The next stage in the qur’anic description of the development of the human embryo is clothing the bones with flesh. The word kasauna means: to clothe, to dress, to garb and to attire. It also carries the meanings of: to hang, to drape, to face, to line and to case. Further interpretations of the word include: to incase, to cover, to put, to slip and to give the appearance of and make look like.79 The word lahm means flesh, meat, or a piece of flesh or meat. 80 81

The words used in the Qur’an to describe this stage are remarkably consistent with modern embryology. The word kasauna denotes the migration and aggregation of the myoblasts which organize into dorsal and ventral muscle masses surrounding the developing skeleton. These physiological developments are illustrated by the meanings kasauna carries, such as: to clothe, to dress, to incase and to cover. The word lahm is not just limited to the limb muscles but also applies to the muscles masses surrounding the axial skeleton.

Barry Mitchell and Ram Sharma elucidate the process of muscle formation over the developing limb skeleton:

The limb muscles differentiate from myoblasts in the proximal part of the limb bud, and soon receive their innervations from the ventral rami of the spinal nerves. The myoblasts then migrate distally and soon become organized into a dorsal and ventral muscles mass surrounding the developing skeleton, carrying their innervations with them.82.

John Allen and Beverley Kramer confirm how limb muscles are formed: Soon after the cartilaginous models of the bones have been established, the myogenic cells, which have now become myoblasts, aggregate to form muscle masses on the ventral and dorsal aspects of the limbs. These muscle masses, the relevant compartments, form the flexors and extensors of the joints. Rotator muscles are also formed so that flexors and pronators are related and extensors and supinators are related.83.

The process of muscular formation is not just limited to the limbs. Once the skeletal framework is in place, muscles start to form around the developing skeleton. For example, embryologist Bruce Carlson highlights how the facial musculature forms once the basic facial skeletal structure takes place.84

Kausana and lahm (the key words in this stage): the migration and aggregation of the muscles cells around the developing limb and axial skeleton, to form muscles, tendons and connective tissue.

Academic historians attest the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ plagiarised this stage from the Greek Philosopher Aristotle. Artistotle’s following statement “Round about the bones, and attached to them by thin fibrous brands, grow fleshy parts, for the sake of which the bones exist”85 seems to correlate with the qur’anic statement “then we clothed the bones with flesh”.

In comparing the statements it is clear the Qur’an demonstrates an intimate and detailed knowledge of the process of how muscles are formed. A depiction of the myoblasts ‘aggregating’ and ‘migrating distally’ is made with the qur’anic mention of kasauna (to clothe and incase). This level of detail is not, however, included in Aristotle's description. It must be noted that the migration of the myoblasts surrounding the bones cannot be seen with the naked eye. This fact creates an impression of the Divine nature of the Qur'an and reiterates its role as a signpost to the transcendent.

An interesting and significant perspective can be taken considering the similarities between both these statements. Rather than negate the authenticity of the Qur’an, it serves to dismantle the claims that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ copied Aristotle. What is primarily brought to mind is the question of how, if the Prophet ﷺ is supposed to have taken from Aristotle’s work, is it the Qur’an only contains the correct information and refused to include Aristotle’s incorrect information?

In exploring the above question further problems with the plagiarisation thesis are brought to light, which inevitably prove the credibility and authenticity of the Qur'an. For example, how can we explain the Prophet ﷺ not adopting the Aristotelian view that male embryos are generated on the left side of the womb, and female embryos on the right side of the womb? 86 Or the fact that the Qur’an does not mention Aristotle’s discredited and misapplied theory of semen mixing with women’s menstrual blood coagulating to form the embryo? And what caused the distinction between the Qur’an’s specification of nutfah instead of haydh (menstrual blood) during the stage of fertilization? Moreover, Aristotle held the belief that the upper body is formed before the lower body: Now the upper portion of the body is the first to be marked off in the course of the embryo's formation; the lower portion receives its growth as time goes on. 87.

Again, this is a concept the Qur’an does not mention.

If the claim that Aristotle was plagiarised is to be taken seriously we must ask a final question: why, when there was no scientific way of proving or disproving Aristotle’s statements as true, does the Qur’an choose to specifically omit these wrong conjectures? The Qur’an’s particular choice of the word to describe this stage (to clothe) would require an intimate knowledge of the migration of the myoblasts. This process, remarkably illustrated in the Qur’an, cannot - as explained - be seen with the naked eye.

As such, it is apparent these contentions are irrational and probabilistic, and suffer from a lack of explanatory power and scope. The likeness between both statements is a means to deconstruct the plagiarisation thesis, as it is based on the extreme and infinitesimal probability that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ would take the correct information, at the same time find more concise words to describe the process, reject the incorrect information and include other aspects of the process not mentioned in Greek literature

Critics of the qur’anic description of the developing human embryo maintain that the word lahm (flesh) is not the most accurate word to use and the word adlat (muscle) is more appropriate. This approach is insubstantial because the word lahm is far more comprehensive. It includes muscle and other aspects of flesh such as tendons and connective tissue in its meaning, all of which are involved at this stage. John Allen and Beverley Kramer explain this stage:

Ultimately, the muscles and tendons become attached to the bony structures so that they can produce their actions across the joints.88

This statement proves the imposition against lahm to be ineffective. Simply specifying ‘muscle’ would not be comprehensive enough to describe what occurs at this stage

Commentators on the qur’anic description of the developing human embryo claim the Qur’an portrays an inaccurate succession of events with regards to the bones and the clothing of the flesh. They declare bone and muscle formations occur simultaneously, but the Qur’an uses the connective particle fa, which in the context of the verse, indicates a quick succession of one thing happening after the other. For instance the Qur’an says “We made that lump into bones, and (fa) We clothed those bones with flesh”.

This view represents a misunderstanding of the linguistic context of the verse. The Qur’an’s use of the particle fa is not in the context of creating; rather it is in the context of clothing the bones with flesh. The Qur’an does not specify when the flesh (or muscles) were formed; it only specifies when the clothing of the limb bones with flesh happens. This, as John Allen and Beverley Kramer explain, is straight after:

Soon after the cartilaginous models of the bones have been established, the myogenic cells, which have now become myoblasts, aggregate to form muscle masses on the ventral and dorsal aspects of the limbs. 89

A significant clarification to make is that this contention has no scientific basis because limb bone and muscle formation are not simultaneous. Embryologist Bruce Carlson confirms the limb bones as being formed before the limb muscles: The skeleton is the first major tissue of the limb to show overt signs of differentiation. 90