634–670 AD
Al-Harith
ibn Kaladah
Al-Harith ibn Kaladah (Arabic: الحارث بن
كلدة; d. 13 AH/634–35)
was, according to traditional sources, the oldest known Arab physician and a
companion of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad.[1] He is said to have traveled to
Gundeshapur in search of medical knowledge before the advent of Islam.
Al-Harith ibn Kaladah was, according to traditional sources, the oldest known
Arab physician and a companion of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. He is said to
have traveled to Gundeshapur in search of medical knowledge before the advent
of Islam
Nafi ibn al-Harith bin Kalada al-Thaqafi (in Arabic نافع بن الحارث
بن كلدة الثقفي ) (died 670 AD) was an Arab physician of
the Banu Thaqif and was recommended by Muhammad and treated Sa`d ibn Abi
Waqqas, and when Abu Bakr was dying, he designated his illness as poisoning.
Trained in Yemen,[1] he is reported to have written a book
named Dialog in Medicine. He was the chief physician and teacher at the Academy
of Gundishapur in Persia.
He was half brother of Nufay ibn al-Harith (also known as
Abu Bakra bin Kalada al-Thaqafi at-Thaifi).
The physician al-Harith bin Kalada was born in the middle of
the 6th century in the tribe of Banu Thaqif in Ta’if. Some historians maintain
that he received his medical education at the Jundishapur medical school where
he learnt the teachings of Aristotle and Galen.[1] According to these
historians:
“The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be
sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur
rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam Jundishapur
was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time,
combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan
atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine.”[2]
Following this narrative some historians and commentators
believe the Prophet Muhammad plagiarised Aristotle’s and Galen’s accounts of
the developing human embryo via bin Kalada, and sought medical advice from
him.[3] This is unfounded for various reasons.
1. Claiming the Prophet sought medical advice from bin
Kalada neither implies nor stipulates the fact that he copied bin Kalada’s
work. The onus of proof is on the one who is making the claim. From a
historical perspective there is no direct and explicit evidence that indicates
the Prophet manufactured his views on embryology via bin Kalada.
2. Early historical sources on the Prophet’s life illustrate
and emphasise the integrity of his character. He was not a liar and to assert
as much is indefensible. The presumption that he copied bin Kalada, while
maintaining the Qur’an to be the word of God, is therefore inconceivable. He
was known even by the enemies to his message as the “Trustworthy”.[4]
Further proof of the Prophet’s reliability and credibility
is enforced and substantiated by the fact that a liar usually lies for some
worldly gain, but the Prophet rejected all worldly aspirations, and suffered
tremendously for his message.[5] He rejected the riches and power he was
offered to stop promulgating his message. Significantly, he was persecuted for
his beliefs; boycotted and exiled from his beloved city, Makkah; starved of
food; and stoned by children to the point where his blood drenched his legs.
His wife passed away and his beloved companions were tortured and persecuted.[6]
The late Emeritus Professor in Arabic and Islamic Studies W. Montgomery Watt in
Muhammad at Mecca explores this:
“His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the
high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader,
and the greatness of his ultimate achievement – all argue his fundamental
integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it
solves.”[7]
3. It is generally believed that bin Kalada graduated from
the Persian medical school at Jundishapur. However, the existence of such a
school has recently been questioned by a number of leading historians. For
instance David C. Lindberg in his book The Beginnings of Western Science
highlights the legendary status of the school:
“An influential mythology has developed around Nestorian
activity in the city of Gondeshapur [Jundishapur] in south-western Persia.
According to the often-repeated legend, the Nestorians turned Gondeshapur into
a major intellectual center by the sixth century, establishing what some
enthusiasts have chosen to call a university, where instruction in all of the
Greek disciplines could be obtained. It is alleged that Gondeshapur had a
medical school, with a curriculum based on Alexandrian textbooks, and a
hospital modeled on Byzantine hospitals, which kept the realm supplied with
physicians trained in Greek medicine. Of greatest importance, Gondeshapur is
held to have played a critical role in the translation of Greek scholarship
into Near Eastern languages and, indeed, to have been the single most important
channel by which Greek science passed to the Arabs. Recent research has
revealed a considerably less dramatic reality. We have no persuasive evidence
for the existence of a medical school or a hospital at Gondeshapur, although,
there seems to have been a theological school and perhaps an attached
infirmary. No doubt Gondeshapur was the scene of serious intellectual endeavour
and a certain amount of medical practice —it supplied a string of physicians
for the Abbasid court at Baghdad beginning in the eighth century— but it is
doubtful that it ever became a major center of medical education or of
translating activity. If the story of Gondeshapur is unreliable in its details,
the lesson it was meant to teach is nonetheless valid.”[8]
Roy Porter, a social historian of medicine, raises the
contention if whether a medical school actually existed there. Porter in his
book The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity writes:
“Jundishapur was certainly a meeting place for Arab, Greek,
Syriac and Jewish intellectuals, but there is no evidence that any medical
academy existed there. Only in the early ninth century did Arab–Islamic learned
medicine take shape.”[9]
4. Historians such as Manfred Ullman and Franz Rosenthal are
skeptical about the material referring to bin Kalada. They refer to him as a
legendary figure,[10] which has literary allusions to characters of fictitious
creation. Professor Gerald Hawting, in his essay The Development of the
Biography of al-Harith ibn Kalada and the Relationship between Medicine and
Islam, writes:
“In these latter sources the information about al-Harith is
fragmentary, references to his profession as a doctor are not consistent and,
where they occur, tend to be incidental, and there seems to be little
information about the nature of his medicine or detail about his life.”[11]
From this perspective, using unreliable or inconclusive
historical narratives concerning bin Kalada’s “profession as a doctor” serve to
weaken the argument that the Prophet copied the 7th century physician.
5. There appears to be no evidence of a major medical school
in either the 6th or 7th century. The academic medic and historian Plinio
Prioreschi in his book A History of Medicine highlights that there are no Persian
sources that substantiate the claim that Jundishapur played a significant role
in the history of medicine.[12]
6. There are historical reports stating that bin Kalada
converted to Islam and was considered a companion of the Prophet. Ethnographer
and linguist, William Brice in his book An Historical Atlas of Islam, writes:
“He was converted to Islam and had acquired the status of
one of the Prophet’s Companions.”[13]
Lecturer and novelist, Abubakr Asadullah expresses a similar
position:
“According to nearly all traditional sources, the first
known Arab physician was al-Harith ibn Kalada, a graduate of Junishapur and a
Jewish convert to Islam, a contemporary of Prophet Mohammad.”[14]
In light of this, the Prophet copying bin Kalada is highly
improbable as it is irrational to assert that an educated physician would
convert to Islam, and follow the Prophet’s message, had he known or suspected
the Prophet of copying his work on embryology. However, it must be noted that
there is uncertainty as to whether bin Kalada embraced Islam and reports
relating to his conversion are not authentic.[15]
7. The traditional sources that elaborate on bin Kalada also
convey information relating to the Prophet, including his miracles and the
supernatural eloquence of the qur’anic discourse. One of these sources is
Ta’rikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk.[16] It underlines various aspects of the life and
character of the Prophet including his truthfulness. Since this source is used
for sound historical information, insight, and as a point of reference on bin
Kalada, reason necessitates that it also be viewed as reliable with regard to
its discussion on the unquestionable integrity of the Prophet. Therefore, to
accept the historical sources that elaborate on bin Kalada would be tantamount
to accepting the truthfulness of the Prophet, thereby undermining any claim of
copying and plagiarisation.
8. Bin Kalada was from al-Ta’if, a town which came into
contact with Islam only in the 8th year of the Islamic calendar, and it was
during this period that Islamic historical sources first mention the phycisian.
Therefore, it would be impossible to suggest the Prophet Muhammad copied Bin
Kalada’s views on the developing human because chapter 23 of the Qur’an and its
verses referring to embryology had already been revealed by the time Bin Kalada
met the Prophet Muhammad.[17]
9. The link between bin Kalada and the Hellenistic tradition
is doubted by historians. Gerald Hawting explains that due to the scientific
tradition in the Golden Age, historians and biographers of the time sought
links to established institutions such as Jundishapur, to associate Islam with
the science of the day:
“In this context… [Hawting sees]… a motive for the
elaboration of the links of al-Harith ibn Kalada with Persia and its Hellenistic
tradition.”[18] In view of this, whether bin Kalada had any formal link to
Galen’s and Aristotle’s view on the development of the human embryo remains
inconclusive and so adopting the plagiarisation thesis via bin Kalada does not
carry much weight. For a lengthy discussion on this topic please refer to
Khalid al-Khazaraji’s and Elias Kareem’s essay Was al-Harith bin Kaladah the
Source of the Prophet’s Medical Knowledge.”[19]
In the late 1990s a paper appeared on a Christian missionary
website under the title
“Embryology in the Qur’an”
.Writing under the pen name of Lactantius, the author
allegesthat the descriptions of human prenatal development as mentioned in the
Qur’an had
beenplagiarised from the writings of ancient Greek
physicians, notably Galen. Such writings werealleged to have been transmitted
to the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632) through one of his
companions, al-Harith
bin Kaladah (d. 634-5),
who is said to have studied medicine at an oldand noted
medical school at Jundishapur (southern Persia) where instruction in all of
theGreek disciplines could be obtained. Jundishapur is said to have played a
critical role in thetranslation of Greek scholarship into Near Eastern
languages and to have been the single mostimportant channel by which Greek science
passed to the Arabs. Al-Harith later came back to
Arabia about the beginning of Islam and settled down at
Ta’if. He is also said to have been
sufficiently known for his care that the Prophet Muhammad
referred sick people to him, and(according to some accounts) to have been
consulted during the final illnesses of the last twoof the Caliphs.
Consequently, Lactantius establishes what he perceives to be a clear
link between the Greek science taught to al-Harith bin Kaladah at
Jundishapur and the medicalknowledge of the Prophet Muhammad.Introducing
al-Harith bin Kaladah as an early graduate of Jundishapur, Lactantius writes:
According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia
and al-Qifti [37], the mostcelebrated early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor
named al Harith Ibn Kalada,
who was an older contemporary of Muhammed. "He was born
probably about themiddle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu
Thaqif. He traveled through
Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the
medical sciences atthe great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was
intimately acquainted with the
medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen."
[38]He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes
[39]. Laterhe became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according
to the
Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical
advice from him [40].He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his
"teachings undoubtedly
influenced the latter" [i.e., Muhammed] [41].
"Such medical knowledge as Muhammedpossessed, he may well have acquired
from Haris bin Kalda [
, an Arab, who issaid to have left the desert for a while
and gone to Jundi Shapur to study
medicine...On his return Haris settled in Mecca and became
the foremost physicianof the Arabs of the desert. Whether he ever embraced
Islam is uncertain, but this didnot prevent the Prophet from sending his sick
friends to consult him.
The Medicine of al-Harith
Citing Siddiq’s
Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature
as evidence, Lactantiusmakes the following claims about
al-Harith
He was born probably about the middle of the
sixth century , at Ta'if, in the tribe of
Banu Thaqif. He traveled [sic] through Yemen and then
Persia where he received his
education in the medical sciences at the great medical
school of Jundi-Shapur and
thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings
of Aristotle,
Hippocrates and Galen
[38] M. Z. Siddiqi (Calcutta University, 1959) Studies in
Arabic and Persian MedicalLiterature, p. 6-7
But this citation must surely be a fabrication on the
part of Lactantius! Compare the citation
above with the following extract taken from Siddiqi’s
Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature
“He was born probably about the middle of the fifth century ,
at Ta if, in the tribe ofBanu Thaqif. He traveled [sic] through Yaman and
Persia where he learnt Music andreceived his education in the medical science
in the great medical school of
Jundishapur
. Having completed his studies he practised as a physician
in Persia andmade much money by means of his profession. During this time he
was called to thecourt of king Chosroes, with whom he had a long conversation.
He came back toArabia about the beginning of Islam and settled down at Ta if,
where Abu l-Khayr, a king of Yaman, came to see him, in connection with a
certain disease from which hewas suffering and, on being cured, rewarded him
with much money and a slave girl. Hedied in the reign of
’Umar the 2nd Caliph.”
Where is Siddiqi’s statement that al -Harith was intimately
acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle,
Hippocrates and Galen”
The most Siddiqi concludes regarding al-Harith is
his acquaintance with the Hippocraticsystem of medicine yet this conclusion is
based on al Harith’s
supposed medical instructionat Jundishapur and on his
alleged conversation with Chosroes. However, as we have seenabove, there
appears to be no evidence of any major medical school at Jundishapur in
eitherthe sixth or seventh century. The connection between Jundishapur and
al-Harith is notsupported by any reliable evidence and should be
rejected.Although documents concerning medicine in pre-Islamic Arabic are rare,
there is evidence of the usual folk medicine, a mixture of “ magic ”
and crude remedies often being practiced.
From the pre-Islamic to the early Islamic period there
were no significant changes inthe practice of medicine. The Koran does not
mention medicine and early medicalpractices are described in Hadith... all
[Hadith collections] have their own chapter onmedical teaching and
recommendations (
Kitab at-Tibb , that is, “Chapter” or “Book
of Medicine”). These collections are our main sources of information about
early Islamic
medicine.In these documents we find that such medicine
continued to be practiced for sometime, Camel urine and milk were common
remedies, various vegetable products (e.g.henna, olive oil) and other animal
products (e.g. sheep fat, honey) were alsoconsidered effective. Wine was
forbidden, even for medicinal use. The poet Labid
This date appears to be an error by Siddiqi. Al-Harith
was born in the sixth century, yet Lactantius makes an unexplained alteration
to Siddiqi’s text by changing “fifth century” to “sixth century”.
mentions boiled urine given to a sick person, in
fact, camel urine may have been a verycommon remedy and human urine was used to
treat camels.In them [i.e., the camels] are infections of the plague of violent
cough, andbuboes with pustules sharp and prominent like the nipples of breasts
of youngmaidens. They suffer from mange, and they have been anointed all over
with ghalqah
, a stinking ointment, and the urine of women whose
monthly courseshave ceased.As for surgery, although cauterization was less used
than cupping, both proceduresseem to have been the most common surgical
techniques. Supernatural and magicexplanations of diseases were still
mentioned, for example, epilepsy was consideredthe result of demons entering
the body, and the plague the result of the sting of a jinni
(a spirit, often malevolent). Magic spells as
remedies were usually prohibited except inspecial cases (e.g., snake or
scorpion sting).
As Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) observes in his famous
al-Muqaddimah
, the pre-Islamic Arabsused a type of folk medicine based
on herbs and plants tested by experience and handeddown. Ibn Khaldun classifies
al-Harith bin Kaladah
’s medicine
as traditional Arab folk medicine:
Civilized Bedouins have a kind of medicine which is
mainly based upon individualexperience. They inherit its use from the shaykhs
and old women of the tribe. Someof it may occasionally be
correct. However, (that kind of medicine) is not based uponany natural norm or
upon any conformity (of the treatment) to temper the humors. Muchof this sort
of medicine existed among the Arabs. They had well-known physicians,such as
al-Harith b. Kaladah and others.The medicine mentioned in religious tradition
is of the (Bedouin) type. It is in no waypart of the divine revelation. (Such
medical matters) were merely (part of) Arab customand happened to be mentioned
in connection with the circumstances of the Prophet,like other things that were
customary in his generation.
Al-Harith bin Kaladah is
acknowledged as a Bedouin physician whose practice of medicinewas not based on
the knowledge of the “natural norms ” or on the “humors”
- the termsusually associated with Greek medicine. His
art was free from scientific obscurities andcomplications.When al-
Harith treated the sick Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, the
treatment described involved theuse of dates. This underlines the character of
al-Harith: an Arab doctor whose medicine wassimple, commonsensical, and
self-reliant , and free from scientific obscurities andcomplications. Al-Harith
placed an onus on the individual to look after themselves bysensible diet and
habits. All the therapies that he apparently advocated reflect
traditionalpractices of using locally available plants. All of these are
characteristic of Propheticmedicine
the medical ideas and treatments followed by the Prophet.
The failure of theauthorities to send any medical aid to a Muslim army when an
epidemic broke out in theircamp in Syria, and the treatment of the death-wound
of Umar the second Caliph with milk
Prioreschi (2001, pp. 205-206).
The Muqaddimah , often translated as Introduction or Prolegomenon,
is the most important Islamichistory of the premodern
world. Written by the great fourteenth-century Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun,
thismonumental work laid down the foundations of several fields of knowledge,
including philosophy of history,sociology, ethnography, and economics.
An example of al-Harith’s medical remedy: “
So he [Hairth] made him a medicine from a mixture of
dates and hilbah (a yellow grain) with fat and made him drink it. It was as if
he was never ill.
Narrated by Ibn Mandahand Abû Nu`aym.(see Ibn al-Athir,
1993, p. 469).
the medicine of al-Harith bin Kaladah and that found in
the Prophetic medicinereflect traditional practices rather than the Hellenistic
tradition generally associated withJundishapur.
Conclusion
The existence of an old and noted medical school
connected with Jundishapur has recentlybeen called into question by a number of
scholars casting doubt on whether such a medicalschool actually ever existed
there. The connection between Jundishapur and al-Harith is alsonot supported by
any reliable evidence and should be considered a legend. The accounts
of al-Harith bin Kaladah were it seems elaborated over time to the extent
that they now includeconflicting elements.
His personality is surrounded by a host of legends which
have secured afoothold in both historical and biographical literature. The medicine of al-Harith binKaladah and
that found in the Prophetic medicine reflect traditional practices rather than
theHellenistic tradition generally associated with Jundishapur. Moreover, the
Qur’anic verses dealing with human prenatal development cannot be attributed to
al-Harith bin Kaladah asthese verses were revealed long before al-Harith came
into contact with Islam during the last year(s) of the Prophet’s life.
An analysis of Hamza Tzortzis’ refutation of the
suggestion that al-Harith bin Kalada was the source of the Prophet’s
medical knowledge
The similarities between ancient Greek theories
concerning the various stages of the developing human embryo and what we read
in the Qur’an are very striking. (see here for details) It has led many to
suggest that this is further evidence that Mohammad, rather than God/Allah, was
the author of the Qur’an and to look for ways in which he might have
encountered these theories. It is not surprising, then, that the famous centre
of learning at Gundishapur in ancient Persia has been put forward as one of the
possible sources, since there is convincing evidence to suggest that the
learning of the ancient Hellenes was translated, transmitted and discussed
there, where coincidentally one of Mohammad’s most trusted followers also
studied.
Hamza starts his refutation of this theory thus: some
historians and commentators believe the Prophet Muhammad plagiarised
Aristotle’s and Galen’s accounts of the developing human embryo via bin Kalada,
and sought medical advice from him.[3] This is unfounded for various reasons.
He continues: Claiming the Prophet sought medical advice from bin Kalada
neither implies nor stipulates the fact that he copied bin Kalada’s work. The
onus of proof is on the one who is making the claim. From a historical
perspective there is no direct and explicit evidence that indicates the Prophet
manufactured his views on embryology via bin Kalada.
Surely if Mohammad’s close companion is known to have
studied at Gundishapur where Greek theories about embryology were discussed,
and then those same theories appear in the Qur’an, it does indicate at least a
connection and one worth considering as a possible source.
Hamza’s next point is dubious to say the least. Early
historical sources on the Prophet’s life illustrate and emphasise the integrity
of his character. He was not a liar and to assert as much is indefensible. The
presumption that he copied bin Kalada, while maintaining the Qur’an to be the
word of God, is therefore inconceivable. He was known even by the enemies to
his message as the “Trustworthy”. [..]The Prophet rejected all worldly
aspirations […]he rejected riches and power.
Hamza is right in his assertion that there is much
evidence to suggest that Mohammad was regarded as honest in his dealings with
others and this may indeed make it less likely than otherwise that he should
have copied Greek theories, but it certainly does not make it “inconceivable”.
Many apparently honest and trustworthy men have been tempted to behave
disgracefully throughout history – why should Mohammad be any different? And to
suggest that the Prophet rejected riches and power contradicts huge swathes of
evidence from the ahadith and Qur’an itself: “Soon will your Lord give you so
much you shall be well pleased.... Did He not find you poor and made you
rich?" 93:4...
The next point in Hamza’s refutation seems at first
glance more difficult to counter: the existence of such a school (Gundishapur)
has recently been questioned by a number of leading historians. He goes on to
quote from David C Lindberg’s book, The Beginnings of Western Science: We have
no persuasive evidence for the existence of a medical school or a hospital at
Gondeshapur, although, there seems to have been a theological school and
perhaps an attached infirmary. No doubt Gondeshapur was the scene of serious
intellectual endeavour and a certain amount of medical practice. So the scale
and nature of the school at Gundishapur is being questioned, but not its
existence. It was, to quote Hamza’s own evidence, “the scene of serious
intellectual endeavour”. Hamza then goes on to quote from Roy Porter’s, The
Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity: Jundishapur was
certainly a meeting place for Arab, Greek, Syriac and Jewish intellectuals. So
the best evidence Hamza can come up with to prove that Gundishapur could not
have been the source of Mohammad’s Greek embryology knowledge, admits to the
fact that there was a centre of learning there where “where serious
intellectual endeavour” took place and where Arabs and Greeks and Jewish
intellectuals met. And let us not forget that Hamza was presumably choosing his
evidence very carefully to throw the best possible light on his argument.
Hamza’s next point bizarrely asks us to question the very
existence of al-Harith bin Kalada, suggesting that he may have been a
“legendary” figure or a “fictitious creation”: Historians such as Manfred
Ullman and Franz Rosenthal are skeptical about the material referring to bin
Kalada. They refer to him as a legendary figure,[10] which has literary
allusions to characters of fictitious creation. I find it surprising, to say
the least, that Hamza seems to question the existence of a Companion of the
Prophet who is actually quoted in the hadith: “Another doctor, Al-Harith
ibn Kalada said: That which has killed mankind is the introduction of food on
top of food before it has been digested”
Indeed, it seems that Hamza can’t quite decide whether
bin Kalada’s non-existence is worth pursuing or not, since a few lines on we
read this: There are historical reports stating that bin Kalada converted to
Islam and was considered a companion of the Prophet. Ah – so he did exist,
after all… Hamza then quotes someone called Abubakr Asadullah who, confusingly,
seems to think bin Kalada was a physician, and whom he calls a graduate
of that non-existent medical school… “According to nearly all traditional
sources, the first known Arab physician was al-Harith ibn Kalada, a graduate of
Junishapur and a Jewish convert to Islam, a contemporary of Prophet Mohammad.
To confuse matters still further, Hamza then uses the
fact that bin Kalada was an “educated physician” and close Companion of the
Prophet in his next argument: In light of this, the Prophet copying bin Kalada
is highly improbable as it is irrational to assert that an educated physician
would convert to Islam […] had he known or suspected the Prophet of copying his
work on embryology.
Hamza leaves his best argument ‘til last. He suggests
that since Mohammad didn’t come into contact with bin Kalada until after the
verses relating to embryology had been revealed, it is impossible that he could
have copied from him: Bin Kalada was from al-Ta’if, a town which came into
contact with Islam only in the 8th year of the Islamic calendar, and it was
during this period that Islamic historical sources first mention the phycisian.
Therefore, it would be impossible to suggest the Prophet Muhammad copied Bin
Kalada’s views on the developing human because chapter 23 of the Qur’an and its
verses referring to embryology had already been revealed by the time Bin Kalada
met the Prophet Muhammad. Now this looks convincing until we examine more
closely the claim that bin Kalada did not meet the Prophet until after Mohammad
had received the ayats relating to embryology. Apart from the fact that the
most damning ayat (86:6-7) supposedly comes from the Medinan period
(“damning”in that it contains the infamous information about sperm emanating
from between the backbone and the ribs – the same mistake the Greeks made)
and therefore after bin Kalada supposedly met Mohammad, the dating of
surah is notoriously difficult. For example, Theodor Noldeke dated surah 23 to
after the Hijra and therefore also from the Medinan and not the Meccan period,
and therefore it is quite possible that all the verses relating to embryology
come from when after bin Kalada was the physician to the Prophet.
In conclusion, Hamza Tzortzis has failed to dismiss the
possibility that the source of the information in the Qur’an on embryology that
is so suspiciously similar to ancient Greek theories was his companion
and physician, al-Harith bin Kalada.
The origins of life according to the Qur'an
There are at least 60 verses which deal explicitly with
human reproduction and development, but these are scattered throughout the
Qur'an and many of the themes are repeated over and over again, as is common to
much of the book. A useful place to begin would be the material out of which we
are created. One would expect the Qur'an to be unambiguous about such an
elementary matter, but the verses listed show just how much uncertainty there
appears to be in our origins. Note that except where indicated the translation
used is the translation of Yusuf Ali (Saudi Revised Edition).
To resolve the considerable ambiguity about what exactly
we are made of, it has been suggested that all of the above are complimentary
accounts, in the same way that a loaf of bread could be said to be made of
dough, flour, carbohydrate or molecules. This evades the issue however. The
metaphorical description of God making man out of the dust of the earth is
ancient and predates the Qur'an by thousands of years; it is found in the Bible
in Genesis 2:7. If this was literal it would be in direct scientific conflict
with evolutionists who maintain that life was created out of the oceans, but
Muslims maintain that we were created both from the oceans and from earth.
The drop of fluid or semen
In a number of places we are informed that man is created
from a drop of fluid (semen, seed or sperm):
16:4 He created man from a drop of fluid (Pickthall)
16:4 He has created man from a sperm-drop
32:8 He made his seed from a quintessence of despised
fluid
35:11 ... then from a little fluid (Pickthall)
53:46 (he created) from a drop of seed when it is poured
forth (Pickthall)
53:46 From a sperm-drop when lodged (in its place)
56:58 Have ye seen that which ye emit (Pickthall)
56:58 Do you then see? The (human Seed) that ye emit
75:37 Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth
(Pickthall)
75:37 Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
76:2 We create man from a drop of thickened fluid
(Pickthall)
76:2 We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm
77:20 Did We not create you from a worthless water
(semen, etc.)? (Al-Hilali & Khan)
80:19 From a sperm-drop He hath created him
86:6-7 He is created from a drop emitted - proceeding
from between the backbone and the ribs.
Could any of this have been known to sixth-century
Muslims at the time of Muhammed? Surely that procreation involves the emission
of a drop of fluid has been well known from the earliest days of civilization.
In Genesis 38:9 the Bible tells us that Onan "spilled his semen on the
ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother". The verses which
describe the origin of life as a drop of emitted fluid are therefore no more
than a direct observation as to what is released during the act of sexual
intercourse. We hardly need to rely upon divine inspiration to inform us of
this fact.
In the verses listed above nutfah is used when describing
the fluid which gushes out during sexual intercourse and clearly this can only
refer to semen. However, Prof. Moore is keen to translate nutfah in sura 76:2
as "mingled fluid" [3] and explains that this Arabic term refers to
the male and female fluids which contain the gametes (male sperm and female
egg). While it is true that the ancient Greeks would not have been able to see
individual sperm or eggs, these only being visible through the microscope, the
Qur'an emphatically does not mention sperm or eggs; it simply says nutfah. This
can reasonably be translated semen, or at a push, germinal fluid - which was a
term used as early as Hippocrates [4] who spoke of male and female reproductive
fluids (but obviously could not have been aware of the cells contained in the
fluids). If Moore wishes to translate nutfah as germinal fluid, he
inadvertently reinforces that the Qur'an is borrowing this term from the
Greeks.
Sura 86:6 is interesting since it claims that during the act
of sexual intercourse before which a man is created, the "gushing
fluid" or semen issues from between the loins and ribs. Semen is
apparently coming out of the area around the kidneys and back, which is a real
problem for we know that the testicles are the sites of sperm production
(although the ancient Greeks were not so convinced. Aristotle for example
amusingly believed that they functioned as weights to keep the seminal passages
open during sexual intercourse [5]).
The explanation offered by Muslims [6] for the strange
statement in this sura relates to the fact that the testicles originally
develop from tissue in the area of the kidneys, when the man from whom sperm is
gushing forth was himself an embryo. In other words, in a very convoluted
fashion the sperm originates from the area between the loins and ribs because
that is where the testicles which are producing the sperm originally form.
There is a rather less complicated explanation for this
verse however. The Greek physician Hippocrates and his followers taught in the
fifth century BC that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing
from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and
via the testicles into the penis [7]. Clearly according to this view sperm
originates from the region of the kidneys, and although there is obviously no
substance to this teaching today, it was well-known in Muhammed's day, and
shows how the Qur'an could contain such an erroneous statement.
A bust of Hippocrates
Of course it could be argued against all this that the
reference to coming from the loins is merely a metaphorical figure of speech.
We can find examples of this in sura 7:172 "when thy Lord drew forth from
the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants" or 4:23
"prohibited to you (for marriage) are ... wives of your sons proceeding
from your loins". But if so then it has to be accepted that this is a
common usage for Middle Eastern cultures [8]; in the Torah God promises Jacob
that "kings shall come out of your loins (chalatzecha)" (Gen 35:11).
Later in the Bible a promise is made to David's "son that shall come forth
out of your loins" (I Kings 8:19) and in the New Testament Peter refers to
the same person as "one from the fruit of his loins" (Greek osphus).
However, these are examples of a metaphorical use of the word "loins"
(Arabic sulb). Sura 86:6 is clearly talking about the physical act of
intercourse; gushing fluid and ribs (tar a'ib) are both very physical and in
the context of this verse they clearly refer to the site of semen production as
wrongly taught by Hippocrates. So we have found the first example of an
incorrect ancient Greek idea re-emerging in the Qur'an.
Embryological development in the Qur'an
Sura 22:5 says "We created you out of dust, then out
of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then from a morsel of flesh, partly
formed and partly unformed ... and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs
for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes." Sura 23:13-14
repeats this idea by saying God "placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah)
in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of
congealed blood (alaqa); then out of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah),
then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We
developed out of it another creature." 75:38 also says man becomes an
alaqa and 96:2 says we came from alaq.
Moore however goes further and incredibly he claims in a
later edition of his textbook that the Qur'an "states that the resulting
organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning" [9].
This really would be amazing if it was true. Actually the Qur'an says nothing
of the sort.
We have to ask what the precise meaning of these words is
in order to know whether the verses contain important scientific statements
that have only recently been discovered, as Moore and others claim. In
comparison with the meaning of nutfah, it is rather more difficult to
understand what alaqa means. Many different suggestions have been made: clot
(Pickthall, Maulana Muhammed Ali, Muhammed Zafrulla Khan, Hamidullah), small
lump of blood (Kasimirski), leech-like clot (Yusuf Ali), and "leech,
suspended thing or blood clot" (Moore, op. cit.). Moore suggests that the
appearance of an embryo of 24 days' gestation resembles a leech, though this is
rather debatable. In side view the developing umbilicus (genetically part of
the embryo) is almost as big as the "leech-shaped" part into which a
human is formed and the developing placenta (which also consists of tissue that
is genetically from the embryo) is much larger than the embryo. It is claimed
that the ancient sages would not have been able to see an embryo about 3mm long
and describe it as leech-like, but Aristotle correctly described the function
of the umbilical cord, by which the embryo "clings" to the uterus
wall in the fourth century B.C. [10]. It is impossible to believe the
suggestion of Bachir Torki [11] that alaq in 96:2 means links, referring to the
gene code of DNA, as this makes a nonsense out of other verses where the word
is used, such as 22:5 ("we made you from a drop of sperm, then from that a
gene code, then from that a little lump of flesh....").
A 24/25 day embryo at the alaqa stage, approx. 2 mm long
To establish a definition for alaqa we might take a look
at the Qamus al-Muheet, one of the most important Arabic dictionaries ever
compiled, by Muhammed Ibn-Yaqub al-Firuzabadi (AD 1329-1415) [12]. He says that
alaqa has the same meaning as a clot of blood. In 96:2 the word alaq is used,
which is both a collective plural and a verbal noun. The latter form conveys
the sense of man being created from clinging material or possibly clay, which
is consistent with the creation of Adam in the Bible from the dust of the
ground (Genesis 2:7) and some of the other Qur'anic verses listed above.
However, the translators of the Qur'an have all translated alaq as
"clot" as opposed to "clinging" in 96:2 because the use of
the singular alaqa elsewhere forces them to use "clot" here too,
despite the attraction for the meaning "clinging" or leech-like which
is perhaps more scientifically accurate.
Another source of information are the early Muslim
commentators. Ibn Kathir wrote that when the drop of water (nutfah) settled in
the womb it stayed there for forty days and then became a red clot (alaqa),
staying there for another forty days before turning to mudghah, a piece of
flesh without shape or form. Finally it began to take on a shape and form. Both
ar-Razi and as-Suyuti [13] claimed that the dust referred both to Adam's
creation and to the man's discharge; nutfah referred to the water from the male
and alaqa was a solidified piece of blood clot. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (died
about AD 1350) wrote that "the foetus is a living or dead babe animal
which is sometimes found in the womb of a slaughtered animal, and its blood is
congested" [14]. Another great physician, Ibn al-Quff wrote some 13 out of
60 chapters from "On Health Preservation" about embryology and
pregnancy. He included a further stage of development one week after
conception, the foam stage or raghwah. Up to 16 days the embryo was alaqa
(clot) and after 27 to 30 days the clot turns into a lump of meat, mudghah
[15]. These dates must be regarded as very approximate but are nevertheless a
major improvement on what one of the most reliable Hadiths says about foetal
development, as we shall see later.
A 26/27 day embryo, said to resemble a mouthful of flesh,
but only 3 mm long
Moving onto the next stage of development, Razi described
the mudghah as being a little piece of meat the size of what a man can chew.
The idea that mudghah means chewed flesh is a later, and less accurate
translation of the word, but the idea has persisted because it is claimed that
the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a
passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine. It must be said
that not only is this an imaginative interpretation however, but besides, Moore
cannot claim that the mudghah should occur at 26-27 days since at that point
the embryo is a mere 4mm long. One would have to wait around 8 weeks before the
embryo was the size of chewed flesh (if a mouthful is defined as being 20-30mm
wide), which is what mudghah really means. And in the following Hadith,
transmitted by Bukhari and Muslim, Muhammed claims that the mudghah stage
occurs between days 80 and 120. Yet by this time the foetus is considerably
larger than a lump of flesh the size of which a man can chew, and looks very
human-like and totally unlike meat.
`Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported that Allah's Messenger ...
said: "Verily your creation is on this wise. The constituents of one of
you are collected for forty days in his mother's womb in the form of blood [sperm?],
after which it becomes a clot of blood in another period of forty days. Then it
becomes a lump of flesh and forty days later Allah sends his angel to it
..."
Thus according to Muhammed, the drop of sperm remains in
the womb for 40 days, then becomes a clot for a further 40 days, then a lump of
flesh for 40 days [16]. It has been shown that human sperm can only survive
inside a woman's reproductive tract for a maximum of 7 days; at 80 days the
embryo has very definitely acquired the shape of a human being and looks
nothing like either a clot or a mouthful of flesh.
An eleven week foetus, real size 7.5 cm, but according to
Muhammed still at the alaqa stage, a clot of blood
The final stage of human development which the Qur'an
describes is the creation of bones, and the clothing of bones with flesh.
However, according to modern embryologists including Prof. Moore, the tissue
from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from
which muscle ("flesh") develops [17]. Thus bone and muscles begin to
develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially. Whereas however most of the
muscle tissue that we have is laid down before birth, bones continue to develop
and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into one's teenage years. So far from
bones being clothed with flesh, it would be more accurate if the Qur'an had
said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed
their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not
only scientifically completely false, but is directly copied from the ancient
Greek doctor Galen, as we shall see shortly.
Some possible explanations
Aristotle believed that humans originated from the action
of male semen upon female menstrual blood [18] which leaves us with something
of a dilemma. If we translate alaqa as "clot" it means that the
Qur'an is completely wrong about human development, since there is absolutely
no stage during which the embryo consists of a clot. The only situation in
which an embryo might appear like a clot is during a miscarriage, in which case
the clotted blood which is seen to emerge (much of which comes from the mother
incidentally) is solidified and by definition no longer alive. So if ever an
embryo appeared to look like a clot it would never develop any further into a
human; it would be a dead mass of bloody miscarrying flesh. Since Muhammed had
several wives it is entirely likely that he would be very familiar with
miscarriages. Alternatively it could be hinting at Aristotle's incorrect belief
that the embryo originated from the combination of male sperm and female
menstrual blood.
Moore avoids this problem by translating alaqa as a
leech, since he is well aware that there is no stage in development when the
embryo is a clot. As we have seen however, this is only to justify his
interpretation that an embryo of 24-25 days is a clinging leech-like alaqa and
one at 26-27 days is a mudghah with teeth-marks. A further problem with this
view is that if the alaqa is translated "leech" because it appears to
be clinging to the uterus wall, does this mean that the foetus only clings to
the uterus wall for a few days? Obviously it remains attached for the entire
nine months of gestation.
There are other problems with Moore's interpretation too.
Not least is the claim of Muhammed that the dates of the alaqa and mudghah were
40-80 days and 80-120 days of gestation respectively, rather than 24-25 days
and 26-27 days. It also begs the question as to why, if the Qur'an really is
giving us a highly precise scientific account of human development, it only
mentions four stages, nutfah, alaqa, mudghah, plus the clothing of bones with
flesh. Between fertilization and day 28 for example Moore lists no fewer than
13 stages in his textbook. Why does the Qur'an say nothing about any of these
other stages? The reality is that the more ambiguous the meaning of the Arabic
terms, and the more meanings that can be attached to certain words, the less
convincingly can they be said to be highly precise scientific terms.
However, the most convincing explanation, and the most
worrying for those who maintain that the Qur'an is God's eternal Word,
untampered with and free from any human interference, is that the Qur'an is
merely repeating the teaching of the enormously influential Greek physician
Galen. If this is the case, not only is the Qur'an wrong, but it also
plagiarises ancient Greek literature!
A picture of Galen
The Asclepion at Pergamon (modern Bergama in Turkey)
The account of the different stages in embryology as
described by the Qur'an, ar-Razi and al-Quff is identical to that taught by
Galen, writing in around AD 150 in Pergamum (Bergama in modern Turkey). Galen
taught that the embryo developed in four stages as detailed below.
Galen: De Semine in Greek
English translation:
But let us take the account back again to the first
conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear,
let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The
first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the
form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the
all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we
heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it
semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain
and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain
solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of
the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly
you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as
was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is
possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a
silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see
the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of
the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they
form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term
their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when
all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part
Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but
already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now
fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...
... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs
precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to
grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends
of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire
length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on
which it caused flesh to grow [19].
Qur'an: Sura 23:13-14 in Arabic for comparison
English translation:
Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a
Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a
safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (Alaqa, a
piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of
flesh (Mudghah), then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We
clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation.
So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!
The first stage, geniture, corresponds to [nutfah], the
drop of semen; the second stage, a bloody vascularised foetus with unshaped
brain, liver and heart ("when it has been filled with blood")
corresponds to [alaqa], the blood clot; the third stage "has the form of
flesh" and corresponds to [mudghah], the morsel of chewed flesh. The
fourth and final stage, puer, was when all the organs were well formed, joints
were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move [20]. If the reader is in
any doubt about the clear link being described here between the Galenic and the
Qur'anic stages, it may be pointed out that it was early Muslim doctors,
including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the similarity. Basim Musallam,
Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge
concludes
"The stages of development which the Qur'an and
Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific
account ... There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement
between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic
terms to describe the Galenic stages" [21].
Stages of development - a modern idea?
It has been said that the idea of the embryo developing
through stages is a modern one, and that the Qur'an is anticipating modern
embryology by depicting differing stages. However many ancient writers besides
Galen taught that humans developed in different stages. For example in the
Jewish Talmud we learn that the embryo has six stages of development. Samuel
ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish physician, and one of many with an interest
in embryology [22]. The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and
develops as
golem (formless, rolled-up thing);
shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means
amniotic sac);
'ubbar (something carried);
v'alad (child);
v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and
ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been
completed).
Yet with the benefit of modern science we now know that
the formation of a human being is a seamless continuation from conception to
birth, hence the reason why there is so much contemporary confusion about
abortion and embryo research. For if we develop as a continuous process it is
impossible to draw hard-and-fast boundaries about when life starts. This makes
a nonsense of the Qur'anic verse which says (71:14) "When He created you
by (divers) stages".
More examples of borrowing from ancient Greek writers
If we look at what the ancient Greeks taught we can
clearly see that all the other references to embryology in the Qur'an and
Hadith can also be traced directly back to them. For example there is a Hadith
in which Muhammed is questioned about why a group of red camels have a grey
camel among them, and it is due to a hidden trait. But Aristotle noticed that
babies who were born that looked unlike either of their parents would often
take on the appearance of their grandparents [23], so that the characteristic
skipped a generation, being what we now know as recessive. He also tells us of
a woman from Elis who took a black husband and although their daughter was not
black, their daughter's daughter was black, demonstrating a gene which skipped a
generation in exactly the same way as Muhammed described [24].
Another Hadith says "If a male's fluid prevails upon
the female's substance, the child will be a male by Allah's decree, and when
the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the
male, a female child is formed" [25]. Surely this is not referring to
dominant and recessive genes at all, as certain Muslims have claimed [26], but
is simply repeating the incorrect belief of Hippocrates that both men and women
produce both male and female sperm. The sex of the resulting child is
determined by which sperm overwhelms the other in strength or quantity:
"... both partners alike contain both male and
female sperm (the male being stronger than the female must originate from a
stronger sperm). Here is a further point: if (a) both partners produce a
stronger sperm then a male is the result, whereas if (b) they produce a weak
form, then a female is the result. But if (c) one partner produces one kind of
sperm, and the other another then the resultant sex is determined by whichever
sperm prevails in quantity. For suppose that the weak sperm is much greater in
quantity than the stronger sperm: then the stronger sperm is overwhelmed and,
being mixed with weak, results in a female. If on the contrary the strong sperm
is greater in quantity than the weak, and the weak is overwhelmed, it results
in a male" [27].
Earlier in the Hadith, Muhammed says that the
reproductive substance of men is white and that of women is yellow. This sounds
very much like the content, white and yellow, that is found inside developing
chick-eggs, and which Aristotle was known to dissect [28].
Later in the same Hadith an angel is apparently sent by
Allah to shape the embryo and ask what sex it is going to be. Notwithstanding
that sex is actually determined at the moment of conception according to
whether the fertilised egg has two X chromosomes (female) or an X and Y
chromosome (male), and that there is some ambiguity about the age of the embryo
when the angel appears (Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported that Muhammed said 40 or
perhaps 50 days, not 42, and Abu Tufail maintains that Muhammed said to
Hudhaifa b. Usaid that sperm resided in the womb for 40 days), Hippocrates
taught that it took 30 days for the male genitals to form and 42 for the female
embryo [29]. No wonder the angel has to wait for forty-two days before it
learns the child's sex. In reality, prior to 7 weeks of gestation the ovaries
and testes appear identical and the external genitalia only start to diverge around
9 weeks.
Sura 39:6 says that God made us in stages in threefold
darkness. There have been many interpretations of this verse, including that of
as-Suyuti who said that there were three membranes surrounding the foetus, one
to carry nutrients to it, another to absorb its urine, and the third to absorb
other waste products. Elsewhere it has been suggested that they are the
abdominal wall, the uterine wall and the amniotic sac in which the foetus sits.
This is entirely observable to the naked eye, as Hippocrates described
dissecting pregnant dogs to find puppies sitting in the amniotic sac inside the
uterus [30]. A rather macabre practice of Queen Cleopatra was to rip open the
wombs of her pregnant slave-girls in order to see their foetuses, according both
to Rabbinic traditions and Plinius [31]. Furthermore, the Romans introduced the
custom of opening the womb of a pregnant woman if she died before she had
delivered her baby; the woman and her baby would be buried side-by-side, thus
giving rise to the term "Caesarean section".
It is said by Muslims that sura 80:20 describes how easy
Allah has made it for delivery of the infant, but this contradicts sura 46:15
("his mother beareth him with reluctance and bringeth him forth with
reluctance"). In fact 80:19 is talking about man's origins from a drop of
sperm, and 80:21 about his death and burial, so it is entirely logical that
80:20 refers not to the process of parturition (giving birth) but to the whole
of man's life being made easy for him by God. In the context this makes a lot
more sense, does not contradict 46:15 and does not go against the weight of
obstetrical evidence that makes giving birth one of the most dangerous things a
woman can do in her life. (In Mozambique, childbirth is the seventh most common
cause of death in women, and worldwide a woman dies in labour every 53
seconds.) The Biblical teaching that women give birth with much pain (Genesis
3:16) is far more realistic.
Sura 46:15 also says, "The duration of pregnancy and
separation [weaning] is thirty months" and sura 31:14 informs us that
"his separation is at the end of two years". This implies that the
duration of a normal pregnancy is six months. Nowadays with advanced neonatal
facilities it is just possible for a small proportion of babies born at 24
weeks' gestation to survive, albeit with severe disabilities in many cases. In
Muhammed's day no babies could have survived at so premature an age, and the
Qur'an is wildly inaccurate about the duration of a normal pregnancy.
Sura 33:4 says that Allah has not put two hearts into any
man. Yet duplication of the heart has been admitted, albeit with reluctance by
Geoffrey-Saint-Hilaire and celebrated anatomists including Littre, Meckel,
Colomb, Panum, Behr, Paullini, Rhodius, Winslow and Zacutus Lusitanus [32].
In other places the Qur'an contains commands which have
been claimed to be fantastically advanced and sensible, when in fact they were
known and followed by far more ancient civilizations. In sura 2:222, Allah
tells Muhammed that menstruation is an illness and men must not have sexual
intercourse with their wives until they are cleansed from their periods. Yet
2000 years earlier Moses received the command not to have sexual intercourse
during a woman's period (Torah: Leviticus 18:19) but this was very definitely
not for health reasons, but for religious, ceremonial reasons. Having sex
during one's period is hardly likely to cause male infertility, endometriosis
and fallopian tube damage, as has been claimed by some Muslims with no
scientific evidence, even if it might be unpleasant for the couple. But perhaps
more importantly menstruation is not an illness; indeed the shedding of the
endometrial layer of the uterus helps to prevent uterine cancer. Progesterone
has to be included in hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) in post-menopausal
women to induce an artificial menstruation every month to prevent a build-up of
endometrium which could become cancerous!
But how could Muhammed have known these things?
It is one thing to find the Qur'an repeating the same
embryological ideas as those described originally by the ancient Greeks, but is
there any way in which we can be sure that the material was familiar to the
Arabs of Muhammed's day? Given that so much of what the Qur'an says is based
upon Galen's beliefs, it is particularly significant that some 26 books of his
work were translated into Syriac as early as the sixth century AD by Sergius of
Resh' Aina (Ra's al-Ain). Sergius was a Christian priest who studied medicine
in Alexandria and worked in Mesopotania, dying in Constantinople in about AD
532 [33]. He was one of a number of Nestorian (Syriac) Christians who
translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac; others included Bishop
Gregorius, al-Rahawy, al-Taybuti, the Patriarch Theodorus and al-Sabakti [34].
The Nestorians experienced persecution from the
mainstream church and fled to Persia, where they brought their completed
translations of the Greek doctors' works and founded many schools of learning.
The most famous of these by far was the great medical school of Jundishapur in
what is now south-east Iran, founded in AD 555 by the Persian King Chosroes the
Great (also known as Anusharwan or Nushirvan), whose long reign lasted from AD
531 to around 579.
The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be
sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur
rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam Jundishapur
was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time,
combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan
atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine. The combining of
different schools of medicine foreshadowed the synthesis that was to be
achieved in later Islamic medicine [35].
Arab medicine, to deal with only one side of this
question, borrowed from many sources. The biggest debt was to the Greeks ...
The medicine of Jundi Shapur was also mainly Greek. There must have been Syriac
translations in the library of the hospital there long before the Arabs came to
Persia ... According to Ibn Abi Usaybi'a the first to translate Greek works
into Syriac was Sergius of Ra's-al-`Ayn [sic], who translated both medical and
philosophical works. It was probably he who worked for Chosroes the Great and
it was his translations in all probability which were used in Jundi Shapur
[36].
According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi
Usaybia and al-Qifti [37], the most celebrated early graduate of Jundishapur
was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary of
Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at
Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia
where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical
school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical
teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." [38]
He became famous partly as a result of a consultation
with King Chosroes [39]. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed
himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually
sought medical advice from him [40]. He may even have been a relative of the
Prophet and his "teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [i.e.,
Muhammed] [41]. "Such medical knowledge as Muhammed possessed, he may well
have acquired from Haris bin Kalda [sic], an Arab, who is said to have left the
desert for a while and gone to Jundi Shapur to study medicine...On his return
Haris settled in Mecca and became the foremost physician of the Arabs of the
desert. Whether he ever embraced Islam is uncertain, but this did not prevent
the Prophet from sending his sick friends to consult him." [42
Harith Ibn Kalada was unable to father any children, and
it is said that he adopted Harith al-Nasar (Nadr), who was apparently a cousin
of Muhammed, and also a doctor by profession [43]. Interestingly Nadr mocked
Muhammed, saying that the stories in the Qur'an were far less entertaining and
instructive than the old Persian legends he had grown up with. Perhaps he
recognised that the Qur'an had human sources for some of its stories? As a
result of this Muhammed became his sworn enemy, and the Prophet put him to
death following his capture in the Battle of Badr in 624 [39].
So we have just the link we need to show how "The
translations (into Syriac) of Sergius Ras el Ain, penetrated to Jandi-Shapur.
During the first years of the 7th century [more likely the end of the sixth
century], Harith ben Kalada studied medicine there and Muhammad owed to Harith
a part of his medical knowledge. Thus, with the one as well as the other, we
easily recognize the traces of Greek (medicine)." [44] To summarise:
Sergius died about the time that Chosroes the Great began his reign, and may
even have been employed by Chosroes to translate Galen from Greek into Syriac.
Halfway through his reign Chosroes founded Jundishapur, where Galen's
manuscripts must surely have been kept in translation. Towards the end of his
reign he had an audience with Harith Ibn Kalada, who later became associated
with Muhammed.
We also know that according to Muslim traditions part of
at least one verse in the Qur'an that relates to the developing human came
originally from human lips. While Muhammed was dictating verse 23:14 to
`Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, the latter got carried away by the beauty of what he
heard about the creation of man, and when Muhammed reached the words
"another creature" his companion uttered the exclamation
"Blessed be God, the best of creators!" Muhammed accepted these words
as though they were the continuation of his revelation and told Ibn Abi Sarh to
write them down, even though they were quite clearly his companion's words, not
Muhammed's or Allah's words [45].
This really does beg the question: since we know that at
least one verse of the Qur'an contains the added words of a mere human being,
how can we possibly be sure that this did not happen anywhere else in the
Qur'an?
After the fall of Alexandria in AD 642 knowledge of Greek
medicine spread even more rapidly throughout the Arab world. In the 9th century
Hunain Ibn Ishaq (AD 809-873) made perhaps the definitive Arabic translation of
Hippocrates and Galen [46], [47], [48] and al-Kindi wrote over twenty medical
treatises, including one specifically on Hippocrates.
Indeed, the writers of the Arabic medical literature
acknowledge as their sources the major Greek and Indian medical traditions. For
example, one of the earliest Arabic compendiums of medicine is Ali at-Tabari's
"Paradise of Wisdom" [49], [50], written by a Christian convert to
Islam in about 850 at Samarra in Mesopotamia. In it he said that he was
following the rules set down by Hippocrates and Aristotle regarding how to
write his treatise. It contains 360 chapters, and the fourth Discourse,
beginning at chapter 325 is entitled "From the Summaries of Indian
Books". Chapter 330, from Sushrata, "The Genesis of the Embryo and of
the Members" claims that the embryo results from mixing of sperm and
menstrual blood (vis-a-vis Aristotle!) and describes various constituents of
the embryo. The medical historian Arthur Meyer summed up the whole of the
Arabic embryological tradition when he said that at-Tabari "depended
largely upon Greek sources, which would seem to imply that he could obtain
little from the Arabs. Moreover, since Aristotelian and Galenical teaching
survived side by side for over a thousand years without a known Arabic
counterpart, it is doubtful if the latter existed" [51].
An extraordinary passage from the writings of the
medieval philosopher Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya shows how heavily the later Arabic
writers depended upon the Greek doctors; in one continuous discourse [52] the
words of Hippocrates explain the Qur'an and Hadith, and the latter are used to
explain Hippocrates. For example:
"Hippocrates said ... 'some membranes are formed at
the beginning, others after the second month, and others in the third month
...' That is why God says, 'He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, by one
formation after another in three darknesses'. Since each of these membranes has
its own darkness, when God mentioned the stages of creation and transformation
from one state to another, He also mentioned the darknesses of the membranes.
Most commentators explain: 'it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness
of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta' ... Hippocrates said, 'The ears
are opened, and the eyes, which are filled with a clear liquid.' The Prophet
used to say, 'I worship Him Who made my face and formed it, and opened my
hearing and eyesight' etc. etc" [53].
Here is someone writing a medical account who includes
Hippocrates (bold type), the Qur'an and Hadith (bold italics), commentaries on
them (italics) and his own thoughts (normal type) in one and the same
paragraph. Of course the intelligentsia of Muhammed's time would have been
familiar with both Greek and Indian medicine.
Other embryologists were known but added nothing new to
Galen, for example Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn 'Abdallah Ibn Sina (AD 980-1037) who
wrote a Canon Medicinae. Clement of Alexandria included familiar information
and believed that the embryo was formed through the combination of semen and
menstrual blood. Lactantius of Nicomedia in AD 325 opened eggs at varying
stages of development
It seems that not even Prof. Moore is sufficiently
convinced by the scientific "facts" in the Qur'an to risk his
reputation as a highly respected professor of anatomy in the medical
establishment. The Islamic edition of his textbook is not available even in the
British Library or the US Library of Congress, let alone other medical
libraries in Western countries [54], presumably because he is aware that not
only do the Islamic contributions in it contradict known science, but they also
contradict what he has written in the standard version of his textbook. And
ironically in the bibliography for the first chapter, "A history of
embryology", in both the standard and Islamic versions he refers to
Needham's important work on the history of embryology [55]. Needham however is
unimpressed with the Arabic claims of embryology and after writing almost 60
pages about ancient Greek, Indian and Egyptian embryology he dismisses the
entire Arabic tradition in less than one page, concluding that "Arabic
science, so justly famed for its successes in certain fields such as optics and
astronomy, was not of great help to embryology". After listing some of the
verses in the Qur'an about embryology he dismisses them as merely "a
seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda" [56], in other words
a mixture of Greek and ancient Indian teachings. In the most recent (1998)
edition of The Developing Human, Moore also directs his readers to a book which
contains another essay by Basim Musallam, which again points out how similar
the Qur'anic science of embryology was to that of Galen, and how this close
association was never questioned by the ancient Muslim scholars [57].
In conclusion then there is not a single statement
contained in the Qur'an relating to modern embryology that was not well known
through direct observation by the ancient Greek and Indian physicians many
centuries before the Qur'an was written. Morever, much of what the Qur'an
actually does say about embryology is scientifically inaccurate. The ancient
physicians' works were translated into Syriac in the century preceeding
Muhammed, and were therefore accessible to non-Greek speakers. We know that one
of the Companions of the Prophet was a doctor who trained at the very same
medical school that the Greek translations were kept and taught at. We even
know that at least one of the verses which describes embryology, sura 23:14
contains the words of another of Muhammed's companions. We are forced to
conclude that, far from proving the alleged divine credentials of the Qur'an,
its embryological statements actually provide further convincing evidence for
its human origins.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar