What was Man Created From?

Mr Katz,

in one of his articles has stated that the Qur’an has given contradictory

statements regarding the material from which man was created^[1].

He states:

What was man created from? A blood

clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], “sounding” (i.e. burned)

clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then

denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]

Mr. Katz has also stated that the

statement of the Qur’an regarding one of the stages in the development of the

fetus is “scientifically wrong”. He writes:

The very first revelation starts

out with providing an ingredient for contradiction:

Proclaim!

In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, who created –

created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood.

— Sura 96:1-2

Apart from the fact that “a

mere blood clot” is scientifically wrong…

In the article that follows, I shall

present my point of view regarding the meaning of the verses which seem

contradictory to Mr. Katz. I shall be very glad to reconsider my point of view

if someone would be kind enough to point out any linguistic or logical fallacy

in my interpretation of these verses.

A Scientific Error?

Before we proceed with the main

point of Mr. Katz’s objection (that is, “What was man created from?”),

let us first examine the “scientific error” that Mr. Katz has pointed

out.

The Arabic word used by the Qur’an

which has generally been translated as “a clot of blood”, is “`alaq”

.

The meaning of this word is given by “Qaamoos al-Muheet” as:

Blood in its normal state or blood

which is extremely red or which has hardened or congealed, a piece thereof;

every thing that sticks; clay that sticks to hands; unchanging enmity or love;

Zu `alaq is the name of a hill of Banu Asad, where they defeated

Rabi`ah ibn Maalik; An insect of water that sucks blood; that portion

of a tree that is within the reach of animals.

The word `alaq, does not

“mean” blood but because of certain properties of blood, it was,

besides other things also used to imply blood. The real meaning of the word, as

would be obvious from an analysis of all the meanings stated above, is anything

that sticks to or hangs with something else. The word was used for blood,

because of the well known property of blood of being sticky, as soon as its

starts to dry out.  The word was used for mud, because of its obvious

property of sticking to the hands. The word was used for unending hatred or

love, because such emotions stick to one’s heart. The word was used for a small

insect which sucks blood (leech), because it sticks to its prey. The word was

also used for that part of the tree, which is in the reach of grazing animals,

becuse the animals stick to that part of it.

Thus, the real meaning of the word

“`alaq” is “anything that sticks or hangs”. Now when

the Qur’an said: “He created man of `alaq“, it was interpreted

by Muslim scholars to imply “a clot of blood”. This was not because

the word “`alaq” meant “a clot of blood” but because

the Muslim scholars felt that in this verse it implied “a clot of

blood”. If, due to the widening of human knowledge, today we are in a

position to know that a child is never “a clot of blood”, all that has

happened is that we can now safely say that the interpretation of the Muslim

scholars was not accurate. If the Qur’an was not available in its original

language, as is generally the case with the books, other than the Qur’an,

believed to be revealed literature, the Muslims would have had no option but to

submit that the Qur’an does have a “scientific error” in it. But the

case of the Qur’an is quite different from those other books. It is still in its

original language. And the word originally used by the Qur’an (`alaq) is

not used only for a clot of blood. It actually refers to “something that

sticks” (like semi dried blood, mud, unending hatred/love or a leech).

From the above discussion, we not

only see that what Mr. Katz is quite correctly objecting to is the

interpretation of Muslim scholars, not the Qur’an, but we also understand the

importance and significance of having a particular piece of literature in its

original language. The analysis given above could not have been possible if the

original word used by the Qur’an (`alaq) was not definitely known.

What was Man Created From?

Now let us have a look at the verses

which Mr. Katz has objected to, in his article. The verses upon which Mr. Katz

has based his objection are reproduced for a closer study:

Al-`alaq

96: 1 – 2 reads as:

Proclaim, in the name of thy Lord,

Who created — created man from `alaq.

Al-Anbiaa

21: 30 reads as:

We made all living

things from water.

Al-Noor

24: 45 reads as:

And Allah created all

living things from water

Al-Furqaan

25: 54 reads as:

It is He, Who created

man from water.

Al-Hijr

15: 26 reads as:

And We created man from sounding

(extremely dry) clay of black stinking mud.

Aal

Imraan 3: 59 reads as:

[The creation of] Jesus, in the

sight of Allah, is like [that of] Adam. He created him from dust and then said

to him ‘Be’ and he was.

Al-Room

30: 20 reads as:

And among His signs

is that He created you from dust

Faatir

35: 11 reads as:

And Allah created you

from dust

Maryam

19: 67 reads as:

Does man not take heed [from the

fact] that We created him [while] before that he was nothing?

Al-Toor

52: 35 reads as:

Were they created out of nothing?

Or were they themselves their own creators?

Hu’d

11: 61 reads as:

It was He who raised you up from

the earth and gave you means to dwell upon it

Al-Nahl

16: 4 reads as:

He created man from a

drop [of semen].

Al-Qiyamah

75: 37 reads as:

Was he not a drop of

ejaculated semen?

Before we go into any details

regarding the meanings and implications of these verses, I would like to point

out an error in Mr. Katz’s translation of one of these verses and also a

judgmental error on his part regarding the interpretation a few of these verses.

The first error is in the

translation of Maryam 19: 67. Mr. Katz has translated it as:

But does not man call to mind that

We created him before out of nothing?

Whereas, the correct translation of

the Arabic words of this verse should be:

Does not man call to mind that We

created him [while] before that he was nothing?

Mr.

Katz in all probability has depended on the translation of Abd Allah Yusuf Ali,

which unfortunately in this case is not very accurate. Thus, one of the

objections that Mr. Katz has raised, on Mr. Desmond’s response (posted at the

end of Mr. Katz’s criticism) is:

I wonder how you would look if I

said “I made a cake from nothing” since Sura 19:67 says:

But does not man call to mind

that We created him before out of nothing?

— Sura 19: 67 (wrongly written

as 3: 47)

which fits together with the above

mentioned “be and it is” (3:47).

Although you might mention

different ingredients at different verses, but none of those goes together

with “nothing”.

should stand resolved only by a

correction in the translation.

As far as the judgmental error is

concerned, Mr. Katz in his objection seems to have overlooked the fact that the

Qur’an while talking about man’s creation, has referred to two distinct

creations. One is the creation of Adam (the first man) and the other is the

creation of the children of Adam. Adam, as shall be seen later, was created from

water/dust/clay etc, while his progeny was created from “a drop of

semen”. These two creations are actually two distinct stages in the

creation of man. The first man was created from dust etc and later on, his

progeny was created from “`alaqa“, which developed from “nutfah”

(a drop of sperm). The Qur’an has itself referred to these two distinct stages

of creation in Al-Sajadah 32:

7 – 8, where the Qur’an says:

Who made excellent everything that

He created. He began the creation of man from clay, then made his offspring

from a drop of humble fluid.

Thus,

all those verses which refer to “`alaq“, “nutfah”

and the like are actually referring to the creation of the offspring of Adam,

which according to the Qur’an itself was different from the creation of Adam.

Therefore the subject matter of these verses, is not in contradiction with that

of the others, as the two groups refer to two different things. Thus, Al-`alaq

96: 1 – 2, Al-Nahl 16: 4 and Al-Qiyamah

75: 37 will have to be removed from the contradicting verses list.

Now, after removing these verses, we

are left with the following “contradictory” statements of the Qur’an:

• Man was made from water (21: 30, 24: 45, 25: 54)
• Man was made from dust/soil (3: 59, 30: 20, 35: 11)
• Man was made from sounding [extremely dry] clay from black stinking mud

  (15: 26)

• Man was raised from the earth (11: 61)

Besides

these verses, Al-Saaffaat 37:

11 gives an even different picture, as it says that man was created from such

soil that sticks to one’s hands, or sticky soil.  The verse reads as:

We created them from

a sticky soil.

I

really do not know what is the contradiction in these verses. Anyone with a

literary sense can see that these verses are not contradictory.

If

someone says that I made a cake from flour (soil) and then says I made a cake

from water (water), and then says I made this cake from a solution of flour and

water (mud, sticky soil),  and then says that I made this cake from a dried

out solution of flour and water (sounding clay from black stinking mud) and then

says I brought the cake out from the oven (raised from the earth), a person may

say that the statements are contradictory. But it is quite obvious that they are

not. These statements inform us of not only the major ingredients of cake (man)

but also give us some information regarding the stages from which these

ingredients were made to go through for the ultimate production of the cake

(man).

From

the referred verses of the Qur’an, the result that Mr. Katz drew was that of

raising an objection of contradiction and from these same verses I draw the

following conclusions:

• Two major ingredients in man’s creation are soil and water;
• The soil and water took the shape of sticky mud;
• The sticky mud was left to dry out till it became hard (sounding clay);
• The total process beginning from the mixing of soil and water till man’s

  birth took place on this planet called “earth”.

At the end of his article Mr. Katz

states:

But this is still not all in this

confusion:

God createth what He willeth: 

When he hath decreed a plan,  He

but saith to it, “Be,” and it is!

— Sura 3:47

He just says the word

“be” and it is, there is no making a mess with water, clay, blood

clots or dust, just a clean “there it is”. Right?

The

answer to this objection has already been given in one of my earlier responses

in which I have explained the correct meaning of the phrase “kun

fayaku’n” (Be and it happens)^[2].

Moreover,

“Be and it happens” does not negate the fact that if God wants to

create something from water and soil, through a process, He cannot do so. What

it means is that if God wants to create something from water and soil, He would

have no problems in procuring that water or that soil and nothing shall be able

to stop the process that He has planned.

© Copyright December 1998. All Rights Reserved with the Author