In response to your writing: "Does Semen Emanate from between...", Mr. Sam Shamoun has posted the following comments (at http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Science/semenproduction.htm):

To avoid attributing a scientific error to the Quran, some Muslims claim that the Quran is not referring to the production of semen. Rather, they claim that the Quran is referring to the area that supplies the testes with the necessary blood supply to produce semen. Typical of such a Muslim response is the following proposed by the Learner:

The latter part of this verse, i.e. "emanating from a place between the (lower) back and the (lower) ribs", has generally been taken to imply the part of the abdomen that lies between these points. In Figure 1, this part has been roughly marked by the red triangle ABC. This implication, obviously, has led the Muslims to believe that the sperm itself or its basic ingredients are made within the (roughly) marked area. I, being a novice in the related fields, asked a few of my doctor friends about the making of the male sperm and the supply of its ingredients to the ultimate place of its making. In response, among a few other things, I was told that although the male sperm is formed in the testes, yet the blood supply which, obviously, is integral to the making of the sperm comes from between the ribs and the back. I was also told by one of my doctor friends that the cells that form the sperm originate from between the ribs and the back. If this is true, then the words of the Qur'an are not scientifically incorrect, as the words "emanating from a place between the (lower) back and the (lower) ribs", do not necessarily imply "emanating in its final shape" only, but can also cover "initial emanation". (Source: http://www.understanding-islam.com/qq.htm; bold emphasis ours)

Learner is not alone here. Both Dr. Jamal Badawi and Dr. Zakir Naik have made the same exact claim regarding the meaning of S. 86:5-7. We recommend that our readers view Dr. Badawi's debate with Jay Smith, Is the Quran the Word of God?, and Dr. Naik's lecture Islam, Medical Science and Dietary Laws given at King Fahad Hospital, Jeddah Saudi Arabia (January 28, 1996) for the documentation.

The problem with the above explanation is that Dr. Naik, Dr. Badawi and the Learner are Sunni Muslims. In fact, at the Learner's homepage one will find the following claim:

At 'Understanding Islam', we present the explanation of Islam in the light only of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). (Source: http://www.understanding-islam.com/; bold emphasis ours)

This means that instead of asking doctors what S. 86:6-7 means, or giving their own private interpretation of the text, they must consult the interpretation given by Muhammad and his followers regarding the correct meaning of this passage.

Later on, commenting on your explanation of the verse (Al-Taariq 86: 7 - 8), Mr. Sam Shamoun writes:

Learner also proposes an alternate theory regarding the meaning of S. 86:5-7. The Learner claims that the reference to "the back and the ribs" is a euphemism referring to the male sexual organ. The Learner explains why the Quran doesn't simply explicitly refer to the male sexual organ in unambiguous terms:

As far as the first question is concerned, it is obvious that the Qur'an, as any decent and sober literature would do, has only avoided direct reference (in words) to the male sexual organ. Through the words that it has used, the Qur'an has made a complete euphemistic reference to the point of emanation of the sperm, while successfully avoiding naming it. Naming it would definitely have negatively affected the literary value of the Qur'an. As far as the objection that the euphemistic style of the Qur'an, in this case, has negatively affected the clarity of the message and has resulted in confusion regarding the implication of the verse is concerned, in my opinion, it seems quite out of place. The mere fact that the previous verse had referred to 'the fluid gushing forth' (semen), which is followed by the words 'which emanates from...', brings to mind the source of the 'gushing forth' of the fluid, without much difficulty. Furthermore, one should not forget that even if the male sperm was actually formed within the two stipulated points, the mention of this source of formation of the male sperm had absolutely no pertinence with the message of the Qur'an and the information would have been of absolutely no relevance to the Arabs of old - the direct addressees of the Qur'an. The mere realization of the point that the Qur'an does not refer to any such information, even if it is true, that has no relevance to its basic message, guides one to the simple physical (non-scientific and uncomplicated) interpretation of the verse under consideration. (bold emphasis ours)

The only problem behind the Learner's reasoning is that the Quran does in fact explicitly refer to the sexual parts of a human, specifically the sexual areas of a woman, in rather vulgar fashion. For instance, in narrating the virginal conception and birth of Jesus the Quran unashamedly refers to Mary as one that guarded her sexual organ:

And (remember) her who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic-farjahaa): We breathed into her from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all people. S. 21:91

And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic-farjahaa) and We breathed INTO IT of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). S. 66:12

Mr. Sam Shamoun further writes:

... Another rather explicit reference to a woman's sexual area includes:

"Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards, and maidens of SWELLING BREASTS (kawa'ib), like of age, and a cup overflowing." S. 78:33 Arberry (see also Dawood, Rodwell)

Then finally he writes:

In light of the preceding examples, we find the explanation given by the Learner to be without merit. Both the Quran and Islamic traditions are quite explicit in describing the sexual body parts of women, often in quite graphic details. Therefore, based on the Learner's own criteria, the Quran cannot be categorized as decent literature due to its graphic depiction of a woman's sexual organ, or the claim that Allah breathed into a woman's sexual organ causing her to conceive, or of its statement that maidens in paradise will have firm round breasts. In the report of the conception of Jesus the language of the Quran is just plain vulgar and out of place. Regarding the description of the maidens of paradise there is another aspect still. It is not a neutral statement of factual information (as the statement "these maidens will be perfect in every regard" would have been) but the description is designed to awake sexual desire in the listeners, and the longing to make it to this place where those maidens are waiting for the faithful. As such the Quran is using a direct appeal to the sexual desires of men to convince them to believe in and fight for the cause of Islam. This is very similar to the tricks in modern day commercials where the advertizing companies use images of naked women to sell cars or any other products. Finishing this detour, we conclude that the Learner's explanation seems to be more of an attempt to save the Quran from a gross scientific error than a correct interpretation of the text in question.

Would you like to comment?

Regards,

Khalid

In the referred citation, Mr. Shamoun has tried to present a refutation of my explanation on two bases. Firstly, he writes:

The problem with the above explanation is that Dr. Naik, Dr. Badawi and the Learner are Sunni Muslims.

Being a 'Sunni Muslim', according to Mr. Shamoun implies:

This means that instead of asking doctors what S. 86:6-7 means, or giving their own private interpretation of the text, they must consult the interpretation given by Muhammad and his followers regarding the correct meaning of this passage.

I would like to present the following clarifications for my readers:

• Mr. Shamoun has declared me to be a 'Sunni' Muslim. My readers are well aware of the fact that I do not ascribe to any one or the other Muslim sects. I am neither a Sunni nor a Shiite. I am only a 'Muslim'.

• Mr. Shamoun has implied that I asked about the meaning of the related Qur'anic verse from doctors. If Mr. Shamoun would care to refer back to my cited statement, he would see that I did not ask any doctors about the 'meaning of S. 86:6-7'. On the contrary, I had asked my doctor friends about "the making of the male sperm and the supply of its ingredients to the ultimate place of its making". I am sure my readers (hopefully Mr. Shamoun as well) can easily comprehend the difference between asking about the 'meaning of S. 86:6-7' and asking about 'a physiological reality'.

• Mr. Shamoun says that 'Sunni' Muslims cannot give their own interpretation of the Qur'anic text without 'consulting' the interpretations ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions. After this, Mr. Shamoun, in his referred article declares:

Once this is done, one discovers that both Muhammad and his followers understood the passage in a manner completely incompatible with modern medical and scientific discoveries regarding the human anatomy.

It may come as a surprise to some of my readers to note that nothing in this matter is ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). Thus, it is quite difficult to comprehend how Mr. Shamoun can say that the Prophet's understanding in this regard is 'incompatible' with modern medical and scientific discoveries. However, Ibn Katheer has indeed ascribed a particular opinion regarding the related verse to Ibn Abbas (ra) - one of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh). I am sure all the 'Sunnis' who have pondered on the verse must have 'consulted' the opinion ascribed to Ibn Abbas (ra) - and some may even have accepted it - and if found unacceptable, would have rejected it as either wrongly ascribed to Ibn Abbas (ra) or as one of his 'incorrect' opinions.

Mr. Shamoun is requested to keep in mind that even if his explanation of the restrictions that apply on the 'Sunni', in interpreting the text of the Qur'an, are accepted to be correct, they only state that a 'Sunni' must 'consult' the opinions ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions. They do not state that a 'Sunni' - by definition -is bound to 'accept' all opinions ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions.

In view of the stated points, I do not consider Mr. Shamoun's first comment to be of any significance. I would, indeed, be interested in being informed about any mistakes in my opinion and understanding of the referred verse, but if Mr. Shamoun is only interested in informing people that my opinion is different from the one ascribed to Ibn Abbas (ra), or any other scholar of the past, then I do not consider such comments to refute my opinion, in the least - though Mr. Shamoun, nevertheless, has all the right to do so.

In his second point, Mr. Shamoun has once again avoided to comment directly on my explanation of the verses under consideration. He has, however, commented on one of my statements in that explanation. I had written:

As far as the first question is concerned, it is obvious that the Qur'an, as any decent and sober literature would do, has only avoided direct reference (in words) to the male sexual organ. Through the words that it has used, the Qur'an has made a complete euphemistic reference to the point of emanation of the sperm, while successfully avoiding naming it. Naming it would definitely have negatively affected the literary value of the Qur'an.

While responding to this statement, Mr. Shamoun has tried to prove that the Qur'an, because of its 'explicit' references to the female sexual organs, is not a 'decent and sober' literature. It should be kept in mind that this response does not, by itself, refute my explanation of the verse. On the contrary, it only raises some questions regarding the literary standards and style of the Qur'an.

According to Mr. Shamoun, Al-Tehreem 66: 12 and Al-Nabaa 78: 33 entail 'vulgar' references to women's sexual organs.

Before I present my viewpoint regarding the language and style of the referred verses, I would like to point out the fact that the concept of what constitutes 'vulgarity' in a literature and what kind of references are acceptable in a decent literature is largely dependent upon the values and acceptable standards of the particular culture in which that literature is produced and to which it primarily addresses. The standard regarding what constitutes 'vulgarity' and what does not in a piece of literature, can vary from one culture to another. Thus, a particular style of speech may be considered quite acceptable in one cultural background, while it may not be considered as such in another. Furthermore, sometimes a particular word or a phrase if replaced by a detailed explanation of that word or phrase may not remain as 'decent' and 'sober' as that word or phrase itself. For instance, consider the word 'virgin'. The word 'virgin' does not entail much of an element of vulgarity about it. However, if the word is replaced by its more explicit and physical explanation, then it may not remain as acceptable in 'decent and sober' literature. Likewise, if the words 'adolescent' and 'puberty' are replaced by their more explicit and detailed physical explanations, they may not remain as 'decent' and 'sober' as they may seem without such explanations.

The references cited by Mr. Shamoun seem 'vulgar' not because they really are as 'explicit' and 'vulgar', but because Mr. Shamoun and the cited commentators of the Qur'an have replaced some of the words and phrases used in the cited verses of the Qur'an, with their 'explicit' explanations. For instance, let us take the first of the two cited verses. A more literal translation of the verse should be:

And [mention] Mary, the daughter of Imraan, who guarded her private parts^[1]. Then We breathed into it of Our spirit.

It should be kept in mind that the word 'Farj' (which is used in this verse), has never been considered a 'vulgar' or an unduly 'explicit' word in the Arabic language. In fact, those who know the Arabic language would agree that the word is actually used for sexual organs only metaphorically, just as the words 'private parts' are used symbolically for the sexual organs.

I really do not know how anyone can consider the cited verse 'vulgar' or unduly 'explicit'. Nevertheless, if one were to unnecessarily explain the words 'private parts', and go into 'explicit' details regarding the implication of the phrase 'guarded her private parts', then, obviously, it would sound much more 'explicit' than it really is.

The same is the case of the word 'Kawaaib', used in the second cited verse. The word is used for girls in their prime and most attractive age^[2] - or girls of a 'ripe' age. This 'age' has generally been defined by the linguists of the Arabic language as that when a girl becomes physically mature and when her breasts are fully developed. Now, obviously, if one were to replace the word used by the Qur'an by its more 'picturesque' explanation, then a person who is not directly aware of the Arabic language, may perceive the verse of the Qur'an as unduly 'explicit'.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

August 29, 2001