these are just my thoughts excerpt from an article I've written. May be, this may help
He was created from a fluid (maa), ejected (daafikeen), emerging from between the backbone (sulb) and the ribs/breastbone (taraaib).
The two most controversial verses about creation is certainly found in Chapter At-Tariq verses 6 and 7, the favorite verses of the critics of the Quran who have found there their ultimate proof that Quran should be debunked as it bears a ?proved? scientifically incorrect verse. Just do a google search on that topic and hundreds of pages will open up. On the one hand, staunch opponents? arguments are clear and easily comprehensible. On the other hand, muslims are trying to refute (very badly) by all means through linguistic acrobatics about the real meaning of the words ?sulb? and ?taraaib?. Some gave scientific explanations, with schematic drawings as support, that sperm or rather what produces sperm, the testes, originally come, during our foetal development, from the abdomen. These arguments can?t convince anyone except themselves. The discomfort is more than palpable. Let us analyse the two verses especially the key words.
Maa: Is usually used for water but the word can also be used for other fluids especially a nourishing fluid. The Quran uses it both ways even if, most of the time, it refers to ?water descending from the sky? or rain. The word is also used for the pure water of paradise (47:15) compared to the scalding fluid like murky oil in Hell (14:16, 18:29). In 32:8 the worthless water may refer to semen. It is the context of the verse that gives the meaning. Therefore, most people have understood the maa in 86:6 as semen, Muslim commentators and their opponents, altogether.
Daafikeen: Usually translated as gushing or ejected. Sometimes it is translated as emitted which is wrong as the word connotes a movement with force or pressure.
Taraaib: Used for the chest region where the necklace hangs and has come to mean the breastbone and the adjacent ribs especially the upper ribs. According to some Arabic experts, the word is used mainly for women. In a desperate try to give a sense to these verses, some have tried to attach the word to female genitalia, of course, without proper references. My respected confrere and countryman, Dr. Maurice Bucaille, favored this explanation but seemed very uneasy about it.
Soulb : Used for the backbone even if the definition of loins has been given. The latter makes a complete non sense in the verse. The two are not even opposite to each other. To speak of a region between loins and breastbone is, as if, we are looking for a country between England and Australia! God does not lack precision. Backbone here makes complete sense.
It is now clear that the region formed between backbone and the breastbone and ribs stated here is the thorax and not the abdomen, neither the pelvis nor the scrotum. The problem is that most commentators focus on 86:7 as they have taken for granted that the fluid mentioned in 86:6 is semen. Ask any doctor about a gushing fluid emerging between backbone and breastbone: He will tell you that it is certainly blood not semen. Yes, the maa that is ejected every second at each systolic contraction of the left ventricle of the heart emerges right here through the semilunar valves into the aorta and brings a nourishing fluid to all parts of the body, especially to the uterine wall of the mother bearing the decidual membrane which consists the maternal part of the placenta where the embryo will extract all the necessary nutrients for development. Blood is an essential component for creation. Up to now, we have got, after fertilization, the architectural plans ? the DNA- of the future baby but creation does not stop here. Remember 39:6, creation continues in the womb, creation upon creation. It?s the mother who, through her blood ejected from her heart every second, will bring the necessary nutrients, vitamins, minerals, water and of course oxygen for creation to proceed and by the same way will evacuate all the toxic materials and carbon dioxide from the embryo. Even if, it should be taken more allegorically in the same way as creation from dust, water, clay or sperm, there is no contradiction to science.