The Quran does not present conception as "male sperm alone." It speaks in brief, moral language about origins, and one key verse describes the beginning of the human being as a "mixed drop," which is not the language of a one-parent contribution.
How the criticism is usually framed
The strongest version of the objection is this: the Quran repeatedly says the human being is made from a "drop" of emitted fluid, which sounds like semen. It also speaks of a clot and of clay. Since it never names the female egg, the critic argues that it reflects an ancient male-centered theory of reproduction, not real biology. Modern embryology says sperm and ovum both contribute genetic material, so, the critic says, a divine book should not omit the ovum.
What the Quran actually says
"Indeed, We created man from a mixed drop, testing him; and We made him hearing and seeing."
Quran 76:2
The Arabic phrase is nutfatin amshaj - a mixed drop. Nutfah means a small amount of fluid, not specifically a sperm cell. Amshaj means mixed, mingled, combined. Classical commentators commonly explained this as the mingling of the male and female contributions. That is not modern special pleading; it is the plain force of the wording.
The Quran also says:
"He was created from a gushing fluid, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs."
Quran 86:6-7
This passage emphasizes the humble, bodily origin of the human being. It does not say, "only the man's sperm creates the child." Nor does it attempt to list every biological structure involved. The Quran often speaks selectively: it highlights a sign, not an entire mechanism.
"Clot," "drop," and "clay" are not contradictions
"Then We made the drop into an alaqah, then We made the alaqah into a lump..."
Quran 23:14
"Created man from an alaq."
Quran 96:2
These are not competing claims about one single moment. "Clay" refers to man's earthly origin - Adam's creation and the material nature of the human body, which is nourished from the earth. "Drop" refers to the reproductive beginning of Adam's descendants. Alaqah refers to a later early stage, with meanings connected to clinging and a blood-like form. Whether one translates it "clot," "clinging thing," or "leech-like form," it is clearly after the drop, not an alternative to it.
The Sunnah also shows that female contribution was not absent from Islamic teaching. When a woman asked about female discharge, the Prophet (PBUH) said:
"Yes. From where would resemblance come, if not from that?"
Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
This is not a textbook statement about ova, chromosomes, and fertilization. But it plainly recognizes that the mother has a real reproductive contribution connected to the child's resemblance.
What this proves, and what it does not
The objection proves one modest point: the Quran does not name the ovum or describe fertilization in modern cellular language. That is true. The Quran is not written like a biology manual.
But the objection does not prove that the Quran teaches conception from male sperm alone. That reading ignores "mixed drop," narrows nutfah beyond its Arabic meaning, and treats selective speech as denial. A short moral passage can mention emitted fluid without listing every hidden biological factor.
So the fair answer is simple: the Quran does not give a full embryology lesson, and Muslims should not force every modern detail into it. But the charge that it gets reproduction wrong by teaching a male-only origin is stronger than the evidence allows.