A Conceptual Analysis of “Sulb” and “Tarā’ib” in the Qur’an: A Historical Linguistic and Modern Anatomical Approach
"This novel interpretation resolves a longstanding historical ambiguity by aligning the verse with modern medical understanding of the anatomical origin of seminal emission, thereby eliminating any apparent contradiction."
"This interdisciplinary and methodical study addresses one of the most challenging Qur’anic verses in the discourse on science and religion. By integrating historical linguistics and modern anatomy, the author demonstrates that the misinterpretation of the key terms sulb and tarā’ib has led to an apparent conflict with medical science. The findings not only resolve long-standing ambiguities but also provide a model for the precise interpretation of scientific verses in the Qur’an. This article is recommended for scholars of Qur’anic studies, medicine, and the history of science."
Abstract
Verse 7 of Surah al-Tariq (“He emerges from between the sulb and the tarā’ib”) has historically been one of the most contentious verses in Qur’anic exegesis and natural sciences due to the ambiguity surrounding the key terms sulb and tarā’ib. Traditional interpretations, which translate these terms as “back” and “chest,” have created an apparent contradiction with modern medical findings regarding the anatomical origin of seminal emission, fueling critiques of the Qur’an’s alleged fallibility or human authorship. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, this study examines the etymological, lexical, and conceptual dimensions of sulb and tarā’ib in classical Arabic and correlates them with anatomical data. The results reveal that traditional exegeses, as well as modernist attempts to resolve the conflict (e.g., altering pronoun references, extreme scientific interpretations, or reliance on weak narrations), suffer from significant methodological flaws. In contrast, a precise lexico-anatomical analysis identifies sulb as the sacrum and tarā’ib (based on spatial symmetry and opposition) as the pubic bone. This novel interpretation not only resolves the historical ambiguity but also aligns the verse with modern medical understanding of the anatomical origin of seminal emission, eliminating any apparent contradiction. The study underscores the necessity of methodological precision and interdisciplinary approaches in interpreting Qur’anic verses addressing natural phenomena.Within this framework, the branding process for superior products and services is pursued through a series of transformative events, backed by the Tayyib mark. Given that the system’s processes, structure, and software infrastructure have been designed and operationalized at a semi-industrial level, this article examines its application and impact on enhancing quality of life. It further elucidates the systematic influence of the model on standardizing and gradually instilling business ethics across production-to-consumption chains.
The core approach of the Tayyib Quality Model is adherence to Islamic criteria based on five fundamental principles: Halal (permissibility), health, authenticity, Barakah (divine blessing), and attractiveness in the business environment. Implementing this model promises the establishment of a comprehensive quality system that encompasses the criteria of other quality standards and frameworks, such as Halal standards, organic certifications, fair trade models, and even organizational excellence paradigms. With the participation of Islamic countries, this model has the potential to become a soft power advantage in improving quality of life and may serve as a strategic tool to strengthen the collective influence of Islamic nations in shaping the future of global governance.
Keywords: Sulb, Tarā’ib, Historical Linguistics, Human Anatomy, Lexico-Anatomical Analysis.
1. Introduction
The Qur’an, as the divine scripture of Muslims, holds a foundational position. Its emphasis on being free from error or contradiction (ta’abbuḍ) heightens the importance of accurate exegesis, as any perceived contradiction could undermine the text’s credibility and the religious doctrines based upon it.
Among such verses, Surah al-Tariq 7 (“He emerges from between the sulb and the tarā’ib”), which describes human creation and the origin of seminal fluid (mā’ dāfiq), has long been a focal point of debate among exegetes and linguists. Despite extensive interpretive efforts, the key terms sulb and tarā’ib remain ambiguous—a disagreement traceable to early Islam (al-Tabari, 1422 AH, 24:296) and described by Allamah Tabatabai as a “remarkable divergence” in exegetical history (Tabatabai, 1374 SH, 20:431).
The core of this ambiguity lies in the gap between traditional interpretations and contemporary biological sciences. Most exegetes, relying on certain lexical meanings, equate sulb with the “back” and tarā’ib with the “ribs/chest.” This view appears inconsistent with medical findings that locate the origin of seminal emission elsewhere, creating an apparent contradiction that has become a major challenge for exegetes and a polemical tool for critics of the Qur’an.
The perceived conflict between the verse and medical science has made it a frequent target for critics arguing against the Qur’an’s inerrancy or divine origin. Conversely, attempts to reconcile the verse have often relied on unsupported justifications or weak interpretations, failing to resolve the issue conclusively and sometimes exacerbating doubts. Thus, there is an urgent need for a rigorous, evidence-based, and methodical analysis that offers an interpretation consistent with linguistic principles and established scientific findings while adequately addressing the raised objections.
To address the exegetical challenge of Surah al-Tariq 7, various approaches have been proposed. This study, however, adopts a methodology grounded in precise linguistic analysis of the Qur’anic text. Its primary objective is to present a novel interpretation of the verse through a lexico-anatomical examination of sulb and tarā’ib. By investigating the etymological roots and usage of these terms in classical Arabic and correlating them with anatomical data, the study clarifies their precise meanings in the verse’s context, demonstrating that a correct understanding aligns with—rather than contradicts—medical science.
2. Lexical and Conceptual Analysis of the Term “Ṣulb”
2.1. Etymological Examination of the Root (Ṣ-L-B) and Related Meanings
A precise understanding of the term ṣulb necessitates an exploration of the multiple meanings derived from the Arabic root *ṣ-l-b*. Lexical sources indicate that most words from this root can be categorized into four key semantic domains (Al-Zabīdī, 1407 AH, 3:200–209):
Hardness and Firmness: Evident in terms such as ṣalīb (a resolute person), al-ṣalb min al-arḍ (hard ground), and ṣallaba (to harden or petrify).
Intersection/Crossing: Exemplified by ṣalīb (cross-shaped object) and phrases like ṣalībān (crossed wooden beams of a bucket).
Crucifixion/Suspension: Semantically linked to the previous categories (hardness and cross-shape).
Lineage and Procreation: Includes expressions such as ‘Arabī ṣalīb (purebred Arab) and, most significantly, the term ṣulb itself.
The semantic connection between these derivatives—a principle noted by lexicographers like Ibn Fāris (Ibn Fāris, 1399 AH, 3:301)—is crucial for an accurate analysis of the term in the Qur’anic context.
2.2. Semantic Focus on “Ṣulb” in Classical Arabic: The Vertebral Bone of the Back
Concentrating on the term ṣulb (with a ḍammah on the ṣād), definitions from authoritative lexicographers such as Khalīl ibn Aḥmad al-Farāhīdī clarify its core meaning:
Al-Farāhīdī: “Al-ṣulb: al-ẓahr (the back), and it is the bone of the spine (ʿaẓm al-faqār) connected along the middle of the back” (Al-Farāhīdī, 1424 AH, 2:405).
Ibn Fāris: “The back is called ṣulb due to its strength (quwwah)” (Ibn Fāris, 1399 AH, 3:301).
Thus, in its precise lexical sense, ṣulb refers to a bone (ʿaẓm) composed of interconnected vertebrae (faqār muttaṣil), located in the dorsal region (ẓahr), and characterized by strength (quwwah). Al-Farāhīdī’s definition is particularly significant due to its antiquity and proximity to the era of Qur’anic revelation.
2.3. Distinguishing the Literal (Bone) from the Figurative (Back)
Despite the primary and precise meaning of ṣulb as a specific bone, lexical comparisons reveal that its figurative use to denote the entire back (ẓahr)—likely via synecdoche (part-for-whole)—was also common among Arabs. This semantic overlap and the lack of clear differentiation between the literal (a specific bone) and figurative (the entire back) usages may be a root cause of exegetical errors in interpreting Surah al-Ṭāriq 7. It appears that insufficient anatomical knowledge or lexical precision led many exegetes to favor the broader, figurative meaning (“back”) over the specific, literal one (“the ṣulb bone”).
3. Anatomical Correlation of “Ṣulb”: The Sacrum
3.1. Structural Analysis of the Vertebral Column and Fused Vertebrae
To identify the anatomical referent of ṣulb—defined lexically as a bone (ʿaẓm) with interconnected vertebrae (faqār muttaṣil) in the dorsal region—we must examine the human spinal column. The spine consists of 33 vertebrae divided into five regions: cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, and coccygeal (Gray, 2005, p. 735). Crucially, only the sacrum (sacral bone) and coccyx undergo postnatal fusion, forming a single, unified bony structure. Thus, only these two bones align with the lexical definition of ṣulb as an ʿaẓm with faqār muttaṣil (fused vertebrae). Anatomical sources confirm:
The sacrum is “a fusion of five vertebrae” (Gray, 2005, p. 749).
The coccyx“typically consists of four fused rudimentary vertebrae” (Gray, 2005, p. 754).
3.2. Matching the Features of “Ṣulb” with the Sacrum
Narrowing the candidates to the sacrum and coccyx, lexical and anatomical evidence decisively identifies the sacrum as the referent of ṣulb:
Exclusion of the Coccyx: The coccyx cannot be ṣulb, as Arabic already designates it by independent terms like ‘uṣ‘uṣ or ‘ajb (Ibn Fāris, 1399 AH, 4:47; Al-Farāhīdī, 1424 AH, 3:171).
Sacral Alignment with “Ṣulb”:
Strength: The sacrum’s robust structure aligns with the “hardness” implied by the root *ṣ-l-b*.
Cross-like Shape: The sacrum’s morphology resembles a cross, resonating with the etymological link between ṣulb and ṣalīb (cross). This similarity is so striking that:
In German, it is called Kreuzbein (“cross-bone”) (Aryanpour, 1383 SH, pp. 504, 115).
The Persian term khājī derives from the Armenian khāj (cross) (Muʿīn, 1382 SH, 1:975).
A comparative analysis of ṣulb’s lexical traits (a sturdy, fused-vertebrae bone in the dorsal region, linked to *ṣ-l-b*) and anatomical data strongly indicates that the term refers to the sacrum. The distinct naming of the coccyx in Arabic and the sacrum’s perfect alignment with the features ofstrength and cross-like form confirm this identification.
4. Lexical and Conceptual Analysis of the Term “Tarā’ib”
4.1. Etymological Examination of the Root (T-R-B) and Related Meanings
Understanding the term tarā’ib, as the counterpart to ṣulb in verse 7 of Surah al-Ṭāriq, begins with an analysis of the Arabic root *t-r-b*. Derivatives of this root primarily revolve around four semantic domains (Al-Zabīdī, 1407 AH, 2:62–67):
1. Earth/Soil: Including terms like turāb (dust) and turbah (ground).
2. Poverty/Need: Such as mutribah (needy) and tarib (impoverished), which are conceptually linked to the first category.
3. Obedience/Compliance: For example, tarbūt (submission).
o As noted by Ibn Fāris, these first three groups likely derive from the core concept of “soil” (Ibn Fāris, 1399 AH, 1:347).
4. Symmetry/Pairing: A distinct category encompassing words like tirb (twin), mutārabah (facing one another), and tarībah (fingertips, due to left-right symmetry).
The term tarā’ib falls under this fourth category, emphasizing symmetry, though its precise anatomical referent has been a subject of debate.
4.2. Core Semantic Focus: “Symmetry”
Unlike ṣulb, which has relatively clear lexical definitions, tarā’ib has been interpreted with significant ambiguity among lexicographers and exegetes. Classical scholars have proposed multiple meanings:
· Ibn Sīdah: Lists “the place of a necklace on the chest,” “the bones of the thorax,” “the space between the clavicles,” and “the four ribs on either side of the chest.”
· Ibn Fāris: Associates it broadly with the “chest” (ṣadr) (Ibn Fāris, 1399 AH, 1:347).
This multiplicity of seemingly divergent meanings suggests that tarā’ib likely refers to a broader concept—symmetry—with the cited examples representing specific symmetrical structures in the human body. The human anatomy is replete with bilateral structures relative to the midsagittal plane, and tarā’ib appears to denote this inherent symmetry.
4.3. Anatomical Candidates for “Tarā’ib” and Critique of the Traditional “Chest” Interpretation
Guided by the principle of symmetry, the anatomical structures that Arabs might have referred to as tarā’ib include:
1. Clavicles (tarāqīq or ‘aẓm al-tarā’ib).
2. Upper ribs of the thoracic cage.
3. Maxillae (upper jawbones between the eyes).
4. Pubic bones (‘aẓm al-‘ānīn).
Despite these possibilities, most traditional exegetes have restricted tarā’ib in Surah al-Ṭāriq to the second meaning (ribs/chest). This narrow interpretation stems from two primary methodological shortcomings:
1. Misidentification of ṣulb: As previously demonstrated, ṣulb refers to the sacrum, not the “back” in a general sense. This error skewed the understanding of tarā’ib as its anatomical counterpart.
2. Selective Use of Pre-Islamic Poetry: Exegetes relied heavily on poetic usages (e.g., verses by Imru’ al-Qays) where tarā’ib describes decorative or aesthetic aspects of women’s bodies (often the chest). However, such literary usage does not exhaust the term’s semantic range or its other symmetrical applications.
4.4. Lexical-Anatomical Conclusion: The Pubic Bone as the Referent of “Tarā’ib”
A rigorous lexical-anatomical analysis confirms:
· Ṣulb = Sacrum (as established earlier).
· Tarā’ib = Pubic bones (due to their symmetrical structure and positional opposition to the sacrum in the pelvic girdle).
This pairing resolves the alleged contradiction between the Qur’anic verse and modern embryology, as the sacrum and pubic bones frame the anatomical region where seminal emission originates.
5. Anatomical Correlation of “Tarā’ib”: The Pubic Bone
5.1. The Spatial Opposition Implied by “Bayna” (Between) in Relation to Ṣulb and Tarā’ib
A precise understanding of the Qur’anic phrase “min bayni l-ṣulbi wa-l-tarā’ib” (Surah al-Ṭāriq 7) hinges on the preposition bayna (“between”). Its usage here strongly suggests that ṣulb and tarā’ib are two opposing anatomical structures that demarcate the origin of seminal emission (mā’ dāfiq) from both posterior and anterior aspects. This phrasing necessitates a spatial opposition and alignment between the two structures.
5.2. The Pubic Bone as the Symmetrical Counterpart to the Sacrum
With ṣulb firmly identified as the sacrum (located in the posterior pelvis), the search for tarā’ib must focus on a symmetrical and opposing structure. The pubic bone (os pubis), positioned in the anterior pelvis directly opposite the sacrum, satisfies this condition. Not only does it align spatially, but it also conceptually matches tarā’ib as a bilaterally symmetrical structure (as established in Section 4.2), being composed of two mirrored halves.
Crucially, modern anatomy confirms that the process of seminal emission originates precisely within this pelvic space—between the sacrum (ṣulb) posteriorly and the pubic bone (tarā’ib) anteriorly.
5.3. Supporting Lexical and Exegetical Evidence
This anatomical correlation finds support in marginalized but historically attested interpretations:
· Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Muzāḥim identified tarā’ib with the “area between the legs” (bayna l-rijlayn) (Al-Māwardī, 1412 AH, 6:247; Ibn Kathīr, 1420 AH, p. 1984), which aligns perfectly with the pubic bone’s location.
· Saʿīd ibn Jubayr described tarā’ib as “al-aḍlāʿu allatī asfala l-ṣulb” (“the ribs below the ṣulb“) (Al-Ṭabarī, 1422 AH, 24:296). In light of this study, this could metaphorically refer to the pubic rami (branches of the pubic bone), which:
o Resemble ribs in shape.
o Are positioned inferior and opposite to the sacrum (ṣulb).
This reinterpretation of Saʿīd ibn Jubayr’s statement becomes coherent only when ṣulb is correctly identified as the sacrum.
5.4. Conclusion: The Pubic Bone as the Definitive Referent of “Tarā’ib”
In summary, three lines of evidence converge to establish tarā’ib as the pubic bone:
1. The oppositional implication of bayna, which demands a structure spatially counterposed to the sacrum.
2. The anatomical and symmetrical correspondence of the pubic bone with tarā’ib’s conceptual requirements.
3. Lexical-exegetical support from early scholars like Ḍaḥḥāk and Saʿīd ibn Jubayr (when properly contextualized).
This identification not only resolves the historical ambiguity surrounding tarā’ib but also unlocks the verse’s harmony with modern science. A precise translation of the terms would thus render ṣulb as “sacrum” and tarā’ib as “pubic bone”.
6. The Verse in Light of Medical Findings
6.1. Classical vs. Modern Medical Views on Seminal Emission
Scientific evaluation of Surah al-Ṭāriq 7 requires an understanding of medical perspectives on semen’s origin and pathway:
· Classical medicine (e.g., Ibn Sīnā, following Hippocratic theories) traced semen’s origin to the brain or whole body, positing a convoluted route via the spinal cord and kidneys before accumulation in the testes (Ibn Sīnā, 1387 SH, 5:221).
· Modern medicine, however, details:
o Sperm production in the testes.
o Maturation in the epididymis.
o Transport via the vas deferens.
o Mixing with secretions from the prostate and seminal vesicles near the urethra.
o Ejaculation as a neuromuscular process initiated by pelvic muscle contractions (Hall, 2011, pp. 973–979).
6.2. Key Insight: The Verse References the Point of Emission, Not Production
The verse explicitly describes the “emergence” (yakhruj) of “gushing fluid” (mā’ dāfiq) from “between the ṣulb and tarā’ib.” Importantly:
· Mā’ dāfiq denotes semen in the act of ejection, not its production site.
· Traditional exegetes erred by conflating the verse with sperm production (per classical or modern theories), whereas it pinpoints the anatomical origin of ejaculatory propulsion.
Even Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1210) noted critics who—despite limited medical knowledge—perceived a contradiction in the verse (Al-Rāzī, 1401 AH, 31:131), proving that interpretive challenges predate modern medicine.
6.3. Harmonization with Modern Anatomy: The Pelvic Space as the Site of Emission
With ṣulb = sacrum and tarā’ib = pubic bone, the verse’s description aligns perfectly with modern findings:
· Ejaculation begins with contractions of pelvic structures (prostate, ejaculatory ducts, proximal urethra) located within the space bounded by the sacrum (posterior) and pubic bone (anterior).
· Thus, the Qur’an’s phrasing—when lexically precise—accurately identifies the anatomical launchpoint of seminal ejection, resolving the apparent conflict posed by traditional interpretations (“back and chest”).
7. Critical Evaluation of Competing Interpretations and Approaches
The proposed lexico-anatomical interpretation of Surah al-Ṭāriq 7 necessitates a thorough examination and critique of alternative interpretations that have emerged throughout history. This analysis reveals fundamental methodological flaws in previous approaches while demonstrating the validity and strength of our proposed methodology. The review of prior exegeses uncovers several systematic errors that will be discussed in detail.
7.1 Critical Analysis of Traditional Qur’anic Exegeses
A comprehensive examination of existing commentaries demonstrates that verse 7 of Surah al-Ṭāriq has long been subject to interpretive disputes among scholars, including disagreements between first-generation (Companions) and second-generation (Successors) commentators. Given the importance of early interpretive authorities, we first examine their views separately.
7.1.1 First and Second Generation Commentators
Early commentators divided into two main camps regarding this verse:
A) Those who maintained that “ṣulb” refers to the male while “tarā’ib” refers to the female. This was the predominant view held by authorities including Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Ikrimah, Sa’īd ibn Jubayr, al-Suddī, and Qatādah (Ibn Kathīr, 1420 AH: 1984). Notably, Qatādah reportedly held two different positions on this matter.
B) Those who believed both “ṣulb” and “tarā’ib” refer to the male anatomy. This less common view was held by al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and Qatādah (in his alternative opinion) (al-Māwardī, 1412 AH, 6:246).
While there was remarkable consensus regarding “ṣulb” (generally understood as the back region), significant disagreement surrounded “tarā’ib.” Al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH) documented these disputes extensively (al-Ṭabarī, 1422 AH, 24:292-296), categorizing them into six groups that can be further refined into ten distinct interpretations:
1. The place of a necklace on a woman’s chest (Ibn ‘Abbās)
2. The chest (Sa’īd ibn Jubayr)
3. Between a woman’s breasts (Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Ikrimah)
4. Between shoulders and chest (Mujāhid)
5. Below the clavicles (Mujāhid)
6. Above the breasts (Sufyān)
7. A man’s hands, feet and eyes (Ibn ‘Abbās and Ḍaḥḥāk)
8. Below a man’s throat (Qatādah)
9. Ribs below the “ṣulb” (Sa’īd ibn Jubayr)
10. The essence of the heart (Ma’mar ibn Abī Ḥabībah al-Madanī)
Al-Māwardī recorded three additional interpretations not found in al-Ṭabarī: the four lower ribs on each side (attributed to Ibn Jubayr and al-Zajjāj), and Ḍaḥḥāk’s view that “tarā’ib” refers to the area between hands, feet and eyes (al-Māwardī, 1412 AH, 6:247). Ibn Kathīr similarly reported Ḍaḥḥāk’s opinion as “between the breasts, legs and eyes” (Ibn Kathīr, 1420 AH: 1984). This remarkable diversity of opinion among early authorities indicates the inherent ambiguity of “tarā’ib” and the absence of a clear, unified understanding during this period.
7.1.2 Post-Successor Commentators
Later commentators can be broadly categorized into “traditionalist” and “modernist” camps.
Traditionalist Commentators: This group, comprising most classical and many contemporary exegetes, generally adopted and repeated the views of earlier authorities. The most prevalent opinion identified “ṣulb” as the male back and “tarā’ib” as the female chest bones. Numerous prominent commentators from various centuries and schools endorsed this view (e.g., al-Ṭabarī, 1422 AH, 24:296; Ibn al-Jawzī, 1404 AH, 9:82; al-Qurṭubī, 1427 AH, 22:207; al-Zamakhsharī, 1430 AH: 1195; al-Ṭūsī, 1413 AH, 10:325; Ṭabāṭabā’ī, 1374 SH, 20:431). Other interpretations drawn from early authorities (such as generic back and chest, or female throat area, or necklace placement, or both terms referring to males) also found supporters among traditionalists, as detailed in the main article. The common feature of these interpretations is their lack of precise lexical analysis and reliance on repeating earlier opinions or selecting the most popular view.
Modernist Commentators: With scientific advancements, particularly in medicine, and the apparent incompatibility of traditional interpretations with established facts, some contemporary commentators have attempted to resolve this perceived conflict through novel interpretations. While well-intentioned, these efforts often employ unconventional or invalid exegetical methods, resulting in numerous and sometimes contradictory opinions. The main article documents approximately nineteen such modernist interpretations, the most significant being:
1. Shifting the pronoun reference of “yakhruj” from “gushing fluid” to “human” (e.g., Makkī, 1431 AH: 591, citing a possibility raised by Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah, 1422 AH, 5:465)
2. Interpreting “ṣulb” and “tarā’ib” as representing the entire male and female bodies (Makkī, 1405 AH, 6:408) or as metaphors for male and female semen (al-Wāḥidī, 1415 AH, 2:1192)
3. Correlating with embryonic development stages (e.g., al-Marāghī’s view regarding fetal spine and chest position, al-Marāghī, 1365 AH, 30:113)
4. Alternative anatomical interpretations such as spinal cord and female chest (al-Nahāwandī, 1429 AH, 6:471), spinal cord and bones between legs (al-Mudarrisī, 1419 AH, 18:139, citing Diyāb and Qarqūz), end of spine and bone near urethra (al-Qarshī, 1378 SH, 12:178)
5. General back and front body regions (Shaykh Sharānī’s view cited in Kāshānī, 1340 SH, 10:212; Ḥasan Zādah, 1389 SH, 1:21; Āyatullāh Makārim Shīrāzī, 1390 SH, 26:380)
6. Abstract concepts like hardness and softness (Ṭāliqānī, 1362 SH, 3:331)
7. Interpretations involving bone marrow (Nādir ‘Alī, 1392 SH, 5:634; Bahrāmī, 1392 SH: 169), male bones and female uterus (al-Muṣṭafawī, 1385 SH, 6:318), male kidneys and female breasts (al-Jinābadhī, 1408 AH, 4:247), or entire pelvis and thighs (Ḥawwā, 11:6473)
8. Metaphorical interpretations representing entire male and female (Ṭanṭāwī, 1425 AH, 25:127; Makhlūf, 1416 AH: 384) or reproductive systems (Pāknezhād, 1350 SH, 11:106)
7.2 Methodological Critiques of Previous Interpretations
Both traditional and modernist interpretations suffer from significant methodological flaws that undermine their validity:
1. Unsystematic application of pre-Islamic poetry: Selective citation and improper generalization of poetic usage (e.g., citing Imru’ al-Qays while ignoring al-Ḍub’ī’s poetry, al-Ḍub’ī, 1390 AH: 195)
2. Reliance on humoral theory medicine: Influence of obsolete Greek medical theories in interpreting creation-related verses, evident in commentators like al-Qurṭubī, al-Kūrānī, and al-Biqā’ī
3. Unprincipled scientific exegesis: Forcing modern scientific findings onto verses without regard for textual context, as in al-Marāghī’s interpretation (al-Marāghī, 1365 AH, 30:113) or bone marrow theories (Nādir ‘Alī, 1392 SH, 5:634; Bahrāmī, 1392 SH: 169)
4. Disregard for apparent meaning: Departing from the verse’s plain meaning (“emergence of gushing fluid”) for far-fetched interpretations
5. Improper use of figurative language: Employing metaphorical meanings without sufficient textual or rational evidence
6. Arbitrary pronoun reference change: Redirecting “yakhruj” to “human” rather than “gushing fluid,” which violates Arabic grammatical rules (requiring reference to nearest antecedent, al-Suyūṭī, 1429 AH: 401) and anatomical implausibility, as noted by classical scholars like Ibn Juzayy (al-Juzzī, 1415 AH, 2:560)
7. Lexical innovation: Proposing ahistorical meanings for Qur’anic terms contrary to hermeneutical principles of contextual understanding (e.g., suggestions in Qāmūs al-Qur’ān, al-Qarshī, 1:272)
8. Dependence on weak narrations: Reliance on poorly attested or contradictory hadiths, as will be shown in the following section. Many reports used in this context suffer from these defects (e.g., those cited in al-Tamhīd, Ma’rifat, 1417 AH: 63-90). The necessity of content criticism alongside chain analysis is crucial given the prevalence of fabricated reports and lax standards in narrator authentication (e.g., regarding narrators like al-Mufaḍḍal ibn ‘Umar, Muḥammad ibn Sinān, or Sahl ibn Ziyād)
9. Lack of interdisciplinary knowledge: Accurate interpretation of verses referencing natural phenomena requires expertise in multiple fields including narrator criticism, hadith methodology, historical linguistics, history of medicine, modern and traditional medicine. The absence of such interdisciplinary knowledge has led even specialists like ‘Allāmah Sharānī to erroneous interpretations connecting the verse to bone marrow (Nādir ‘Alī, 1392 SH, 5:634; Bahrāmī, 1392 SH: 169)
7.3 Critique of Alternative Approaches (Scientific Fallibilism or Compartmentalization)
Two other general approaches to resolving the apparent conflict are similarly problematic:
1. Rejection of established science: Dismissing well-established medical findings based on alleged uncertainty of empirical sciences represents unscientific and fallacious reasoning that ultimately weakens religious arguments (Javādī Āmulī, 1391 SH: 118)
2. Radical separation of science and religion: The view that no conflict can exist between science and religion (e.g., attributed to Khurramshāhī, 1376 SH: 634) ignores verses addressing observable natural phenomena and avoids their proper examination (see critiques in Āyarmalū, 1385 SH: 24-27)
7.4 Critique of Reliance on Contradictory Exegetical Narrations
The use of hadiths in interpreting this verse faces serious challenges regarding both transmission chains and content:
1. Weak chains: The two primary narrations cited from Shaykh Ṣadūq’s ‘Ilal al-Sharā’i’ (Ibn Bābawayh, 1386 AH, 2:562; 1385 AH, 1:97) lack reliability due to problematic narrators (e.g., Muḥammad ibn Mūsā ibn al-Mutawakkil, ‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Sa’dābādī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Barqī, Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Barqī, and Dāwūd ibn al-Qāsim al-Ja’farī), as established by rigorous biographical evaluation (see al-Khoei, 1403 AH, 17:284; Bihbūdī, 1389 SH: 251)
2. Content contradiction with established science: More significant than chain issues, these narrations’ content directly conflicts with established biological sciences (anatomy, physiology, genetics). According to hadith criticism principles, contradiction with definitive science invalidates a narration’s attribution to infallible authorities regardless of chain authenticity.
This detailed critical analysis demonstrates that previous interpretations of Surah al-Ṭāriq 7 suffer from serious methodological deficiencies, highlighting the necessity for an interpretation based on precise lexical analysis and compatibility with established scientific knowledge.
8. Conclusion
The present study, undertaken with the primary objective of resolving the longstanding controversy surrounding the interpretation of Surah al-Ṭāriq 7 and eliminating its apparent conflict with medical science, has yielded several key findings and achievements which are presented below:
The most significant finding of this research is the precise identification of the terms “ṣulb” and “tarā’ib” in classical Arabic within the context of the verse in question. Contrary to the common understanding among exegetes, translators, and lexicographers who have generally interpreted these terms as referring to the back (spine) and chest bones respectively, the lexical-anatomical analysis presented in this study demonstrates that “ṣulb” specifically denotes the sacrum while “tarā’ib” refers to the pubic bone. This semantic clarification is crucial for proper understanding of the verse and resolving historical ambiguities surrounding it.
A second fundamental finding is that with the correct understanding of “ṣulb” (sacrum) and “tarā’ib” (pubic bone), verse 7 of Surah al-Ṭāriq exhibits no contradiction with modern medical knowledge. The verse references the anatomical origin of seminal emission (“mā’ dāfiq”), which according to anatomical and physiological knowledge is precisely located in the pelvic region between the sacrum posteriorly and the pubic bone anteriorly. Therefore, the alleged contradiction stems not from the Qur’anic text itself, but rather from historical misinterpretations and methodological errors in exegesis and translation that have created an illusion of incompatibility.
The demonstration of the verse’s compatibility with science following proper lexical interpretation has important implications for refuting certain theories and claims. Firstly, this verse can no longer be cited as evidence for conflict between science and the Qur’an, nor can it serve as support for theories such as the human origin of revelation, prophetic dreams, or the historicity of the Qur’anic text. On the contrary, it becomes evidence against such theories. Secondly, weakly-attributed or scientifically-contradictory exegetical narrations (such as those reported in the tafsīr attributed to ‘Alī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qummī) that were previously used to justify incorrect interpretations or resolve the apparent conflict lose their exegetical validity once the verse’s correct meaning is established.
This research also emphasizes several methodological considerations for Qur’anic exegesis, particularly regarding verses related to natural phenomena:
1. Limitations of Lexical Consensus: Lexical science is based on induction, and the consensus of lexicographers is not always definitive. Occasionally, a marginalized opinion (such as Ḍaḥḥāk’s interpretation of “tarā’ib”) may prove closer to the correct understanding.
2. Avoidance of Extreme Scientific Exegesis (Eisegesis): The Qur’an is a book of guidance and should not be approached as a source for extracting details of empirical sciences or forcibly aligning its verses with scientific findings. Concepts like “Qur’anic medicine” or “Qur’anic nutrition” lack validity if understood as direct derivation of science from the Qur’an.
3. Necessity of Precision and Rigor in Exegesis: Exegetes must avoid weak justifications, arbitrary use of figurative language, and scientifically or lexically unsound arguments, exercising caution when definitive conclusions cannot be reached.
4. Importance of Interdisciplinary Knowledge: Accurate understanding of verses referencing natural phenomena requires exegetical competence in relevant disciplines including anatomy, physiology, history of medicine, and historical linguistics.
Ultimately, this study demonstrates that through rigorous application of lexico-anatomical methodology while avoiding common exegetical errors, we can achieve a deeper and more coherent understanding of Qur’anic verses and provide well-founded responses to raised objections.
بهرامی،محسن،1392ش،صلب و ترائب،فصلنامه تاریخ پزشکی،سال پنجم، شماره شانزدهم،ص174-153.
بیضاوی،عبدالله بن عمر،1421ق،انوارالتنزیل و اسرارالتأویل، محمّد صبحی بن حسن حلّاق/محمود احمد الأطرش، چاپ اوّل، جلد سوم، دمشق/بیروت،دارالرّشید/مؤسسة الایمان.
پاک نژاد،سیّد رضا،1350ش،اوّلین دانشگاه و آخرین پیامبر، تهران، انتشارات اسلامیه.
جزّی الکلبی،محمّد، 1415ق،التّسهیل لعلوم التّنزیل، محمّد سالم هاشم، جلد دوم، چاپ اوّل،بیروت،دارالکتب العلمیة.
