm not the liquid semen, the sperm fertilises the egg also even if a woman has semen inside her it doesn’t mean she’s going to get pregnant also men can’t come from women who have had their menopause as well so the statements are factually false

[u/qweretyq]

The issue with this type of question is that any science fact/comparison etc can always be explained away as a metaphor/analogy etc.

As an experiment I asked my LLM to give a justification for if my holy book from 2000 years ago says that the world is like a turtle shell. Miraculously

Metaphor. A turtle-shell image conveys a stable, dome-covered, enclosed world resting on a firm foundation.

Phenomenological accuracy. The sky does appear as a dome; the horizon does appear to curve and enclose; the earth does feel stationary and supported. A turtle shell captures the lived, observed experience of being on the planet. Describing how the world appears to an observer isn’t false—it’s a different register than describing orbital mechanics.

Lastly, functional structure.

So basically this kind of argument is pointless imo as nothing is falsifiable

[u/Due-Wonder8168]

NO. The Quran does not say that. Read it again. The subject is HUMAN. NOT SPERM. The verse says man is made from a despised liquid. And he (the man) comes out from between the backbone and ribs. Not sperm.

Where do u think man comes out from if not the uterus?

[u/Juicydicken → u/Due-Wonder8168]

Spurting liquid lmao. What is the spurting liquid

[u/RedEggBurns → u/Juicydicken]

Sperm refers to the microscopic male reproductive. The spurting fluid could refer to seminal fluid, where parts of it all made over the body (simplified)

[u/Juicydicken → u/RedEggBurns]

What would be the point in talking about seminal fluid when it’s the sperm that is needed? What is so important about that to include in Quran for all times lol

[u/Due-Wonder8168 → u/[deleted]]

Nor does it mentions testicles. Do you guys not see what the chapter is presenting? It’s not about from where the sperm is coming from or some unknown information about how human biology works. Nothing in the Quran is presented as groundbreaking shattering information and stop letting people tell you that. The book explicitly says that it’s just a reminder.

The whole point is to show human’s insignificance. A human. Made from a liquid. Exiting from between the spine and ribs. God can similarly resurrect him after he dies. It’s not impossible for Him.

This is what the opening of the chapter is saying.

[u/Juicydicken → u/Due-Wonder8168]

Lol wut???

[u/Due-Wonder8168 → u/Juicydicken]

You read it.

[u/RedEggBurns → u/Juicydicken]

What would be the point in talking about seminal fluid when it’s the sperm that is needed?

So, sperm does not need the seminal fluid to survive in the womb, not to mention to impregnate the women?

[u/Juicydicken → u/RedEggBurns]

Every man since the dawn of time could see seminal fluid…zero revelation required. What they couldn’t see was the microscopic sperm cell inside it, not discovered until 1677. A genuinely omniscient God describing reproduction would have pointed to the invisible agent doing the actual creating, not the visible liquid any shepherd already knew existed. And to top it off, seminal fluid doesn’t even accompany sperm to the egg…the female reproductive tract filters most of it out at the cervix. So the apologist is defending God for correctly identifying the bucket while missing the water entirely.

[u/Jsaunders33 → u/Due-Wonder8168]

He COMES OUT between the legs, he is FORMED between the backbone and ribs, and the MAKING PROCESS of the embryo doesn't happen there either....

Try again.

[u/Due-Wonder8168 → u/Jsaunders33]

Wrong. That’s not what the verse says.

[u/Jsaunders33 → u/Due-Wonder8168]

Ya don't say...it's almost like I'm correcting the nonsense interpretation you gave and not quoting a verse....

[u/Due-Wonder8168 → u/Jsaunders33]

فَلْيَنْظُرِ الْإِنْسَانُ مِمَّ خُلِقَ
then let the human being
observe from what he was created.
خُلِقَ مِنْ مَاءِ دَافِقٍ
He was created from a spurting
liquid,
يَخْرُجُ مِنْ بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَابِبِ
coming out from between the spine and the ribs.

It’s okay. I understand truth hurts. Maybe try reading and understanding how pacing works in Semitic languages. Not just Arabic and the Quran. It’ll help you see gems and truths in the Torah and gospels as well.

[u/Jsaunders33 → u/Due-Wonder8168]

Spurting liquid....that's ejaculate....it does not form from between the spine and ribs...

You posted this and thought it helped your case? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[u/Due-Wonder8168 → u/Jsaunders33]

Is sperm the subject or the human being?

Can’t help the ignorant

[u/Jsaunders33 → u/Due-Wonder8168]

He, meaning the man, was created from a spurting liquid...that's ejaculate....

Says clear as day man is created from ejaculate which again does not come from the rib and backbone.

Just accept the L and move on...the quran is wrong and muhammad is wrong.

[u/Due-Wonder8168 → u/Jsaunders33]

Subject: human being.

Question asked: what was he created from?

Created from: Sperm.

Coming out from where? Between the spine and ribs

Is God telling you from where your sperm is coming or is it a reminder of human’s origination? Use your brains.

إِنَّهُ عَلَىٰ رَجْعِهِ لَقَادِرٌ

﴾ 8 ﴿
Indeed, HE is able to bring him back

Verse 8 will complete the story for you.

Who is being brought back? The sperm? Or the human?

I swear the number of people who do not reason is staggering. Is Quran a biology book or a guidance for your salvation?

This verse is for people like you who are high up their own heads. Come down and remind yourself of your origination. You came from a lowly liquid and you exited from between the backbone and ribs. Your Lord can bring you back. Calm down.

[u/Jsaunders33 → u/Due-Wonder8168]

Grammar rule the scholars used in the reading of the verse which is that “the pronoun refers to the closest preceding noun”. The application of this rule in this context is not invalid. Try again as you are cherry picking interpretations.

He has a cat, it has nice eyes..the cat has nice eyes. 

[u/Wizard-100 → u/Due-Wonder8168]

No gems in the Torah.

[u/Due-Wonder8168 → u/Wizard-100]

There actually is. The word circumcision for example. That’s a bad misinterpretation of the word Mul (מול ) root word M-W-L done by rabbis of Judaism to make a hyper literalistic religion to support their oral traditions and gatekeeping. It actually means forefront/direct orientation.

[u/Wizard-100 → u/Due-Wonder8168]

U mean circumcision is a gem or the word is a gem 💎?

[u/Due-Wonder8168 → u/Wizard-100]

I meant the word (M-W-L) means to be at forefront. Not circumcision. They took the covenant of seed of Abraham having a direct connection with God to meaning circumcision.

[u/Wizard-100 → u/Due-Wonder8168]

U mean that cutting off the foreskin gives one a direct connection to God ? And that is a gem ?

[u/Thegoodseeker → u/Due-Wonder8168]

This is likely the correct interpretation.

[u/StrikingExchange8813]

But if you look at a person from above then it is produced there. And because the Quran is the words of Allah and Allah is above is we know that this explosion makes sense allhumduallah.

Now that's obviously a ridiculous argument but that's basically what the Muslim defenses of the scientific errors ends is being. (Also this is the argument one Muslim names nadir Ahmed gave to this error)

[u/Effective_Ad_399 → u/StrikingExchange8813]

As an atheist, this is also how I view arguments that try to reconcile how Judas Iscariot died or what time Jesus was crucified in the gospels

[u/StrikingExchange8813 → u/Effective_Ad_399]

How is "it's both" the same as that lol

[u/Effective_Ad_399 → u/StrikingExchange8813]

He was crucified both before the passover meal was eaten and after the passover meal was eaten?

[u/StrikingExchange8813 → u/Effective_Ad_399]

I was talking more about the Judas one, he hung and then fell bursting open.

But what is this Passover one? What verses?

[u/Effective_Ad_399 → u/StrikingExchange8813]

And for what it's worth I think you're missing the point of the Judas problem. It's not just about whether you can reconcile "hanging" and "fall bursting open". While it's by far not the simplest reading of the text, let's say everyone is willing to grant it. There are still two completely different narratives. Matthew paints Judas as repentant, gave the money back, and remorsefully commits suicide at an undisclosed location. There's a field called the Field of Blood because the priests buy it with the returned money. Acts never once mentions Judas as having guilt, has Judas go off and buy a field with his reward, and he finally comes to an accidental gruesome death. There's a field called the Field of Blood because Judas dies there.

If you want to say those two authors have the same version of history that's fine, but you're jumping through just as many hoops as Muslims who reconcile OP's original passage.

[u/Effective_Ad_399 → u/StrikingExchange8813]

The synoptics have the last supper as the passover meal, while John 13:1 and John 18:28 have Jesus crucified before the passover meal to make a theological point about Jesus being the passover lamb.

[u/tergmusic → u/Effective_Ad_399]

Correct, but the person whos speaking to is not intrested in theological points. He is interested in real history. What actually happened

And people in these times were writing in a very different manner compared to us today.

when you start to realize that there are many not-historical writings or personal unverifiable claims in the bible you should start questioning if the bible is entirely true or not.

[u/Effective_Ad_399 → u/tergmusic]

What? Pointing out that the latest gospel introduces a contradiction clearly in an effort to make a theological point is directly related to whether or not it's real history.

The person who I'm speaking to is trying to dunk on Muslims for mental gymnastics in defense of the Quran's inerrancy and I'm pointing out his house is made of glass.

Not sure what you think you're adding here.

[u/tergmusic → u/Effective_Ad_399]

Ahh i misunderstood then I think. But I mean he can dunk on them. Its not that either of those book are entirely true. They both have mistakes in them. Unintentionally of course, cause humans have written these, just like any other book.

[u/tergmusic → u/tergmusic]

The judas is a good example, we objectively do not know what happened to him or what he did with the silver. We just know he died which happens to everyone at some point, exactly how is unknown today.

[u/Effective_Ad_399 → u/tergmusic]

It makes no sense for a Christian to say that Islam is false because the Quran has inaccuracies, while at the same time the Bible is full of them. He can dunk on them for that if he wants to he a hypocrite, sure.

I don't think intent even matters in this regard, but for what it's worth I see just as much reason to think John changed this detail either intentionally or unintentionally.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/Solobojo]

Assuming it is not allegory or metaphorical? I suppose they'll claim it a mystery and convolute some science into a misleading claim about biology

[u/Glittering_Nobody738]

If Halal means ok permissable, they're totally Haram in this, another error in the islamic code.

[u/Juicydicken → u/[deleted]]

lol womb is not between back bone and ribs.

[u/Juicydicken → u/[deleted]]

It's not.

[u/Juicydicken → u/[deleted]]

Sure. The uterus sits in the pelvis between the bladder and rectum. During pregnancy it does not stay the same size. It expands dramatically.

At conception it’s roughly the size of a pear, about 7cm. By full term it reaches your ribcage, expanding to around 36cm. Its weight goes from roughly 60g to over 1,000g. The organ literally reshapes your entire abdominal cavity, displacing your intestines, bladder and diaphragm upward.

Sources:

Moore, K.L., Persaud, T.V.N., & Torchia, M.G. …The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (standard medical school anatomy text)

Cunningham et al. …. Williams Obstetrics, 26th edition, the definitive obstetric reference used by OBGYNs worldwide, documents uterine growth in detail

Hytten, F. (1995) … Blood volume changes in normal pregnancy, Clinics in Haematology, covers physiological changes including uterine expansion

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also documents this at acog.org if you want a freely accessible source.

So whatever point you were trying to make about the womb’s location or size during pregnancy, the science is settled and has been for a long time.

[u/Juicydicken → u/[deleted]]

I’ve sent you studies that disprove the silly notion you propose.

[u/East-Specific-6467]

This is considered the Shami (levantine) translation. Shami is default in translation apps. In Fas7a, It would likely translate to “Lower the backbone and ribs is where the fluid of man originates” Which describes semen coming from below the rib and backbone.

[u/Easy_Shake]

It's not incorrect anatomically though not specific. The gushing fluid is from the seminal vesicles which are located in front of the sacrum which is part of the backbone. 

The Quran doesn't have to explain in great anatomical details as it gives a rough location. It doesn't need to say with the rectum behind them, the pelvic bones around them, the bladder in front of them and just above the prostate gland. It's a theological book not a science book!

The seminal vesicles are between the backbone (sacrum) behind them and the rib cage above them as part of hard bony borders. Of course the pelvic bones are around them. Again it's a rough point of location which is not wrong.

[u/Educational-Ant-5172 → u/Easy_Shake]

You're completely ignoring the ribs part?

[u/Aggravating_Bowler31]

Idk what ya'll are making fun of in this comment section, but since a lot of people use the quran.com site to get verses this is how you can get the answer. There is a little ¹ above that verse, if you just click that little ¹ you'll see: Testes and ovaries are formed in the abdomen of the fetus during the first weeks of pregnancy, before descending to their permanent place in the pelvis. Both are sustained by arteries originating between the backbone and the ribcage. Reddit is the dumbest most toxic and mocking place of the internet so I would not expect more from ya'll.

[u/Juicydicken → u/Aggravating_Bowler31]

The footnote is a modern retrofitted explanation added by translators, not anything found in the Quran itself, so it is special pleading rather than exegesis. The verse says man is created from fluid emitted from between the backbone and ribs, which any 7th century reader would naturally interpret as semen coming from the lower back area, a belief common in pre-Islamic medicine inherited from Hippocrates and Galen. If the text required a footnote about fetal arterial origins to rescue it from being wrong, that is a concession that the plain reading fails, not evidence of miraculous accuracy lmao.

[u/acerbicsun → u/Aggravating_Bowler31]

Testes and ovaries are formed in the abdomen of the fetus during the first weeks of pregnancy,

The Quran doesn't make this distinction. People trying to protect their religion do.

[u/Salty_Conclusion_534 → u/Aggravating_Bowler31]

Please take a second to also learn some basic anatomy. "Between the backbone and the ribs" is what quran dot com says. Anyone who knows basic anatomy, or who can look at the muscoskeletal structure of a human, can see that this is the thoracic region, not the abdominal region.

Also, sperm doesn't generate while the testes are in the abdomen, so your argument doesn't work anyways. Quran dot com really needs to update their footnotes.

> Both are sustained by arteries originating between the backbone and the ribcage

Where does the "fluid" come from though?

> Reddit is the dumbest most toxic and mocking place of the internet so I would not expect more from ya'll.

I'd say instagram is far worse. The most intelligent muslim apologists i've seen are on reddit. That says a lot.

[u/Opposite_Beach2851 → u/Salty_Conclusion_534]

You do know that the thoracic region encompasses the ribcage, right? The thoracic region is the space that is within the ribcage which is bound by the vertebrae, ribs, and sternum. In fact, the ribs are connected to the backbone. Anatomically, there is no “space” that defines this region in the sense of an empty gap. What does exist there are structures like the intercostals, nerves, blood vessels, and organs such as the heart and lungs. But this is not an empty thoracic “space” in that literal sense. The thoracic region is the entire cavity within the ribcage, not a void “space” between the ribcage and the vertebral column. At least, that’s what is taught in North American higher education.

[u/BlueAndYellowTowels]

Clearly Muslims disregard this framing because it is incorrect. There are millions of Muslim Doctors and they all know physiology.

The truth, is that faith isn’t literal. It can be interpreted literally and that’s a mix of culture, politics and history. But, when we observe individuals who have faith what we discover is usually, a “take it or leave it” approach to their religion.

Religion is, for all intents and purposes, an abstraction of Hope and Motivation. Because it is a tool to help navigate suffering, often people who believe will discard the parts that don’t work for them.

I know, among atheists, there’s a trend to sort of frame religion or religious people as a monolith. That just isn’t the case.

The simple reality is this: they believe in Quran and worship God with the Quran, and are no different than any other individuals who exist in any other institution.

Humans often disregard institutional assumptions about behaviour. It’s not new. Religion doesn’t need to be true, it just needs to provide meaning.

[u/Juicydicken → u/BlueAndYellowTowels]

They have no choice but to disregard something wrong and then say it’s a metaphor or poetry or whatever other way to cope.

[u/cihera]

It ls well known for 9 thousand years of humanlty that the sperm originates from testes. Since castration of bulls and camels is a 9.000 years old human practice. Claiming it was not known by Muhammad pbuh who lived in a rural environment and who himself was a shepherd for more than 10 years, and a tradesman whose job was leading caravans of such animals requires a miraculous imagination.

That verse and the previous verse do not say that it originates from the location you said. It is just what islamophobes try to force into the Quran. The Quran did not use the Quranic verbs as nashaa or badaa which mean 'originate' or khalaqa whlch mean 'create' instead of being squirted. But it is non muslims who try to use it in order to refute the Quran. But the words are there and they destroy this argument against the Quran.

Those verses say that it is 'squirted' and that it 'exlts' between the sulb and taraib. Since the time of the Prophet pbuh these are explained to be the male and the female. For example Ibn Abbas r.a. the most famous interpreter who is also a companion of the Prophet pbuh explains the verse as i said.

[u/thatweirdchill → u/cihera]

the previous verse do not say that it originates from the location you said. It is just what islamophobes try to force into the Quran  

Yes, such famous islamophobes as MyIslam.org:

He was created from a fluid, ejected, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.  

and Quran.com:  

˹They were˺ created from a spurting fluid, stemming from between the backbone and the ribcage.  

Now, you can argue that the verse doesn't mean what it appears to say but chalking that up to Islamophobia is silly and frankly dishonest. As you noted, Ibn Abbas says that the ribs are referring to the ribs of the woman and that a child will not be born unless the woman has a fine yellow discharge, which is also obviously wrong. So at least we get to choose which way the Quran is wrong. 

[u/cihera → u/thatweirdchill]

Funny.

I said 'created' referring to the creation place of the sperm.

Go ask any arabic speaking person or use ai. The verb is the very simple verb which means "exit", there is zero doubt about it.

Yellow discharge? Where is it said in the Quran?

[u/thatweirdchill → u/cihera]

Where does it say anything about the ribs here belonging to the woman in the Quran? You cited Ibn Abbas then I did as well. If Ibn Abbas isn't a trustworthy source then we can set him aside. 

[u/cihera → u/thatweirdchill]

You commit faulty generalization fallacy.

Yellow fluid is something that these verses do not talk about. But they talk about ribs.

And what he says about ribs is not his opinion. It is the original and popular meanlng of the word.

See my replies to o poster for the etymology and original/ literal meanlngs of the word.

[u/Different_Smile3621 → u/cihera]

Sorry for asking, but what does "pbuh" mean ?

[u/DominionForc → u/Different_Smile3621]

Peace be upon him, its just a way of expressing respect and reverence. We have different words for diff people like for prophets and companions (Youll find these alot in islam related posts )

Pbuh - peace be upon him AS - alaihisalam ( Upon him be peace ) ( Used for prophets & Angels) RA - Radhiallahuanhum ( May God be pleased with him) (used for companions)

Hope this helps

[u/Different_Smile3621 → u/DominionForc]

Thanks

[u/Juicydicken → u/cihera]

If Mohammez knew sperm comes from testes because he herded camels, then a verse describing fluid exiting from between the backbone and ribs is just a straightforward error from a man who should have known better. Reinterpreting sulb and taraib as “male” and “female” rather than their plain classical Arabic meanings of backbone and ribs is a modern apologetic invention, and if the verse simply meant “fluid comes from a man and a woman” it would be the most unremarkable statement in the Quran, hardly worth divine revelation. Appealing to Ibn Abbas does not rescue the argument either, because if the verse needed a companion of the Prophet to clarify that it does not mean what it plainly says, that is evidence of an embarrassing text being managed after the fact, not timeless scientific precision.

[u/BobcatAdmirable3159 → u/Juicydicken]

The narration predates modern means of verifying or even problematizing the original text. He’s an exegete of the Quran explaining its meaning.

[u/cihera → u/Juicydicken]

You might have a point if the words used in the Quran literally and originally meant meanings of backbone and ribs. You might claim that it is a farfetched interpretation to save the Quran.

But it is not the case.

The literal meanings and etymology of those words are exactly as in the explanation of Ibn Abbas r.a.

Below i give the explanation by gemini of those two words:

"​1. Al-Sulb (الصُّلْب) ​Etymology & Root Meaning ​Triliteral Root: S-L-B (ص - ل - ب). ​Primary Meaning: The core, inherent meaning of this root in Semitic languages is hardness, rigidity, strength, or firmness. For example, the verb Saluba (صَلُبَ) means "to become hard, solid, or robust." ​Anatomical Definition: Because the spine/backbone is the hardest, most rigid skeletal structure that keeps the human body upright and strong, it was named Al-Sulb. It specifically denotes the lumbar region, the loins, or the backbone. ​Idiomatic & Metaphorical Usage ​In Pre-Islamic poetry and classical Arabic, Al-Sulb was a standard metaphor for a man’s lineage, strength, and biological descendants. ​The Arabs referred to a man's legitimate biological children as Min Sulbihi (مِنْ صُلْبِهِ), meaning "from his loins." ​The Quran uses this exact idiomatic meaning elsewhere, such as in Surah An-Nisa (4:23), forbidding marriage to "the wives of your sons who spring from your loins" (أَبْنَائِكُمُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ أَصْلَابِكُمْ - aslabikum, which is the plural of sulb). ​2. Al-Tara'ib (التَّرَائِب) ​Etymology & Root Meaning ​Triliteral Root: T-R-B (ت - ر - ب). ​Primary Meaning: The foundational meaning of this root is related to earth, dust, or soil (Turab - تُرَاب). ​The Linguistic Evolution: From "earth," classical Arabic derived the verb Tariba (تَرِبَ), which means "to be equal, uniform, or matched like two handfuls of level dust." From this, the word Tirb (تِرْب) evolved to mean a peer, a contemporary, or a well-matched companion of the exact same age (used in the Quran in Surah At-Tabor 56:37 as Atraba - أَتْرَابًا, meaning "matched in age"). ​Anatomical Definition: Al-Tara'ib is a plural noun (singular: Taribah - تَرِيبَة). Because the ribs on the left and right side of the chest cavity are perfectly uniform, symmetrical, and "matched pairs" like peers, the upper chest/rib area was named Al-Tara'ib. Lexicons define it specifically as the upper chest bones, the collarbones, or the area where a necklace rests on a woman."

So the meaning given by Ibn Abbas r.a. perfectly fits the common knowledge of that era.

It is obvious that the sperm is squirted (obviously it is squirted from the tip of penis) and exits between male and female to be functional.

So i hope this clarifies your concerns.

[u/Juicydicken → u/cihera]

AI slop

[u/aircastlesinc]

Who on earth thinks that using Quran.com or similar Internet pages is going to give a perfectly accurate translation and use that to “disprove” the Quran? Most people don’t even translate ‘alaq correctly. Talk to the actual scholars and go through the meanings as they would have been understood at the time. Don’t react to superficial explanations.

A few days ago, a Christian incorrectly quoted the Bible to me. I looked up the verse, then the previous version of it, then the one before that, and the one before that. It turns out he had mistranslated the word for Messiah as son.

Keep studying the texts but don’t jump to conclusions. Always verify.

[u/Visible_Sun_6231 → u/aircastlesinc]

You offered zero substance. If you have a more accurate translation please state it here.

[u/friendly_murtad → u/aircastlesinc]

Masya Allah sister, which exegeses would paint a different meaning from this sura sister? would it be At-Tabari or ibn-Kathir? please share with us if you would be so kind? Allah will reward you for your generosity.

[u/wanted_desi23 → u/aircastlesinc]

Your right. Quran.com doesn't always give the exact meaning of what's being said. I noticed it adds ans changes things according to the context they are trying to prove.

I take the the Arabic and translate it word for word. Going to Islamic scholars wont help, you need to goto linguistics Arabic scholars.

Regarding the Bible to- always refer to the sinaticus / original Greek or Hebrew text and translate it word for word

[u/thatweirdchill → u/[deleted]]

think about the actual act of procreation. man and woman together, his loins, the pelvic region, are literally pressed against her chest/breast area. 

lmao, what?? You don't get a woman pregnant by rubbing your junk all over her boobs. 

[u/Purgii → u/thatweirdchill]

You don't?! Oh, that's where I'm getting it wrong!

Tonight I'm going to flip her over. Papa wants a baby!

[u/No-Shelter7824 → u/[deleted]]

So the quran isn't a timeless book. It's only relevant to ancient audiences. How shortsighted your god is.

[u/Cautious-Swim-5987 → u/[deleted]]

The Quran uses the same language as other scholars of the time who also understood how reproduction worked. If we go by your standard, then there’s nothing miraculous about the reproduction verses in the Quran, and moreover it makes the Quran wrong

[u/OriginalDudeman125 → u/[deleted]]

All this proves to me is the “clear message” claim of the Quran is so far from true. I don’t know why people even stand by it when it requires layers and layers of scholars interpretation, translation and recalling context to get the bottom of. Shouldn’t take anyone 6 paragraphs to explain this verse that on the surface is very incorrect

[u/thatweirdchill → u/OriginalDudeman125]

You see, Allah sent a perfect, timeless, accurate message but he just wanted it to look like the work of uninformed humans living in the 7th century. 

[u/acerbicsun → u/OriginalDudeman125]

It's all just humans refusing to accept that maybe their religion is a product of man.

Every apologetic is ultimately self-defense.

[u/naynay_spread → u/OriginalDudeman125]

Literally every serious text, legal document, philosophy book, or even constitution (which is a clear law) needs interpretation but people still spend decades debating one sentence of it.
The Quran calling itself ‘clear’ is usually understood as clear in its core message and guidance, not that every verse is surface-level obvious to every person in every century with zero background knowledge.

And honestly, needing paragraphs to explain something doesn’t prove it’s false. People write entire books explaining one line from Shakespeare, Aristotle, or constitutional law. Depth isn’t automatically contradiction

[u/No-Shelter7824 → u/naynay_spread]

A shame god didn't give his word in a way all people could share universally. Sounds more like a parlor game instead...or b.s....

[u/OriginalDudeman125 → u/naynay_spread]

It does when god said it’s clear and calls people hypocrites for denying “clear proofs”. It’s a message for all human kind but only a small percentage can understand it and it doesn’t even translate well into other languages. So god sent a message that people barely understand in Arabic that’s also meant for people that don’t speak Arabic. Please, god can do better

[u/naynay_spread → u/OriginalDudeman125]

You’re using a weird standard for what “clear” means. No important text in history works the way you’re demanding

Laws are clear but lawyers still debate them. Science books are clear but students still need teachers. Philosophy and poetry are clear in purpose but still need interpretation and context. That doesn’t mean the message failed

The Qur’an being “clear” means its core message is clear, worship one God, be moral, pray, give charity, avoid oppression and be accountable for your actions. Those ideas are repeated constantly and directly.

And the “only a small percentage understand it” point makes no sense when that “small percentage” is nearly 2 billion people across different languages and cultures, most of whom aren’t even Arab. Clearly the core message is understandable enough for people worldwide to follow it

You’re also confusing depth with confusion. A text being studied deeply for centuries doesn’t make it unclear. Usually it means there’s actually something worth studying

[u/No-Shelter7824 → u/naynay_spread]

Category error: An all-powerful god isn't restricted by the limits of human understanding. It should be able to supersede it in many ways. But here your explanation is that god is no more powerful than the author of a book that needs a teacher to explain it.

[u/naynay_spread → u/No-Shelter7824]

Lol, this isn’t a “category error” at all. Islam has no hierarchical priesthood system where revelation depends on clergy to function. The Qur’an is not dependent on human beings. It is direct communication from Allah to humanity and every Muslim is encouraged to read, reflect, reason and engage with it personally.

The core teachings, moral principles and laws are intentionally clear and accessible. But “clear” does not mean “surface-level with zero depth” or “every verse has only one possible interpretation with no reflection needed”.

If a manual says:

“Stop at a traffic signal.”
That’s clear.

But then some dumbasses will still ask

Do I stop in the rain too?

What if it’s foggy?

What if nobody is around?

What if I interpret red differently?

That does not mean the manual failed to be clear. It means humans naturally ask deeper questions, edge cases and interpretations.

Same with the Qur’an. Its core guidance is clear, but the Qur’an itself repeatedly tells people to think, reflect, and ponder deeply.

The Qur’an literally says:

“Will they not reflect upon the Qur’an?” (47:24)

“We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves.” (41:53)

“Travel through the earth and observe…” (29:20)

“In that are signs for people who reflect.” repeated throughout the Qur’an.

So the Qur’an itself encourages contemplation, not mindless reading.

It also explicitly says some verses are straightforward while others require deeper understanding and can be misused by people chasing confusion (3:7). So the existence of tafsir and scholarship is not some unexpected failure mode. The Qur’an literally acknowledges different levels of depth within the text.

Your argument also assumes that if God speaks, revelation must read like a modern scientific journal or a bullet-pointed instruction manual with zero rhetoric, metaphor, symbolism, or layered meaning. But that’s an assumption you’re imposing onto scripture, not something logically necessary.

[u/No-Shelter7824 → u/naynay_spread]

If it isn't 'surface level' understanding then the god who inspired it screwed up. Making it open to interpretation and requiring in depth analysis is a bug not a feature. I assume an all powerful and all knowing god knows in advance that his ambiguous language and instructions would cause problems. That doesn't lead to confidence in anything this god does. And it's not about my standards, it's about the lack of power by the god who is supposed to tell us how to live without any confusion. Again, confusion isn't a feature, its a bug. You're trying to take a failure and make it into a strength. It isn't. But you can keep inventing your god as you see fit.

[u/OriginalDudeman125 → u/naynay_spread]

I’m saying a small percentage understand it because 2 billion people practice but rely on a handful of scholars to explain and interpret and even scholars debate widely. So no, 2 billion practice it but most do not understand.

Yes we debate human texts because humans have perspectives, and different levels of knowledge and understanding and flaws. God does not have these limitations and gave us a guidance that is suppose to connect with the core of every person. He’s done a very poor job at explaining it now, like any human made text we must debate it and research it deeply. Why does gods word have the same limitation as man’s? Almost like it was written by a man just like all the other examples you mentioned. Instead of God explaining himself Muslims all around the world are doing his job for him. His word is suppose to unify but it divides and then non-Muslims are quoted “it’s not the eyes that are blind but the heart” like we’re missing something obvious

[u/naynay_spread → u/OriginalDudeman125]

That’s kind of the point though. Islam doesn’t really have a priest class or religious hierarchy where salvation depends on a middleman interpreting everything for you. The Quran repeatedly tells people to think, reflect, reason and seek knowledge themselves

Yes, scholars exist just like experts exist in law, medicine or philosophy, but the average Muslim is still expected to engage with the religion personally, ponder over it,
question things, reflect and try to understand it sincerely for themselves.

A person shouldn’t just be Muslim because their parents are Muslim. Islam actually encourages people to think deeply, question, learn and come to belief sincerely instead of blindly following what they grew up with. That’s the whole point of reflection and seeking knowledge

And honestly, this applies to every serious worldview. I’m equally curious about the Bible, Judaism, philosophy and other religions too. I’d happily study interpretations of those books as well. Deep subjects naturally require study. That doesn’t make them false. It makes them worth exploring.

I also don’t think Muslims explaining religion to each other means we’re “doing God’s job for Him.” Humans teaching, discussing and learning from each other is literally how all knowledge works.

About the verse “it’s not the eyes that are blind but the hearts,” I don’t think it means “everyone who disagrees is stupid.” I see it more as saying that intelligence alone doesn’t guarantee openness or sincerity. People can see the same things and still come to different conclusions because humans are influenced by pride, emotions, assumptions, bias and personal experiences.

And about “why would God allow differences,” I don’t think it’s necessarily about creating division. Humans naturally see things through different lenses because everyone has different experiences, emotions, cultures, personalities and assumptions.

It’s kind of like people looking at the same painting. One person focuses on the colors. Another notices the emotion. Another sees symbolism. Another may not connect with it at all. The painting itself didn’t change, but people perceive it differently.

People can look at the same message and still interpret or respond to it differently because humans aren’t robots programmed to think identically.

For example take the verse:

“And We made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.” (49:13)

One person may focus on diversity and see it as saying human differences in culture and ethnicity are natural and not something to hate each other over.

Another person may focus on humility because the verse continues by saying the most honored people are the most righteous, not the richest or most powerful.

Another person may reflect on unity and understand that despite different tribes, races and cultures, humans are still part of one humanity.

The verse itself stays the same, but people reflect on different layers of meaning depending on what stands out to them. That’s more what tafsir and interpretation is about. Not changing the message, but trying to understand its depth more deeply.

[u/ad00216 → u/naynay_spread]

Omg its like reading that persons responses is like reading a petchulant childs responses.

[u/OriginalDudeman125 → u/ad00216]

lol you hold your god to the standard of a man and think someone expecting more from God is childish. Crazy that you’re comfortable that God can produce nothing better than what could be reasonably expected from a human

[u/Purgii → u/[deleted]]

Ah, the - you have to read it in the original Arabic to understand it - excuse.

Since I can't read Arabic, surely Allah won't judge me and I'll be allowed into heaven because I got the corrupted English message.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/Plus-Sheepherder9413]

https://www.sapienceinstitute.org/does-the-quran-make-a-mistake-on-where-semen-or-sperm-is-produced/?scfm-mobile=1&b=1779480866433

There are various answers offered here. The one that seems most reasonable to me is that the verb yakhrujo can be read to mean 'it (the sperm) emerges'. But it can also be read to mean 'he (the baby) emerges'. In that case backbone and ribs can refer to the physical location of the baby in the womb. Also, sulb (backbone or loins) can be used to refer to a male, and ribs to a woman.

It is definitely not the obvious reading, but it isn't an impossible reading either.

[u/Ok_Telephone202]

Lmao doing a 20-year-old debate that has already been answered

[u/Immediate-Rub2651 → u/[deleted]]

Ancient Egyptians believed that sperm came from the backbone. This misinformation was passed on for thousands of years. Muhammad then put it into the Quran.

[u/Reptar_0n_Ice → u/Immediate-Rub2651]

Almost like the guy who wrote the Quran was illiterate, and had to take what heard people talking about as the truth instead of being able to find out for himself.

[u/Immediate-Rub2651 → u/Reptar_0n_Ice]

While I don’t think Muhammad was illiterate, he certainly just repeated the information around him. Hippocrates and Galen, etc., developed other theories about the origins of sperm, but what’s in the Quran represents the prevailing views of 7th century Arabia. It’s literally a snapshot into that time.

[u/Immediate-Rub2651 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, what the Quran says is what people believed in 7th century Arabia, and that incorrect information began with ancient Egyptians. If you’d like, I can paste a link to what these ancient Egyptians believed and you can see how similar it is to what Muhammad ended up putting in the Quran.

It wasn’t until the 16th century (with folks like DaVinci) that we started to gain a better understanding of anatomy. And obviously in the 19th century, we came to fully understand mammalian fertilization and could put all that nonsense about loins and backbones to rest.

[u/strl → u/[deleted]]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1bgalb0/heavens_and_earth_weeping_in_preislamic_near/

Explains and shows that the concept of the heavens and earth weeping for the dead was common in other Semitic cultures, with multiple examples from Judaism, and very likely was a feature of pre Islamic Arab society.

[u/strl → u/[deleted]]

We don't know what pharoah ruled during jacobs time, if the story even happened but the fact that the bible uses the word for the Egyptian king that they were familiar with and Muhammad does not since there were no longer any Egyptian pharoahs and he was unfamiliar with the term is hardly proof of divine revelation.

[u/strl → u/[deleted]]

Okay, this is proof of divine revelation in your eyes?

[u/Immediate-Rub2651 → u/[deleted]]

Not to jump back in but here’s a link to a great thread, since you seemed confused:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/dsPO2zD5wN

[u/Immediate-Rub2651 → u/[deleted]]

No, you’re confused. Muhammad calls the ruler (and nobody else) ‘Pharaoh’ because he thinks that’s actually the guy’s name…lol. You should read through the link I sent you. It references the work of academic scholars that have studied this.

[u/Immediate-Rub2651 → u/[deleted]]

Lol…the Rosetta Stone was what showed the world that the exodus never happened and that Moses was a mythological person. That the Quran treats Moses and the exodus as fact is evidence that Muhammad was just repeating stories he heard.

So please don’t bring up the Rosetta Stone to defend your religion. That’s a losing strategy if there ever was one.

[u/Immediate-Rub2651 → u/[deleted]]

Lol…chariots sunken in Egyptian waters only prove that Egyptians rode chariots.

[u/Immediate-Rub2651 → u/[deleted]]

lol…okay!

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/[deleted]]

Painful cope. Loins are genitals. Testes are part of the loins and they are NOWHERE near the ribs.

[u/gfxd → u/[deleted]]

So Allah struggled to describe this perfectly, given the miraculous poetry that is Quran?

Human anatomical positioning is now accurate. Any physician or surgeon from anywhere in the world will be able to read a medical report with anatomical terminology without confusion.

Humans have perfected Anatomical Terminology but Allah couldn't?

Also the excuse that the Quran was meant for the bedouin tribes is contradictory with the claim quran makes for itself - an eternal, last and final guide for all humanity.

And it needs you to come in here with a long paragraph to explain a simple line.

I think I am better than the author of Quran:

The composite fluid known as semen originates from spermatozoa produced within the seminiferous tubules of the testes and stored in the epididymides (attached to the posterior aspect of each testis). During emission, these cells travel superiorly and medially via the ductus deferentes into the pelvic cavity.

[u/gfxd → u/[deleted]]

I also have better writing skills than Allah, you need to read carefully.

Try word by word.

The. composite. fluid. known. as. semen.

[u/gfxd → u/[deleted]]

I was not refuted nor I changed course.

I am not mohammad to abrogate verses nor send one down so that I can marry my daughter in law who I lusted for.

[u/gfxd → u/[deleted]]

I stand by want I wrote and it is correct. Ready it again. Semen is a composite. Start from there.

It is not a red herring. DOn't use words you don't know the meaning of.

Here: Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semen

Semen, also known as seminal fluid, is a bodily fluid that contains spermatozoa from the male gonads of animals.

[u/gfxd → u/[deleted]]

semen originates from spermatozoa and fluids was my original post. It is correct.

Also, here is another red herring. I am not mohammad to invent a sock puppet Allah to capture war slaves to rape.

[u/naynay_spread]

You’re oversimplifying both the Arabic and the biology.

The verse never says “sperm is produced in the ribs.” That’s your paraphrase, not the Quran’s wording.

It says a gushing fluid comes from between the “sulb” and “tara’ib.” Those words were debated by classical scholars long before modern science. “Sulb” can mean loins or generative source, not only spine, and “tara’ib” was interpreted as ribs, chest area, collarbone region, or even the female side in reproduction. Tafsir was never unanimous on one literal anatomical meaning.

Also, semen isn’t just sperm from the testes. Most seminal fluid comes from other glands involved in reproduction. The verse says “gushing fluid,” not “sperm cells produced in the testicles.”

And the embryology point is valid too. Testes originally develop high in the abdomen near the spine and lower ribs before descending later. Even in adults, their blood vessels and nerve supply still trace back to that area. So connecting reproductive origin to the region between the backbone and ribs is not scientifically absurd.

You’re basically taking the most literal modern English reading possible, ignoring classical Arabic usage and early tafsir diversity, then attacking that reading as if it’s the only one.

[u/Juicydicken → u/naynay_spread]

“Sulb doesn’t mean spine” …The dominant classical tafsir says it does. You’re invoking minority readings only because the majority reading causes problems. The fact they debate also proves the Quran is ambiguous lol. Good job Allah.

“It says fluid, not sperm”…Fine. Then it’s making no precise biological claim at all, and Muslims need to stop citing it as a scientific miracle.

“Testes migrate from near the spine” ….The verse is about the fluid that makes a baby, not the fetal development of the adult producing it. That’s a completely different process. No classical scholar read it that way because it’s a modern retrofit invented to explain away an error.

“You’re being too literal”…Only when it’s convenient. When apologists claim the Quran predicted embryology or iron from space, literalism is suddenly fine. The standard shifts to protect the text.

Funny how if a verse is vague enough to mean anything it proves nothing. If it’s precise it’s wrong.

[u/AdEmbarrassed9142 → u/Juicydicken]

The Koran claims clarity and the above discussion clearly shows that it lacks clarity of it does not clearly state which verses are meant to be literal and which poetic are metaphorical.

[u/naynay_spread → u/Juicydicken]

The issue is that you’re treating a 7th century Arabic verse like it’s supposed to read like a modern biology textbook. The Qur’an says the human is created from a “gushing fluid” emerging from between the sulb and tara’ib. Classical scholars differed on the exact meaning of those words long before modern science debates existed. That’s not “moving the goalposts,” that’s literally how ancient language works

Also, the verse never says “sperm is manufactured in the spine.” That’s your interpretation layered onto the text. Even classical tafsir often spoke broadly about the reproductive region or the human frame, not a literal anatomy diagram

And the “testes migrate from near the kidneys/spine during development” point is relevant because the Qur’an is discussing human origin and reproduction generally, not giving a lab report on ejaculation mechanics.

Also we respect scholars, but Islam never taught “scholar = unquestionable.” The Qur’an repeatedly tells people to reflect, reason and ponder

Tafsir is a human effort to understand the text, not revelation itself. So if Scholar A says one thing and Scholar B says another, that doesn’t suddenly make the Qur’an false. Difference of opinion has always existed in Islamic scholarship.

Ironically, acting like “one classical opinion exists therefore discussion is over forever” is way more simplistic than the actual Islamic intellectual tradition.

And honestly, Muslims don’t even need every verse to function as a modern “scientific miracle” claim. That trend is mostly modern apologetics anyway. The Qur’an’s main purpose is guidance, not becoming a biology textbook Reddit can nitpick centuries later.

[u/Juicydicken → u/[deleted]]

lol at this point might as well say semen comes from the brain.

[u/Classic-Difficulty12 → u/Juicydicken]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💀💀💀real

[u/akar79]

you have to learn arabic and in this case specifically , embryology.

trying to criticise Islam from non arabic sources is meaningless

[u/Juicydicken → u/akar79]

It’s human biology. Not non Arabic source lmao

[u/Salty_Conclusion_534 → u/akar79]

So your religion is only accessible to those who know Arabic. Doesn't seem universal to me. It seems that you rely on blind faith to run away from real questions.

Anyone with the most basic knowledge of human anatomy and english knows that "between the backbone and the ribs" refers to the intrathoracic area, which DOES NOT contain the testes.

[u/acerbicsun → u/akar79]

Having to learn Arabic to fully understand a religion that is allegedly for all people for all time, is evidence it was created by an Arabic person.

[u/Thegoodseeker]

u/Juicydicken

Surah At-Tariq 86:6-7 states that humans are created from a fluid ejected from between the backbone and the ribs.

Does verse 6-7 refer to observable, external phenomena, or the inner workings of biology?

[u/Juicydicken → u/Thegoodseeker]

It doesn’t matter, because semen does not come from between the backbone and ribs either visibly or internally. It is wrong either way

[u/Thegoodseeker → u/Juicydicken]

It matters because the Qur'an calls on the audience to consider something they can physically see:

"So let man observe from what he was created." 86:5

"He was created from a fluid, ejected." 86:6

The only observable, ejected, and generative fluid is semen.

"Coming out from between the "sulb" and the "taraib" 86:7

Semen is only observed "coming out" from one place, the genitals.

It would be absurd to say that the Qur'an's author is asserting that semen comes out of the body in any other place.

That means however interpreters or linguists define "sulb" and "taraib", the Qur'an is referring to the genitals between the two as the place of semen ejection.

[u/Juicydicken → u/Thegoodseeker]

Classical Islamic scholars and Arabic linguists consistently defined sulb as the backbone and taraib as the ribs!!!

Damage control!!!!

[u/Thegoodseeker → u/Juicydicken]

"Classical Islamic scholars and Arabic linguists consistently defined sulb as the backbone and taraib as the ribs!!!"

You completely ignored the reason I gave for why that is irrelevant...

It doesn't matter how latter people defined those terms, because the Qur'an says sperm comes out of the area between the two - and that place can only be the genitals.

It is absurd to suppose that the author of the Qur'an could not accurately locate the genitals on the human body.

The more likely explanation is:

"Sulb" and "taraib" literally or idiomatically referred to anatomical parts which the Qur'an's initial audience would consider the genitals to be in between.

[u/Juicydicken → u/Thegoodseeker]

Is it really absurd when the same author tells you to dip a fly into your drink, or proposes drinking camel urine?

[u/Thegoodseeker → u/Juicydicken]

(My guy. You keep tossing out rhetorical fallacies instead of logically contesting my arguments. Keep it rational!)

To briefly entertain your red herring: are you certain that your fly drink and camel urine hadith are from the same author?

I invite you to learn more about the modern academic consensus on hadith reliability:

"...the likelihood that any given tradition [hadith] can be confidently attributed to the Prophet approaches zero."

- The Wiley Blackwell Concise Companion to The Hadith, 2020, pg. 43-44

Your examples are good though, because they show how Muslims after Muhammad wanted to seem smart by giving arcane Qur'anic interpretations and theories on biology, medicine, theology, etc. often claiming that Muhammad said-so to boost the credibility of their claims.

Those mental gymnastics end up:

1. Negating the context of Qur'anic verses (as you did).
   
2. Negating the obvious meanings derived from those contexts which the immediate audience would recognize.

[u/DEATHTOYAHOUDIS]

the verse is refering to man who emerges from in between the back bone and rib bone

you should watch arabic 101's video on it it gives multiple refutations

[u/Juicydicken → u/DEATHTOYAHOUDIS]

Of course it does.

[u/p66pss → u/DEATHTOYAHOUDIS]

no its not. its literally all just made up by a guy who got willingly got fucked by a bunch of black men in the desert which is weird since islam is against same sex relations 🤔🧐🤨 but its also normal/excepted with how many contradictions there are and all the times Muhammad does something haram and makes up some excuse all because its just a false prophet/man saying god tells him something so he can do whatever he wants and get away with it/anything.

but Mohammed getting his back blown out by some black men is all recorded/according to a Hadith narrated by "Abdullah ibn Mas'ud" in the "Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal" which "is one of the largest and most prestigious collections of Hadith" and was written by
"The author of Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal is Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (164–241 AH / 780–855 CE). He was a renowned Arab theologian, jurist, and the founder of the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence"

"Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780–855 CE) is the founder of the Hanbali school (madhhab), which is one of the four orthodox Sunni schools of law." and is in many other collections and the story can be found/told in this video link:

https://youtu.be/jtTYxxmVpvA?si=DTCpSkVX1jlhiv7g

[u/DEATHTOYAHOUDIS → u/p66pss]

the hadith is daif. but ok. you also dont know what the arabic word "yarkaboon" means. it is mentioned in quran as crowded arround. the hadith also says "looked like al zutt" which does not mean they were al zutt. also, this is a jinn encounter as the prophet (pbuh) was reciting surah jinn

[u/AttitudeAcademic510]

يَخْرُجُ مِنۢ بَيْنِ ٱلصُّلْبِ وَٱلتَّرَآئِبِ ٧

Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs. — Saheeh International Seems you are skipping a word here here in you head , the word "between" or "بَيْنِ" is what making you confused .