In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Qur’anic Embryology Is Not Plagiarism

Scientific and research source: Hamza Tzortzis (1)
Free translation and commentary by: Tahleel Team
Date of publication: 30.11.2025

Part One

For a long time, critics of the religion of Islam—especially anti-religious circles in the modern era—have focused their attention on Qur’anic embryology and have promoted baseless, unfounded claims that are far removed from scientific standards. They allege that the embryology mentioned in the Noble Qur’an is in fact copied from the medical knowledge of ancient Hellenistic Greece.

In order to demonstrate the groundlessness and falsity of this claim, it is necessary to structure the discussion around three axes, so that it can be conclusively established that this allegation lacks scientific value and is itself false and erroneous.

These three axes are:

1. A historical examination of this claim.
2. An examination of embryology in ancient Greece (the embryology of Aristotle and Galen).
3. An examination of Qur’anic embryology and embryology based on modern science.

As is evident, this incorrect claim—both in the past and in the present—asserts that the Noble Qur’an copied its descriptions of the stages of human embryonic development from ancient Hellenistic Greece, meaning—God forbid—that the Prophet ﷺ copied these ideas from the works of Aristotle and Galen.

Through the three axes outlined above, which are required for this discussion, it will be conclusively demonstrated that this claim not only lacks any foundation in scientific reasoning, but is in fact a false, unfounded, and erroneous allegation.

It is therefore necessary to begin with the first axis of this discussion, namely the historical examination of the plagiarism claim.

The Claim of Plagiarism from a Historical Perspective

From a historical perspective, what matters most in assessing this incorrect claim is establishing a direct and specific connection between the Noble Qur’an (and the society in which it was revealed and in which the prophetic mission took place) and ancient Greek society.

Hypothetical arguments and indirect or unrelated evidence can never justify such a claim.

By indirect and unrelated evidence, what is meant is, for example, the claim made by some historians that cultural relations existed between the Greeks, Romans, and Arabs—relations that history does indeed acknowledge.

However, evidence of such relations, including commercial interactions, cannot serve as proof for this claim, because they are indirect and ultimately unrelated.

If we formulate this claim in the form of a syllogistic argument, it still cannot serve as a valid foundation for establishing the truth of this false allegation.

Major premise: Some cultural and commercial relations existed between Arabs and Greeks.
Minor premise: The Prophet ﷺ was an Arab.
Conclusion: Therefore, plagiarism occurred.

Although this syllogistic argument may appear logically sound, it does not reflect reality as it truly is. In fact, the truth may be the exact opposite.

To substantiate the claim of plagiarism, additional necessary conditions must be fulfilled—namely, supporting premises without which the syllogism collapses. These are:

1. The Prophet ﷺ must have learned embryology from a Greek physician.
2. Greek medicine must have been known and practiced in Arab society in the early seventh century CE.
3. Hellenistic Greek views and Qur’anic descriptions must share significant similarities.

These three propositions constitute the fundamental assumptions upon which the syllogistic argument depends. If they are true, the argument may hold; if they are false, the argument collapses.

The aim, therefore, is to examine these three propositions historically and demonstrate their falsity, thereby uprooting the claim of plagiarism from its very foundation.

Did the Prophet ﷺ Learn Greek Medical Knowledge from Someone Trained in Greek Medicine?

Based on historical studies, the only individual mentioned as having lived during the time of the Prophet ﷺ and associated with medicine is the well-known Arab physician al-Harith ibn Kalada. He was born in the mid-sixth century CE in the tribe of Banu Thaqif in Ta’if.

Some historians believe that al-Harith acquired medical knowledge at a scientific center known as the medical academy of Jundishapur, where he supposedly studied the medical teachings of Aristotle and Galen.

These historians argue that:

The primary link between Islamic medicine and Greek medicine—particularly in late Sasanian medical knowledge—should be sought in Jundishapur rather than in Alexandria.

At the advent of Islam, Jundishapur (Gondeshapur) was allegedly at the height of its flourishing. The city was considered the most important medical center of its time and was said to offer an international synthesis of Greek, Persian, and Indian medical practices.

This synthesis eventually became the foundation upon which Islamic medicine developed.

Based on the existence of Jundishapur and the alleged education of al-Harith ibn Kalada there, some historians have claimed that the Prophet ﷺ learned Aristotelian and Galenic embryology from al-Harith ibn Kalada and consulted him in this regard.

However, such claims are baseless and directly contradict undeniable historical evidence, for the following reasons:

1. From a historical standpoint, and based on available reports, there is no direct or explicit evidence proving that the Prophet ﷺ acquired Aristotelian or Galenic embryology from al-Harith ibn Kalada.
2. The claim that al-Harith ibn Kalada studied at a Persian medical center in Jundishapur is itself disputed by several reliable historical sources. For example, David C. Lindberg, in his book The Beginnings of Western Science, highlights the legendary and mythical nature of this supposed institution.

Lindberg writes, in essence, that an influential legend emerged regarding Nestorian Christian activity in Jundishapur in southwestern Iran. This repeatedly told story claims that by the sixth century CE, Nestorians had turned Jundishapur into a major intellectual center and established what some enthusiasts have called a university, where instruction in all Hellenic disciplines was possible.

It is said that Jundishapur possessed a medical school with a curriculum based on Alexandrian textbooks and a hospital modeled after Byzantine hospitals, supplying the region with physicians trained in Greek medicine.

Most importantly, Jundishapur is often portrayed as having played a central role in translating Greek knowledge into Middle Eastern languages, allegedly serving as the main channel through which Greek science was transmitted to the Arabs.

Recent research, however, reveals a far less dramatic reality: there is no convincing evidence for the existence of a medical school or hospital at Jundishapur, although there may have been a theological school and perhaps a small clinic nearby.

Undoubtedly, Jundishapur was the site of serious intellectual efforts and some degree of medical practice. From the early eighth century, it supplied a line of physicians to the Abbasid court in Baghdad. However, it is doubtful that it ever became a major center for medical education or translation. Although the story of Jundishapur is unreliable in its details, the lesson it was meant to convey remains valid.

Roy Porter, in his book The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity, raises the question of whether a medical school truly existed at Jundishapur:

“Jundishapur was certainly a meeting place for Arab, Greek, Syriac, and Jewish intellectuals, but there is no evidence for the existence of a medical academy there. It was only in the early ninth century that Arabic-Islamic medicine took shape.”

According to Plinio Prioreschi, a physician and academic historian, there is no evidence whatsoever proving the existence of a major medical school in the sixth or seventh century CE. In his book A History of Medicine, he states that there is no reliable Persian source demonstrating that Jundishapur played a prominent role in medical history.

It is also noteworthy that from the fifth to the seventh century, Jundishapur appears to have produced no identifiable students whose existence can be historically verified. This raises an important question: how could such a famous and prestigious ancient institution have no known graduates?

Historians such as Manfred Ullmann and Franz Rosenthal express doubts about reports concerning al-Harith ibn Kalada, describing him as a semi-legendary figure with literary references resembling fictional characters. Professor Gerald Hawting, in his article The Biography of al-Harith ibn Kalada and the Relationship between Medicine and Islam, writes:

“In later sources, information about al-Harith ibn Kalada is scattered. References to his profession as a physician are inconsistent and often incidental, and there appears to be little concrete information about the nature of his medical practice or the details of his life.”

Unreliable and inconclusive historical accounts regarding al-Harith ibn Kalada’s medical profession invalidate the argument that the Prophet ﷺ copied or plagiarized medical knowledge from a seventh-century physician.

Some historical reports indicate that al-Harith ibn Kalada embraced Islam and was considered among the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ. William Brice, an ethnologist and linguist, writes in An Historical Atlas of Islam:

“He converted to Islam and attained the status of a Companion of the Prophet.”

Abu Bakr Asadullah, a teacher and novelist, expresses a similar view:

“According to almost all traditional sources, the first known Arab physician, al-Harith ibn Kalada, was a graduate of Jundishapur, a Jewish convert to Islam, and a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.”

If al-Harith ibn Kalada did indeed accept Islam, it becomes highly implausible that the Prophet ﷺ plagiarized from him. It is unreasonable to claim that a trained physician would embrace Islam and follow the Prophet ﷺ if he believed that the Prophet was plagiarizing his embryological knowledge. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is uncertainty regarding whether al-Harith ibn Kalada truly converted to Islam, and the reports of his conversion are not entirely reliable.

Even if it were established that al-Harith ibn Kalada did not convert, any alleged plagiarism would have caused a public uproar, and the Arab polytheists would have seized upon it to invalidate the Prophet’s claim to prophethood. Yet, no such argument appears in the historical record of their objections.

Traditional historical and narrative sources that mention al-Harith ibn Kalada also provide information about the Prophet ﷺ, including his miracles and the extraordinary eloquence of the Qur’an. One such source is Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, which emphasizes the Prophet’s honesty and trustworthiness. If this source is accepted as reliable for information about al-Harith ibn Kalada, then it must also be accepted as reliable regarding the Prophet’s unquestioned integrity. Accepting these historical sources therefore entails accepting the Prophet’s truthfulness and rejecting any accusation of plagiarism or intellectual theft.

Al-Harith ibn Kalada was from Ta’if, a city that embraced Islam only in the eighth year after the Hijrah. It was during this period that Islamic historical sources first mention him as a physician. Consequently, it is impossible to claim that the Prophet ﷺ copied al-Harith ibn Kalada’s views on human embryonic development, because Surah 23 of the Qur’an and its embryological verses were revealed before any meeting between the Prophet ﷺ and al-Harith ibn Kalada.

Historians also doubt any substantive link between al-Harith ibn Kalada and Hellenistic tradition. Gerald Hawting explains that, due to the intellectual narrative of the Golden Age, historians and biographers sought connections with established institutions such as Jundishapur in order to associate Islam with contemporary science.

Even if historical reports about al-Harith ibn Kalada’s role as a physician were assumed to be accurate, his medical practice itself raises serious doubts as to whether he ever learned or adopted Greek medicine.

Historical reports describe his medical approach as folk-based and Bedouin in nature. For example, when he treated Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas, the remedy he prescribed consisted of a drink made from dates, grains, and fat. This treatment reflects the medical practices attributed to the Prophet ﷺ rather than Greek medicine.

Given the above discussion, whether al-Harith ibn Kalada had direct exposure to Galenic or Aristotelian views on embryonic development remains unresolved and ambiguous. Therefore, the assumption of plagiarism via al-Harith ibn Kalada lacks credibility. Moreover, historical accounts about him are contradictory, speculative, questionable, and indefensible. Using him as a credible link between the Prophet ﷺ and Greek medicine is therefore unfounded.

Was Hellenistic Greek Medicine Known, Accepted, and Practiced in Arab Society in the Early Seventh Century?

Some historians claim that Greek embryology was widespread in Arab society in the early seventh century. This view is based on the existence of cultural exchanges between Greeks, Romans, and Arabs. While such exchanges did occur, dating back to before Islam, it does not logically follow that these exchanges included Greek embryological theories or that Greek medicine was widely practiced in the region.

The following points demonstrate conclusively that Greek embryology was neither transmitted nor learned through Greco-Arab cultural exchanges:

The Prophet ﷺ could not have acquired Greek embryological knowledge through written works.

The first systematic and major translations of Greek embryology into Arabic began at least 150 years after the Prophet’s death. Roy Porter writes:

“It was only in the early ninth century that Arabic-Islamic medicine took shape.”

He explains that the first phase of this revival lay in a major translation movement that emerged during the reign of Harun al-Rashid and gained momentum under al-Ma’mun. This movement was driven by favorable socio-economic conditions, the needs of Muslims and Christians for access to ancient medicine in Arabic, and the availability of relevant scholarly resources.

During this “Age of Translations,” the founding of Bayt al-Hikmah (the House of Wisdom) in Baghdad in 832 CE was of immense importance. Baghdad became a center where scholars collected texts and translated a wide range of non-Islamic works into Arabic.

Translation efforts were initially dominated by Christians, due to their expertise in Greek and Syriac. The central figure was Hunayn ibn Ishaq (d. 873 CE), a Nestorian Christian from al-Hira, who, together with his students, translated 129 works of Galen into Arabic (and others into Syriac), making more Galenic texts available to the Arab world than survive today in Greek.

According to Donald Campbell, the first possible translation of Greek medicine into Arabic occurred at least fifty years after the Prophet’s death, carried out by the Syrian Jewish scholar Maserjawaihi.

Sixth-century Syriac and Latin translations likewise offer no viable route, since the Prophet ﷺ did not know Syriac or Latin, nor is there any evidence that he interacted with anyone trained in Greek medicine.

Historians agree that there is no evidence of Greek medical knowledge being acquired before the eighth century, and that Arabs first encountered Greek works through double translations—from Greek into Syriac and from Syriac into Arabic.

John Meyendorff highlights this in his article Byzantine Views of Islam, noting that until the end of the Umayyad period, Christian Syrians or Copts were the primary intermediaries through whom Arabs encountered Aristotle, Plato, Galen, Hippocrates, and Plotinus.

Given that the first Arabic translations of Greek medicine appeared decades after the Prophet’s death, the idea that he accessed Syriac translations is unfounded.

Furthermore, there is no oral or written tradition indicating that Greek embryology formed part of general Arab knowledge in the seventh century. If it had, it would have been cited by the Prophet’s opponents, yet no such objection appears among their many criticisms.

The Character of the Prophet ﷺ and the Accusation of Lying

Reliable historical sources concerning the life of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ emphasize his honesty and integrity. He was known as al-Sadiq (the truthful) and al-Amin (the trustworthy). To assume that he plagiarized Greek embryology while presenting the Qur’an as divine revelation is inconceivable, as it would entail deliberate deception.

Even his enemies acknowledged his trustworthiness. Liars typically lie for worldly gain, yet the Prophet ﷺ endured immense suffering for his message, rejecting offers of wealth and power. He was persecuted, forced to migrate from his beloved city of Mecca, endured hunger, and was physically assaulted—his feet wounded and bleeding—while his companions were tortured.

These psychological and historical realities clearly attest to his sincerity. Accusing him of lying is an injustice that stands in direct contradiction to historical facts. W. Montgomery Watt, in Muhammad at Mecca, writes:

“His readiness to endure persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and admired him as a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement—all testify to his fundamental sincerity. To suppose Muhammad a fraud creates more problems than it solves.”

It was precisely this sincerity that constituted a key factor in the Prophet’s success at both political and religious levels. Without his integrity, he could not have achieved such success in so short a time. Edward Gibbon and Simon Ockley, in The History of the Saracen Empire, observe:

“The greatest success of Muhammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force.”

Reference:

1. https://www.hamzatzortzis.com/did-the-prophet-muhammad-plagiarise-hellenic-embryology/