人胚胎发育的下一阶段是“نطفة”（努特法）。这个词有多种含义：

The next stage of the development of the human embryo is nutfah. This word has various meanings:

1. 从阿拉伯语来看，"nutfah"（纳图法）可以指一滴、一缕细流、一小滴，也可以指精液。33 "Nutfah"还可以指某一类群体中的一个个体。因此，一个nutfah可以是精液中所含数百万精子中的单个精子，也可以是卵巢中众多卵子中的单个女性卵子。34

1. By looking at the Arabic language, it can mean a dribble, a trickle, a drop or semen33. Nutfah can also mean a singular entity which is a part of a bigger group of its kind. Therefore, a nutfah could be a single sperm from a collection of millions of sperms contained in semen, or a single female egg from a group of many other eggs in the Ovaries.34.

2. 根据先知的圣训，先知穆罕默德ﷺ解释说，nutfah是由两种液体结合而成的，即“来自男性的nutfah和来自女性的nutfah”。35

2. According to Prophetic tradition, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ explained the nutfah as a combination of liquids “from a male nutfah and from a female nutfah”.35

3. 在《古兰经》中，nutfah（精滴）被描述为混合的（al-amshaj）液体的结合："我从混合的精液滴中创造了人。" 36

3. In the Qur’an the nutfah is described as a combination of mingled (al-amshaj) fluids: “We created man from a drop (nutfah) of mingled fluid.” 36.

从语法角度看，这节经文描绘了一幅图景：nutfah（精液）是由来自母亲与父亲的两种液体混合而成的一个整体。al-amshaj（混合的）是一个复数形容词，却与单数名词 nutfah 连用。从语法上看，这突出了经文中将 nutfah 视为单一实体或一滴液体的概念，而这一滴液体是由多种物质混合而产生的。

This verse, from a grammatical perspective, portrays an image of the nutfah as an entity made up of a combination of fluids coming from the mother and the father. The word al-amshaj (mingled) is a plural adjective and it is used here with the singular noun nutfah. Grammatically, this highlights the verse's concept of nutfah as being a single entity or drop produced by a combination of substances.

《古兰经》和先知圣训所提出的原则，与现代胚胎学所了解的知识相吻合。"努特法"阶段特别意味着受精过程，而受精需要母亲与父亲双方的成分"混合"。这些成分形成一个被称为合子的单细胞。关于此点，胚胎学家约翰·艾伦和贝弗利·克拉默指出：

The principles put forward by both the Qur'an and the Prophetic tradition coincide with what is known today of modern embryology. The nutfah stage specifically implies the process of fertilisation, which requires the ‘mingling’ of components from the mother and the father. These components form a single cell known as the zygote. In regard to this, embryologists John Allen and Beverley Kramer state:

人类个体由两个微小结构——细胞——的结合而产生，一个来自母亲（卵母细胞），一个来自父亲（精子）。这些被称为配子。这两个配子结合形成一个单细胞，即受精卵，整个胚胎，包括其周围的膜，都由此发育而来。37

The human individual arises from the conjugation of two minute structures called cells, one from the mother (oocyte) and one from the father (spermatozoon). These are called gametes. Together, these gametes form a single cell, the zygote, from which the entire embryo, including its surrounding membranes, grows. 37

从生理学角度看,父母双方的两种细胞结构都需要包裹在受精所必需的液体中。精子包含在一种称为精液的液体中[38],卵母细胞则覆盖着输卵管分泌物,这些分泌物是其存活和可受精性所必需的。生理学家布鲁斯·科彭(Bruce Koeppen)和布鲁斯·斯坦顿(Bruce Stanton)解释说:

From a physiological perspective, each one of the two cell structures from both the mother and the father need to be contained in fluids necessary for fertilization. The spermatozoon is contained in fluid called semen38, and the oocyte is coated in oviductal secretions required for its viability and fertilizability. Physiologists Bruce Koeppen and Bruce Stanton explain:

输卵管分泌物包裹并渗入卵丘-卵母细胞复合体，可能是其存活能力和受精能力所必需的。39

Oviductal secretions coat and infuse the cumulus-oocyte complex and may be required for viability and fertilizability.39

因此，将“nutfah”一词解释为由母亲与父亲的单个细胞（包含于受精所需的体液中）结合而成的混合体，这与合子形成的生理学描述是相符的。

Thus, the analysis of the word nutfah as a mingled entity formed as a result of single cells from the mother and the father (which are contained in fluids necessary for fertilization) corresponds with the physiological description of the zygote's formation.

nutfah 阶段:受精卵的形成,即母亲与父亲两种体液的混合,其中包含两个微小的细胞结构(卵母细胞和精子)。

he nutfah stage: The formation of the zygote, via the mingling of two fluids from the mother and the father, which contains two small cell structures (the oocyte and the spermatozoon).

《古兰经》中关于人类胚胎发育阶段的论述，曾有一些注释者作过考察。他们断言，《古兰经》关于人类发育的论述抄袭自古希腊哲学家、博学者亚里士多德，以及2世纪的哲学家和医生盖伦的著作。鉴于上述分析，这一指控毫无根据：亚里士多德认为，只有男性产生促使胚胎发育的液体（即遗传物质）。他认为男性精液是能动的形式，而女性卵子只提供被动的成分以供受精；这一观点与现代胚胎学相矛盾。

The stages of the developing human embryo described in the Qur’an have been examined by some commentators. They assert that the qur’anic discourse on human development is plagiarised from the works of the ancient Greek philosopher and polymath Aristotle, and the 2nd century philosopher and physician Galen. In light of the above analysis this allegation is baseless, as Aristotle believed only the male produces fluid responsible for the development of the embryo (the genetic material). He supposes the male semen to be the active form and the female ovum as providing only the passive element for fertilization; an idea contradictory to modern embryology.

事实上,亚里士多德认为精液与女性的经血混合,凝结而形成胚胎。亚里士多德关于人类发育的说法,明显与《古兰经》和现代胚胎学不相符,这一点在他自己的著作中有所体现:

In fact, Aristotle was of the opinion that semen mixed with women’s menstrual blood, coagulating to form the embryo. Aristotelian accounts of human development are evidently incongruous with both the Qur’an and modern embryology, as illustrated in his own writings:

……雌性虽然不提供任何精液用于生育,但它提供了某种东西,即构成月经的物质……如果雄性是主动的一方,是运动的发起者,而雌性作为雌性是被动的一方,那么雌性为雄性的精液所提供的,必定不是精液,而是质料。事实上我们确实发现情况正是如此;因为月经液这一自然物质应被归类为原初质料。40.

...the female, though it does not contribute any semen to generation... contributes something, viz., the substance constituting the menstrual fluid… [I]f the male is the active partner, the one which originates the movement, and the female qua female is the passive one, surely what the female contributes to the semen of the male will be not semen but material. And this is in fact what we find happening; for the natural substance of the menstrual fluid is to be classed as prime matter.40.

经典的古兰经注释学家在阐述亚里士多德关于人类发育的理论与古兰经叙述之间的分歧。十四世纪的法学家兼古兰经注释家伊本·盖伊yim（Ibn al-Qayyim）引用了多段先知圣训，以强调仅靠男性精液并不能产生孩子这一事实。41 此外，关于抄袭的指控毫无根据，因为古兰经所用的词语与亚里士多德的措辞并不相同；古兰经具有科学上的准确性，而亚里士多德则不然。亚里士多德那套已被推翻的假设（即认为经血参与受精过程）与古兰经形成了进一步的对比，古兰经使用的词是“nutfah”，而这并不是阿拉伯语中经血的词汇。阿拉伯语中经血的词是“haydh”。

Classical exegetes of the Qur’an convey the disagreement between Aristotelian accounts of human development and the qur’anic narrative. Ibn al-Qayyim, the 14th century jurist and commentator of the Qur’an, uses various Prophetic traditions to emphasise the fact that male semen alone is not responsible for generating a child.41 Furthermore, assertions of plagiarism are futile as the words used in the Qur’an are unlike Aristotle’s choice of words; the Qur’an is scientifically accurate and Aristotle is not. Aristotle's discredited supposition (of menstrual blood being involved in the process of fertilisation) is further contrasted with the Qur’an and its use of the word nutfah, which is not the word for menstrual blood in Arabic. The word for menstrual blood in Arabic is haydh.

关于《古兰经》抄袭盖伦之说，这同样站不住脚，因为盖伦把本应归于受精卵的作用归于精液。他写道：

As for the assertion that the Qur’an plagiarised from Galen, this is once again insubstantial as Galen attributes to the semen what we should to the fertilised ovum. He writes:

精液也是如此：它从一开始就具有其固有的各种功能。42

so it is with the semen: its faculties it possessed from the beginning.42

与此相反,《古兰经》将努特法（nutfah）描述为男女双方混合的一滴或一股液体,而不仅仅来自男性。它也强调男女双方都对孩子的基因构成负有责任。圣训也支持这一推理:先知ﷺ肯定了女性对其子女基因构成的责任,并提出这样的问题:“否则,孩子们怎么会像他们呢?”43 伊本·盖伊姆推测,如果女性没有某种精液,那么她们的孩子就不会像她们。男性精液本身并不能孕育孩子,因为只有当男性精子与女性方面的等同物(卵子)相混合时,受孕才会发生。44

Contrary to this, the Qur’an describes the nutfah as a mingled drop or fluid from both the male and the female, not just the male. It also stresses both the male and female as being responsible for the child’s genetic makeup. This reasoning is further supported by Prophetic tradition with the Prophetﷺ affirming a woman's responsibility for the genetic makeup of her child, as he proposes the question: “How else do their children resemble them?”43 Ibn al-Qayyim theorizes that if women do not have a type of semen, then their children would not look like them. The male semen alone does not generate a child because conception only occurs upon the mixture of male sperm with another equivalent (ovum) from the female. 44

这一论证表明，《古兰经》认为男女双方都对"官能"负有责任，这就使"《古兰经》基于盖伦理论"的假设站不住脚，因为盖伦的理论夸大了男性的作用，而低估了女性的作用。这些对比与阐释有助于推翻"抄袭说"，于是有必要提出以下问题：如果先知穆罕默德ﷺ抄袭了盖伦和亚里士多德的著作，那么希腊医师与《古兰经》用来描述这一阶段的词语为何不同？而《古兰经》为何在科学上是准确的，盖伦和亚里士多德却不然？

This demonstration, of the Qur’an perceiving both the male and female as responsible for the ‘faculties’, renders invalid the assumption that the Qur'an is based on Galen's theory, which exaggerates the male contribution and understates that of the female. These contrasts and explications contribute to a dismantling of the plagiarisation thesis, and it becomes necessary to pose the questions: if the Prophet ﷺ plagiarised Galen’s and Aristotle’s works, why are the words used by the Greek physicians and the Qur’an to describe this stage dissimilar? And why is the Qur’an scientifically accurate when Galen and Aristotle are not?