/* */

PDA

View Full Version : I'm not convinced that human evolution contradicts the Qu'ran...



MuslimCONVERT
12-20-2011, 06:31 AM
What do you think? The Qu'ran pretty much states that Adam [aleyhis-salaam] was the first man... but it doesn't contradict with the idea that there may have been other "man like" hominids leading up to him... We know that Allah [swt] created man from clay, as He [swt] says in the Qu'ran... But Allah [swt] is using the term generally, if I understand it, and not specifically... I know in at least one verse of the Qu'ran, Allah [swt] states that all mankind is made from clay... that clearly doesn't mean we were literally formed out of clay in the wombs of our mothers... Dirt/Clay is simply a loose term to refer to carbon and minerals, i.e. necessary building blocks of life... and biological science attests to the fact that life first began on earth in something like marshlands... where there would have been clay and mud, [i.e., carbon and minerals required for life to begin] etc...

The question I have is, is it possible to understand Adam [a.s.] being the "first man" to be, the first man with a soul, who was accountable for his actions, and was close enough in form to be considered "human" -even if he was the last in a long line of evolutionary species? Because the Qu'ran doesn't have a "story of creation" like the book of Genesis in the Bible, where it is clearly stated that there was nothing, and then God made the first human being... The Qu'ran is somewhat vague on what was happening on earth before man... But we know there were things happening on earth before Adam [a.s.] got here, based on the verse in the Qu'ran where Allah states, "And when thy Lord said to the angels, 'I am going to place a ruler in the earth', they said: 'Wilt Thou place in it such as make mischief in it and shed blood? And we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness?' He said: 'Surely I know what you know not...'" [Qu'ran 2:30]. From this verse we see that earth was well formed long before Adam [a.s.], and the angels were quite familiar with it...

After all, we know it is possible for human beings to "evolve" based on the Hadith that states that Adam [a.s.] was so many cubits tall, and that people have been decreasing in size since the time of Adam... So... I guess what I'm asking is, what are your thoughts? Is it possible to interpret the creation of man as a subtle, evolutionary process guided by the Will of Allah, who is Al-Lateef [subtle/benign], and that Adam is merely the first "human being" as understood by God, in terms of what it means to make one human? [i.e., having a soul, a certain amount of intellect, accountability for ones actions, etc.]?

I mean, even the descriptions of Adam [a.s.] in the Qu'ran sound like something that represents the most base form of human intellect... not an intellect that is tainted by centuries upon centuries of philosophies, complicated ideas, etc.... But rather, he seems to me to be [Allahu 'Alim], the most basic human prototype imagineable... He is ordered to stay away from a specific tree... But Satan comes and says, "No, this tree is good, and it'll do such and such good thing for you..." And Adam, having no concept of "lying" immediately succumbed and ate from the tree, disobeying God... But, yet he learned a very basic lesson... Actions have consequences, and hardships [even ones brought on by our own mistakes] can work out to our developmental benefit [because Adam did learn from his mistake and took on the attributes of humility and repentance, which elevated his character, ultimately...]

I dunno, I'm just kinda thinking in typed word format... feel free to give me your feedback...

Salaam/Peace
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Eric H
12-20-2011, 12:50 PM
Greetings and peace be with you MuslimCONVERT;
I know in at least one verse of the Qu'ran, Allah [swt] states that all mankind is made from clay... that clearly doesn't mean we were literally formed out of clay in the wombs of our mothers...
Just a thought, if we had the knowledge; all of us would be able to trace our ancestry back to Adam.
Adam can trace his ancestry to clay; hence all mankind comes from the clay of Adam.
Ok I am Christian, maybe some more learned people might have other thoughts

In the spirit of searching

Eric
Reply

MustafaMc
12-20-2011, 01:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT
I guess what I'm asking is, what are your thoughts? Is it possible to interpret the creation of man as a subtle, evolutionary process guided by the Will of Allah, who is Al-Lateef [subtle/benign], and that Adam is merely the first "human being" as understood by God, in terms of what it means to make one human? [i.e., having a soul, a certain amount of intellect, accountability for ones actions, etc.]?
Your statement that I highlighted in red directly contradicts the Theory of Evolution (ToE). For one thing evolutionists would most definitely strike the word 'creation' and substitute 'evolution from a common unicellular ancestor' and they would strike 'guided by the Will of Allah' to replace it with 'that was the result of natural selection for certain genetic mutations and biological differences through survival of the fittest'.

The debate between creation and evolution to me is not so much the physical means through which mankind came into being, but rather the involvement or lack thereof of Allah (swt) in intimately directing and controlling the most minute step in the coming into existence of human life. I am a plant geneticist and I have knowledge of molecular biology and the inheritance of traits. I see biological systems and the various species of life as living documents that prove to me the existence of Allah (swt) as evidenced by His creation. I do not concern myself with a question of whether Adam was literally fashioned by Allah (swt) from clay or whether Adam 'evolved' over eons of time through the direction and control of Allah (swt). I think of my development in my mothers womb first as an unfertilized egg that was then fertilized by a single one out of millions of competing sperm, and then from this fertilized egg into a multicellular blob that gradually developed a distinct form and shape. I also know that at the early stages of development I looked very similar to the embryo of a monkey, a rabbit, a chicken, or a turtle. These images seem to indicate a commonality in ancestry, but all of them have preexisting parents of the same species as a prerequisite. Once you have Adam and Eve or the seminal parents, the life process seems to be self-perpetuating, but the real question is how did those seminal, ancestral parents arise. This question can be answered in the same manner as, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haeckel_drawings.jpg

Attachment 4486

As I said earlier, I know about biological systems and no one will ever convince me that the species evolved 'naturally' from a common unicellular, prokaryotic ancestor without the intimate design, control and direction by Allah (swt).
Reply

Ramadhan
12-20-2011, 01:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT
The question I have is, is it possible to understand Adam [a.s.] being the "first man" to be, the first man with a soul, who was accountable for his actions, and was close enough in form to be considered "human" -even if he was the last in a long line of evolutionary species? Because the Qu'ran doesn't have a "story of creation" like the book of Genesis in the Bible, where it is clearly stated that there was nothing, and then God made the first human being... The Qu'ran is somewhat vague on what was happening on earth before man... But we know there were things happening on earth before Adam [a.s.] got here, based on the verse in the Qu'ran where Allah states, "And when thy Lord said to the angels, 'I am going to place a ruler in the earth', they said: 'Wilt Thou place in it such as make mischief in it and shed blood? And we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness?' He said: 'Surely I know what you know not...'" [Qu'ran 2:30]. From this verse we see that earth was well formed long before Adam [a.s.], and the angels were quite familiar with it...
In the Qur'an, it is very clear that creation of Adam was separate from creation of earth and everything in it and Adam was created and dwelled in paradise (jannat). You said it yourself above that earth had well been formed before Adam was created. So even if you believe in evolution of earth, Qur'an makes it clearly that human is not part of it:

Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, “Be,” and he was. (Qur’an 3:59)

And We said, “O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat there from in [ease and] abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 2:35)

And creation of human is separate from creation of the natural:

The creation of the heavens and the earth is indeed greater than the creation of mankind (Qur'an 40:57)
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
CosmicPathos
12-20-2011, 03:45 PM
so you are saying Adam had parents who were animal like? Did these "hominid like" parents, as you describe them, have souls? Did they commit zina as animals commit with each other? I am not sure Adam would be born to zaani "hominid like" parents.

If Adam's immediate parents were "homind like" and not entirely homo sapiens, then when did Adam become a homo sapien? When he was in womb of his "hominid like" mother's womb? Or later when he was undergoing puberty (yea ridiculous). Or hmm ?
Reply

Perseveranze
12-20-2011, 04:23 PM
Asalaamu Alaikum,

This is what Abdur Raheem said.

Reply

Abz2000
12-20-2011, 05:16 PM
Reply

MustafaMc
12-20-2011, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Asalaamu Alaikum,

This is what Abdur Raheem said.

He pretty much said what I would have except with a British accent.
Reply

FS123
12-20-2011, 09:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Your statement that I highlighted in red directly contradicts the Theory of Evolution (ToE).
Actually that is for atheistic evolutionist. ToE is just is analysis of the mechanics of the process. As for Adam in jannah, that could be on earth, Quran is not specific. The same word to "go down" is used for Isrealites when they disobeyed Moses (pbuh). I tell you where it does, it says Adam was created without a father and mother, as Jesus was created without a father. How exactly we don't know. But Jesus (pbuh) even though without a father, but he still had to go through the normal process of birth through womb. Somebody suggested without a father may mean through horizontal mutation/gene transfer. But it is just guess, nobody knows the exact process.

In that case, both Adam and Jesus births would go against ToE, but that is just based on the belief that things happen as we know it. In Islam, we have the middle path, things happen in a pattern, but there are unknowns and unseen things in reality.

So I don't think ToE goes against Islam, unless somebody is very rigid beliefs for ToE.
Reply

MustafaMc
12-20-2011, 09:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by FS123
Actually that is for atheist evolutionist. ToE is just is analysis of the mechanics of the process.
By definition evolution is atheistic because the existence of Allah (swt) cannot be scientifically proven. We as humans are unable to categorize and scientifically study Allah's (swt) nature. ToE is not an 'analysis of the mechanics', but rather it is a hypothesis that has been accepted by some as a scientifically sound theory. I rather think it is a bunch of speculative hogwash and much ado about absolutely nothing.
Reply

FS123
12-20-2011, 09:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
By definition evolution is atheistic because the existence of Allah (swt) cannot be scientifically proven. We as humans are unable to categorize and scientifically study Allah's (swt) nature. ToE is not an 'analysis of the mechanics', but rather it is a hypothesis that has been accepted by some as a scientifically sound theory. I rather think it is a bunch of speculative hogwash and much ado about absolutely nothing.
Then the whole science would be atheistic, but it is not like that. Science has its limitation, it can't tell how the stock market will move next month. It can only be used with repeatable patterns and material (or material that is accessible to us). I agree with you about ToE, it has lot of conjunctures which cannot be tested in a true scientific method. But overall I don't think it goes against Islam, a person just have to have balanced and objective view.
Reply

MuslimCONVERT
12-20-2011, 10:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
so you are saying Adam had parents who were animal like? Did these "hominid like" parents, as you describe them, have souls? Did they commit zina as animals commit with each other? I am not sure Adam would be born to zaani "hominid like" parents.

If Adam's immediate parents were "homind like" and not entirely homo sapiens, then when did Adam become a homo sapien? When he was in womb of his "hominid like" mother's womb? Or later when he was undergoing puberty (yea ridiculous). Or hmm ?
No not saying anything... Just kind of thinking... Not presenting "my views" or saying that what I've written is true...
Reply

Insaanah
12-20-2011, 10:57 PM
:sl:

I find it interesting and beautiful that in the Qur'an, Allah refers to the whole of humanity as:

Pickthall
"O children of Adam, if there come to you messengers from among you relating to you My verses, then whoever fears Allah and reforms - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve." (7:35)

And doesn't refer to us as "O children of apes", or "O children of hominids".

What hasn't been related to us about the conditions at the time of the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) and any other creatures present, all counts as matters of the unseen, which we don't need to delve into.

Scientific theories can change at the drop of a hat, even after years of being held as accepted fact, and are precisely that, theories. Postulated by other humans who have the same human limitations and failings as us, which people nowadays rely on to shape their view of the world and its origins. We don't need to somehow see if we can make our belief accomodate those theories.

Allah told us that he created our parents Adam and Hawwa (peace be upon them both). There is no reason whatsover in Qur'an or sunnah to suppose that they evolved from anyone or anything, the only reason would be to try to see if we can "modernise" or "adapt" our belief to fit in with the current day trend, and this is really not a good road to go down.

And Allah knows best in all matters, and may He forgive me if I said anything wrong.
Reply

Abz2000
12-20-2011, 11:17 PM
although some mutations are visible in other creatures, this can't be used to claim that we just came out of amoeba, not thinking, not willing and not seeing, and slowly just developed into humans with authority over land and sea.
the explanation given is that one mutation at a time, the process of natural selection kept the best traits and discarded the rest.
without a will.
this cannot explain how something as complex as the eye developed, as most of the components of the eye are useless without the other parts, and of no benefit to the existing parts
and for non thinking, non seeing matter which came out of a non thinking non seeing planet to suddenly decide it wants to see, when it doesn't even know what seeing is and is unable to think in order to decide to build the components via a long process doesn't seem sensible at all, as the organism would have rejected each component as a useless trait,
it would have to know what it's doing and trying to make if it isn't going to discard these components as unnecessary.
also the fact that there are 7bn homo sapiens on earth, for the process of evolution to make sense, it would require that there were hundreds of billions of creatures almost identical to humans roaming around, since it works through multiplication. and if one were to try to explainthe absence of these creatures via the theory of natural selection of the best traits, it wouldn't leave room for all the other creatures which are so different from humans that are present today.

the argument that Allah created us in stages may possibly have some reason to exist as it explains the Being Who wills the process, although i don't hold that point of view,

the argument can be made that Allah tells us in the Quran that the likeness of Jesus is that of Adam, He created him from dust and said "BE", and he was.
the Quran also tells us clearly that Jesus (pbuh) was born of woman, (the process of fetal development is not given even though it occurred),
the dust being the origin of constituents which build the body.
Allah also tells us in the quran that He took out the offspring of Adam from Adam's loins and said "am i not your Rabb"

When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?"- They said: "Yea! We do testify!" (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "Of this we were never mindful":
Quran 7:172
yet we know that we came to this earth through the process of birth with long stages between us, and Allah also tells us about this process in the Quran.

so it could be argued that the presence of man in paradise is different to how he came about on earth.
but i still find it hard to believe that we were once monkeys or something else (one mutation short) and that with one sudden mutation we became human and have continued as humans since,
and all the other humans from the mutation before disappeared while fish and snakes and birds and worms and elephants and apes remained.

Allah knows best

Reply

Mikayeel
12-20-2011, 11:20 PM
:sl:

If you refer to evolution from the point of where we were humans onwards then fair enough. Because it only makes sense. But if you take it all the way to the apes, then stop!

If you look at skin colours for example, you will see that people have more or less adapted to their environment. Hotter regions in general have darker skinned people. People more or less adapted to their environment, because Adam 3layhu alsalaaam was only a certain colour.

Evolution in that sense, well u can call it adaptation is not contradicted by islamic belief.
Reply

syed1
12-20-2011, 11:30 PM
Reply

MustafaMc
12-21-2011, 02:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah
What hasn't been related to us about the conditions at the time of the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) and any other creatures present, all counts as matters of the unseen, which we don't need to delve into.
You are exactly correct that these are matters of the unseen and they can't be proven one way or another. However, we are under constant attack for our so-called unreasonable religious belief that Allah (swt) created us from dust and the evolutionists hold ToE as evidence that we were not created, but rather arose unceremoniously from the same common ancestor as monkeys, pigs, rabbits, fish, etc. We even have Muslims who present evolution as a reasonable means for the coming into existence of human beings. There is a fine line to walk between defending our faith and going beyond what has been revealed to us in speculation. I encourage any Muslim to correct me when I do so and when I am wrong.
Scientific theories can change at the drop of a hat, even after years of being held as accepted fact, and are precisely that, theories. Postulated by other humans who have the same human limitations and failings as us, which people nowadays rely on to shape their view of the world and its origins. We don't need to somehow see if we can make our belief accomodate those theories.
Again you are correct. We most definitely do not need to bend over backwards and adapt our faith to whatever scientific theory is presented to us as true. At the same time we should have the courage to examine whatever evidence is presented to us and try to expand our own understanding of the world we live in. I rather liken this to Allah (swt) teaching Adam the 'names' in the Quran 2:31-33. I believe that scientific knowledge and understanding comes from Allah (swt) and I most definitely do not place ToE under the realm of scientific knowledge. Should we be like some Christians and deny, for example, fossil record of dinosaurs because it is not consistent with their understanding of the act of creation? Or, should we rather examine them for what they are and accept the possibility of species becoming extinct and others coming into existence over time by Allah's (swt) will?
Allah told us that he created our parents Adam and Hawwa (peace be upon them both). There is no reason whatsover in Qur'an or sunnah to suppose that they evolved from anyone or anything, the only reason would be to try to see if we can "modernise" or "adapt" our belief to fit in with the current day trend, and this is really not a good road to go down.
I agree that we do not need to retrofit our faith so it is consistent with so-called scientific theories which are based on man's limited understanding of the universe that in and of itself is changing and evolving over time.
And Allah knows best in all matters, and may He forgive me if I said anything wrong.
Yes, Allah (swt) knows best and may He forgive me if I wrote anything that is wrong and untrue.
Reply

Muhaba
12-22-2011, 07:53 AM
God says in the Quran that He created Adam with His Hands. what i take that to mean is that God created Adam by himself and Adam didn't evolve from anything else nor was he produced like children are from their parents. additionally, i believe that it also says in the Quran that God made Adam from clay and then blew soul into him, but am unsure of the exact words. all this points to the fact that God made Adam directly from clay and Adam was not evolved from some other being.
Reply

MustafaMc
12-22-2011, 12:34 PM
I watched a show last night, "What Darwin Never Knew" about modern scientific evidence for evolution. They did present a lot of 'science' but they also presented so many half-truths to border on lying for them to present ToE as scientific knowledge that is widely accepted. The show most certainly would have appeared very convincing to one not educated in biological sciences. For one thing they proposed the evolution of legs from a fish that was trying to escape being eaten by another fish. The problem is that for this to be factual, the organism would have had to develop fully functional legs in the water for them to offer any advantage and another thing is that this 'walking fish' would have had to simultaneously develop the capability to breathe air through lungs and not by filtering oxygen from water through gills. Neither did they present the example of the Mudskipper fish that exists today as an apparent missing link in the evolution chain. If evolution works to develop new species, why does this 'missing link' still exist?
Attachment 4490
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-23-2011, 11:48 PM
As Richard Dawkins himself would put it, the theory of evolution does not disprove God, but it does go a long way towards showing that we could have come to be without God. It doesn't refute theism, but it does go towards showing it to be unnecessary. It is compatible with theism (belief in God). If it is compatible with Islam in particular I don't know.
Reply

FS123
12-24-2011, 12:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah
I find it interesting and beautiful that in the Qur'an, Allah refers to the whole of humanity as:

Pickthall
"O children of Adam, if there come to you messengers from among you relating to you My verses, then whoever fears Allah and reforms - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve." (7:35)

And doesn't refer to us as "O children of apes", or "O children of hominids".
I don't see that as a valid argument because it address certain group as Children to Israel, they didn't had ancestors before them. By calling that it drives a point that we are all one family (equal, no races, etc...), and we are to follow Adam (pbuh) who is in a sense our father.

format_quote Originally Posted by WRITER
God says in the Quran that He created Adam with His Hands. what i take that to mean is that God created Adam by himself and Adam didn't evolve from anything else nor was he produced like children are from their parents. additionally, i believe that it also says in the Quran that God made Adam from clay and then blew soul into him, but am unsure of the exact words. all this points to the fact that God made Adam directly from clay and Adam was not evolved from some other being.
It says both hands, and it is to tell satan to respect, since Allah has made Adam with both hands. It is again driving a point, cannot be taken a proof for the argument.
Reply

GuestFellow
12-24-2011, 12:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT
What do you think?
Salaam/Peace
Salaam,

I just see the creation of this Earth and humans as a miracle.
Reply

FS123
12-24-2011, 12:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
If evolution works to develop new species, why does this 'missing link' still exist?
That is not the correct definition. It just means organisms change, and some survive and some go extinct. Changes doesn't guarantee any particular direction for evolution, it is unpredictable. ToE is a very big theory with many sub theories, and it has dogma and debates, because it is not exact science. It matches some information in Islam some places and some places it may not seem to agree. Where it matches is like life originated from water, in Quran origination of life is also water. Allah says he replace us if we don't follow his guidance. That is the warning for human nations, but if you take that to ToE biggest example comes to mind is dinosaurs. Big creatures, nobody could oppose them, ruled the earth for thousands of years, but one single event put them into disadvantage and replaced them with creatures who were less than them in stature.

Where it won't agree as I mentioned would be the birth of Jesus (p). So it is not exactly black and white.
Reply

Tyrion
12-24-2011, 12:43 AM
It's possible to read the Qur'an in a way that makes it seem like there could have been a sort of guided evolution, so in this regard the Qur'an/Islam is better equipped to deal with evolution compared to Christianity. However, there are many ways to look at different verses, and the traditional view is that Humans were created as a special, separate creation, but the creation of animals could be evolution or something else. One way you can think of it is like this: A master sword maker lets his apprentice create the swords for normal orders, but he still takes credit for them... But when the King makes a request for a special sword, the sword maker takes it upon himself to make this one himself, even though his apprentices could have made it and nobody would have known the difference. I'm not saying this is the right way to look at it, but it's one way that could help see one interpretation. :p:

It's not a very important point though. Fact is that we can't know for sure how man came to be (the details anyway). It's not something you need to dwell on for too long... Personally, I lean towards the traditional view, but admit that I don't/can't know the details.
Reply

FS123
12-24-2011, 01:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
It's possible to read the Qur'an in a way that makes it seem like there could have been a sort of guided evolution, so in this regard the Qur'an/Islam is better equipped to deal with evolution compared to Christianity. However, there are many ways to look at different verses, and the traditional view is that Humans were created as a special, separate creation, but the creation of animals could be evolution or something else. One way you can think of it is like this: A master sword maker lets his apprentice create the swords for normal orders, but he still takes credit for them... But when the King makes a request for a special sword, the sword maker takes it upon himself to make this one himself, even though his apprentices could have made it and nobody would have known the difference. I'm not saying this is the right way to look at it, but it's one way that could help see one interpretation. :p:

It's not a very important point though. Fact is that we can't know for sure how man came to be (the details anyway). It's not something you need to dwell on for too long...
It goes wee bit against the point made in the Quran. I'll quote a brother who made the point very clearly:
Allah has drawn attention to the creation of man from dust, as well as semen and all the various stages of the embryo to give proof to his attribute ot power and wisdom, which leads to the fundamental idea of ressurection and accountability. The fact that he was given a 'spirit' by the breath of God draws attention to his moral conscience, his "knowledge of good and evil" per the Quran, which the OT claims God did not want. The implication is that man's purpose is essentially moral and that he is self-aware to the highest extent and this gives him his true worth. This imageris also aimed at rectifying the OT account of the 'fall' of man. To argue that Islam is against evolution, because it supposedly stains the dignity of man misses the reality of the Quran that his 'physical creation' sprang from a 'sticky fluid' of 'a thing that does not matter'. Whether he sprang from rocks, sperm or the sun, the reality is his worth is accorded to his spirit, his ability to go beyond his 'physical self' and realize higher ideals. This is precisely why the angels, who were born out of a 'better material', i.e. light, were ordered to prostrate before man.

The essential point is that it is left upto science to determine the mechanisms of which we were created. The Quran tells us that God sends the rain, moves the clouds, causes vegetation to grow and provides us with sustenance. We still look for scientific explanations for these phenomenon, meaning looking for an explanation of the mechanisms of "how" does not negate the belief in God.

Also, the epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa and al-Fawz al-Asghar of Ibn Maskawayh were written in 3rd/4th cent. AH, and both talked of evolution. The writers were never dubbed unbelievers. Dr Hamidullah states that presumably Darwin read these works while at the Univ. of Cambridge. The essential point, as brother Ihsan pointed out, is that man has a moral existence which is apart from his physical constitution, and based on which he would be judged.
Reply

MustafaMc
12-24-2011, 02:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
As Richard Dawkins himself would put it, the theory of evolution does not disprove God, but it does go a long way towards showing that we could have come to be without God.
I ardently disagree with this statement. Evolution is completely inadequate in explaining the origin of the species from a unicellular, prokaryotic common ancestor. I don't disagree with 'evolutionary' changes within a species such as the differences in the tortoises or the finches on the different islands of the Galapagos, but I would imagine that tortoises with different shell shapes or finches with different beaks are still sexually compatible. My perspective is that evolutionists go too far in how much they claim ToE adequately explains the origin of different species. Horses and donkeys are very similar and they produce a viable, but sterile mule. The horse and donkey differ in chromosomal number due to a Robertsonian fusion that results in abnormal chromosomal pairing in meiosis and near complete male sterility. In order for this fused chromosome to become homozygous then two individuals with exactly the same mutation must find and mate with each other.

For argument sake, let's say the frequency of a fusion is 1 in 1,000. Now, a horse has 32 pairs of chromosomes and a donkey has 31 pairs. Assuming a random occurrence of fusions there are 496 permutations of all possible combinations. Therefore the frequency of an individual with a particular fusion would be 1 in 496,000. The frequency of a male and a female each with a particular fused chromosome is 1/496,0000 X 1/496,000 = 1/246 billion. Now that doesn't sound so terribly bad, but consider that the original male and female would have to be heterozygous for the mutation and therefore almost certainly sterile due to the aforementioned abnormal chromosome pairing in meiosis. Let's say the male is 1% fertile and the female is 10% fertile (due to spermatogenesis being more sensitive to aberrations) which means 1/1,000 such matings would produce an offspring. Now we are down to a probability of 1 in 246 trillion, but wait we are not through yet. When two heterozygous (each carry a normal + mutant chromosome) individuals mate only 1 in 4 offspring are homozygous for the mutation. Now we are down to 1 in roughly 1 quadrillion (10 to the 15th power) to get a single individual that is homozygous for the mutation. What about getting two individuals that are homozygous for the mutation finding each other and mating? Well that is 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 X 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 = 0.000000000000000000000000000001. Needless to say, but there most certainly haven't ever been that many horse-like matings in all of history. You may argue that with enough time even this ridiculously low probability will become a certainty, but for me it is so close to zero that for all reasonably practical purposes the probability IS ZERO. (BTW you are welcome to point out any errors in my calculations.) I am not completely against the idea of evolutionary changes; however, I am convinced that if the species arrived in this way then it must have been directed by an Intelligent Being who I know as Allah (swt).

This exercise was for a single mutation to go from a horse to a donkey. Can you imagine the absurdly low probability, nay impossibility, of a human species evolving from a unicellular, prokaryotic ancestor without the aid of a Higher Power controlling and directing the most minute detail of the process? In my living room is a minutely detailed painting of a Victorian house with a white picket fence, trees and flowering shrubs. There is no question that some talented artist painted this picture and that it didn't randomly appear through some natural process. Biological systems and the various species of life are likewise crystal-clear, iron-clad, bullet-proof evidence to me of a Creator. I do not need to know where the Creator got his canvas, the size of His paintbrush, the nature of the paint, or the means that He held the paintbrush to create His masterpiece for me to know that He did indeed create our universe.
It doesn't refute theism, but it does go towards showing it to be unnecessary. It is compatible with theism (belief in God). If it is compatible with Islam in particular I don't know.
Sorry, but no, ToE does not show that a Creator is unnecessary. ToE (as you know it) is completely incompatible with Islam because it does not acknowledge the fact that a Creator was required. I would be more receptive to ToE discussions if the so-called scientists were more honest in admitting the deficiencies of ToE along with examples of the frequencies that I mentioned above. I get particularly irate when so-called scientists use honest scientific facts in half-truths to make exaggerated claims for the validity of ToE exclusively by natural means.
Reply

MustafaMc
12-24-2011, 02:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by FS123
That is not the correct definition. It just means organisms change, and some survive and some go extinct.
My point is valid in that to go from one species to another, there would have to be individuals with characteristics of both the ancestor and the descendant species with the descendant species having a selective advantage that displaced both the ancestral and the transitional species.
Changes doesn't guarantee any particular direction for evolution, it is unpredictable. ToE is a very big theory with many sub theories, and it has dogma and debates, because it is not exact science.
The changes are directional in that it must have a selective advantage to become ascendant. I agree that it is 'not an exact science'.
It matches some information in Islam some places and some places it may not seem to agree. Where it matches is like life originated from water, in Quran origination of life is also water. Allah says he replace us if we don't follow his guidance. That is the warning for human nations, but if you take that to ToE biggest example comes to mind is dinosaurs. Big creatures, nobody could oppose them, ruled the earth for thousands of years, but one single event put them into disadvantage and replaced them with creatures who were less than them in stature.
My biggest beef (complaint) with ToE is its insistence on the absence of Allah (swt) from the process.
Where it won't agree as I mentioned would be the birth of Jesus (p). So it is not exactly black and white.
I am unclear as to your point about Jesus (as) in reference to evolution; however, my understanding is that Jesus (as) being born to a virgin came about in the same means that Adam (as) did. My point is that Jesus (as) most definitely did not arise through evolutionary processes and, therefore, the Quranic evidence is that neither did Adam (as), but rather Allah (swt) said, "Be!" and he was created.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-24-2011, 03:59 AM
mustafamc: amazing example. I've presented this deficiency time and time again, but it seems it does not get through evolutionist's head. Lets say we are observing the evolution from primtive primates to humans. What are those stages in which we see some sort of evolutionary transition changes. Why do not we see some humans today who do have some sort of evolutionary transitional forms that could point to the direction in which our evolution has been shaping over the last 100,000 years (we are 500,000 years according to ToE)? Does these genetic/nucleotide or phenotypic transitional changes manifest in the embryos of mothers from previous species? Or do these changes manifest phenotypically during puberty (for fun!)? Or hmm? If the changes occur in embryos, why dont these placentas abort themselves because of such massive changes? On one hand you say that changes are so slow that the placenta/embryo probably does not abort, on the other hand you say the changes result in emergence of new species? Which one is it?
Reply

FS123
12-24-2011, 01:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
My point is valid in that to go from one species to another, there would have to be individuals with characteristics of both the ancestor and the descendant species with the descendant species having a selective advantage that displaced both the ancestral and the transitional species.
I agree with the first part and slightly disagree with the last part.
The part I agree: ToE at present doesn't have clear proof of transition of one species into another. The reason you have already explained. The explanations given have no lab based tests, and it is not possible to carry out these lab based tests in our lifetime because speciation takes a thousand year to happen, but we don't live that long to see it happen in an observed environment.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
The changes are directional in that it must have a selective advantage to become ascendant. I agree that it is 'not an exact science'.
I slightly disagree with that, because selective advantage is based on environmental factors, and they don't have any direction. For example, dinosaurs we believe are extinct but it is possible they might be alive on some remote Island where environment was suitable for their survival. So evolution doesn't have any direction in essence, and I'm not sure evolution is the right word. It is just about looking at the data about life (mainly fossil records) we have and trying to understand it. It has many problems in critical areas, and atheist who come to argue don't even understand the theory, they just read some books and go to popular ToE sites. It is not easy to drive conclusions from fossil data, and it may even not be accurate. One historical example is here: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof88.htm

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
My biggest beef (complaint) with ToE is its insistence on the absence of Allah (swt) from the process.
Well, atheist seems to have hijacked ToE, but their complaint is that God is not falsifiable scientifically. Which is true for any other scientific theory.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I am unclear as to your point about Jesus (as) in reference to evolution; however, my understanding is that Jesus (as) being born to a virgin came about in the same means that Adam (as) did. My point is that Jesus (as) most definitely did not arise through evolutionary processes and, therefore, the Quranic evidence is that neither did Adam (as), but rather Allah (swt) said, "Be!" and he was created.
Your understanding is correct, but I have two sub points:
(1) That it won't come under any scientific theory, regardless of ToE.
(2) Miracle birth doesn't necessary mean without a process. Jesus (pbuh) had a miracle birth, without a father, but he still had womb stage like other babies. So I see when people say Allah created us this way and that way, I see people speaking without knowledge. I'm just saying there are many possible ways, and the knowledge is not given to us. So don't limit yourself with an specific understanding, it can create problems later on.

Lastly, atheist make a false dichotomy that if there is a process behind natural phenomenon, then it takes away the need for God. I believe the following excerpt explains it clearly:

Whether the multiverse theory is more comforting than believing that human existence results from a senseless crapshoot or a holy decree is a matter of taste, not science. For many theorists it is also a betrayal of the great effort to explain the laws of physics. Some still hope to find ''a theory of the initial conditions of the universe,'' a supreme mathematical law, hidden perhaps in superstring theory, showing that the parameters of creation could have been set only in a certain way.

But then they would have to find a law to explain where the law came from . . . and ultimately an explanation of why the universe is mathematical and of where mathematics came from and what numbers are.

Like a petulant 8-year-old, we keep asking why, why, why, why. In the end, the answer is either ''just because'' or ''for God made it so.'' Take your pick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/sc...ted=all&src=pm
Reply

GuestFellow
12-24-2011, 02:32 PM
Let's make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. From my understanding, evolution attempts to explain how life developed. You don't need to the belief in God to explain how life develops. However, abiogenesis attempts to explain how life started. Here, the belief in God is necessary IMO.

Feel free to correct me because I'm no scientist.
Reply

MustafaMc
12-24-2011, 03:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by FS123
I slightly disagree with that, because selective advantage is based on environmental factors, and they don't have any direction.
A central tenet of ToE is 'survival of the fittest' which implies that the most fit will survive while others do not. However, this selective advantage may be limited to a certain environment that may actually be disadvantageous in others. The example is the different finches on the Galapagos Islands that had beaks conducive to feeding on plants specific to each island.
For example, dinosaurs we believe are extinct but it is possible they might be alive on some remote Island where environment was suitable for their survival. So evolution doesn't have any direction in essence, and I'm not sure evolution is the right word. It is just about looking at the data about life (mainly fossil records) we have and trying to understand it. It has many problems in critical areas, and atheist who come to argue don't even understand the theory, they just read some books and go to popular ToE sites. It is not easy to drive conclusions from fossil data, and it may even not be accurate. One historical example is here: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof88.htm
It is very unlikely that a T.rex colony exists on some remote island, but that is not to say that different environments exert different selection pressure on the available genetic variation and diversity.

I was unaware of the 'Archaea' classification as a third domain of life. This article is an example of a 'paradigm shift' whereby what was once widely accepted is challenged and replaced with a new understanding which is subject to further revision. I noticed one point in particular, "The tree of life (per ToE) embodies Common Descent of all life. On the other hand, Woese's data show that there is not one (common) ancestor of all forms of life, but a network of life forms that frequently exchange DNA. So, maybe there is not a single root of the tree of life, but many roots instead. If Darwinism implies one cell as the ancestor of all life, then Woese would (sic) has refuted Darwinism." (My inserts in italics) My opinion is that ToE is a grossly inadequate theory and it exists only because no one has come up with a better scientific explanation for the origin of the species.
Well, atheist seems to have hijacked ToE, but their complaint is that God is not falsifiable scientifically. Which is true for any other scientific theory.
I agree that the involvement of Allah (swt) in the existence of existing and extinct life forms is not subject to the scientific method. Yet evolutionists insist on the validity of ToE without pointing out or even admitting to the inadequacies and deficiencies of ToE with a qualifying statement that subsequent scientific evidence may or may not shed additional light on the subject.
Your understanding is correct, but I have two sub points:
(1) That it won't come under any scientific theory, regardless of ToE.
(2) Miracle birth doesn't necessary mean without a process. Jesus (pbuh) had a miracle birth, without a father, but he still had womb stage like other babies. So I see when people say Allah created us this way and that way, I see people speaking without knowledge. I'm just saying there are many possible ways, and the knowledge is not given to us. So don't limit yourself with an specific understanding, it can create problems later on.
I had started a thread on this very subject http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1409315
Lastly, atheist make a false dichotomy that if there is a process behind natural phenomenon, then it takes away the need for God. I believe the following excerpt explains it clearly:
I rather liked that article.
Reply

MustafaMc
12-24-2011, 03:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tragic Typos
Let's make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. From my understanding, evolution attempts to explain how life developed. You don't need to the belief in God to explain how life develops.
Did you read my post about the difference between a horse and a donkey with my conclusion that the 'naturalistic evolution' of even a single mutational difference between the two species is so mathematically impossible as to make it definitely dependent upon Allah (swt) as Creator and Designer for even this very small change to have come about? The further implication is that the cascade of huge differences from a so-called 'common ancestor' to the various life forms makes the absence of Allah (swt) a mathematical impossibility. Rather than disprove the existence of Allah (swt), the absurdity of naturalistic ToE strengthens my faith in Allah (swt) as the Creator.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-24-2011, 04:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tragic Typos
Let's make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. From my understanding, evolution attempts to explain how life developed. You don't need to the belief in God to explain how life develops. However, abiogenesis attempts to explain how life started. Here, the belief in God is necessary IMO.

Feel free to correct me because I'm no scientist.
Not really, atheist scientists maintain that there is a biochemical reason for the origin of life, you dont need God for that either. Tons of research work is being done in that regards. It has only shot up in the last decade. I think next 50 years will herald new understanding of how life originated.
Reply

GuestFellow
12-24-2011, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Did you read my post about the difference between a horse and a donkey with my conclusion that the 'naturalistic evolution' of even a single mutational difference between the two species is so mathematically impossible as to make it definitely dependent upon Allah (swt) as Creator and Designer for even this very small change to have come about? The further implication is that the cascade of huge differences from a so-called 'common ancestor' to the various life forms makes the absence of Allah (swt) a mathematical impossibility. Rather than disprove the existence of Allah (swt), the absurdity of naturalistic ToE strengthens my faith in Allah (swt) as the Creator.
Salaam,

Okay...


format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Not really, atheist scientists maintain that there is a biochemical reason for the origin of life, you dont need God for that either.
How do they explain how life started? What is this biochemical reason? It just raises more questions.
Reply

MustafaMc
12-24-2011, 04:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Not really, atheist scientists maintain that there is a biochemical reason for the origin of life, you dont need God for that either. Tons of research work is being done in that regards. It has only shot up in the last decade. I think next 50 years will herald new understanding of how life originated.
As a Muslim, what role do you see that Allah (swt) played in abiogenesis and the subsequent arrival of various species? Do you believe that Allah (swt) is the Creator, Sustainer and Lord of the universe and all that exists or did it all arise naturally without the design, direction and control of a Higher Being?
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-24-2011, 08:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by FS123
Lastly, atheist make a false dichotomy that if there is a process behind natural phenomenon, then it takes away the need for God. I believe the following excerpt explains it clearly:
It is the inverse of the god of the gaps. Theists fill gaps in our understanding with "God did it" and atheists look for natural explanations to show that God isn't needed. But there will always be gaps in our knowledge, so there will always be room for "God did it" and atheists will never be able to fully show that God isn't required to explain it. In the end the only truly honest answer is "I don't know" but not many want to admit that :)
Reply

MustafaMc
12-24-2011, 08:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Theists fill gaps in our understanding with "God did it" and atheists look for natural explanations to show that God isn't needed.
This is a good point, but I am unclear as to why atheists feel a need to disprove "God did it". I see that an agnostic approach to be more reasonable than an atheistic one. I am OK with some one saying, "I believe that mankind evolved through natural selection that exploited the genetic and biological variation that arose through mutations, genetic recombinations and such, but we do not adequately understand the details for how this happened." To me ToE is little more than a belief system that plays loose with scientific facts and terminology to convince the uneducated of its veracity.
But there will always be gaps in our knowledge, so there will always be room for "God did it" and atheists will never be able to fully show that God isn't required to explain it. In the end the only truly honest answer is "I don't know" but not many want to admit that :)
I admit that I do not know the details of how the species arose, but I am convinced that a Higher Power was and is required.
Reply

FS123
12-24-2011, 08:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It is the inverse of the god of the gaps. Theists fill gaps in our understanding with "God did it" and atheists look for natural explanations to show that God isn't needed. But there will always be gaps in our knowledge, so there will always be room for "God did it" and atheists will never be able to fully show that God isn't required to explain it. In the end the only truly honest answer is "I don't know" but not many want to admit that :)
It is not, actually it is response to Atheist "God of the gaps" attitude. I usually see atheist on forums and facebook, whenever there is a process explained scientifically, say look there is no God it happens because of this and that. Well, process doesn't mean there is no Creator, hence, it is false dichotomy.
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-24-2011, 08:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by FS123
It is not, actually it is response to Atheist "God of the gaps" attitude. I usually see atheist on forums and facebook, whenever there is a process explained scientifically, say look there is no God it happens because of this and that. Well, process doesn't mean there is no Creator, hence, it is false dichotomy.
Right, and unless and until they can explain it perfectly and how it happens without God (which they likely never will), there is always somewhere in there for God to sneak in. Even if they could explain it perfectly without reference to God, the theist could then STILL say that God designed it that way, and the atheist could at best say God isn't required, not that God wasn't involved.
Reply

FS123
12-24-2011, 08:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Right, and unless and until they can explain it perfectly and how it happens without God (which they likely never will), there is always somewhere in there for God to sneak in. Even if they could explain it perfectly without reference to God, the theist could then STILL say that God designed it that way, and the atheist could at best say God isn't required, not that God wasn't involved.
Yup, because explanation of something with process behind it doesn't mean there is no Creator. You are using a PC, it has processes, doesn't mean it has no Creator, simple as that. Read article I quoted, it is about this issue.
Reply

Amigo
12-24-2011, 09:18 PM
Sorry posted in wrong thread!
Reply

MustafaMc
12-26-2011, 05:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Even if they could explain it perfectly without reference to God ...the atheist could at best say God isn't required, not that God wasn't involved.
Funny thing is just like I can't prove to you that Allah (swt) exists, so neither can you prove He does not. Personally, I believe that this very issue is what all of the hoopla about evolution is over and that is to show that mankind and all of the living and extinct species came into existence by purely natural means without any supernatural, miraculous involvement by a Creator. The end goal is to destroy all religions as nothing more than fanciful, manmade myths. I thank you for enlightening me.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-26-2011, 05:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
As a Muslim, what role do you see that Allah (swt) played in abiogenesis and the subsequent arrival of various species? Do you believe that Allah (swt) is the Creator, Sustainer and Lord of the universe and all that exists or did it all arise naturally without the design, direction and control of a Higher Being?
I believe that Allah swt is the First Uncaused cause of all that exists apart from Him. I also believe that Allah can do anything possible, so it is not inconceivable for Him to create life out of non-living biochemical macromolecules. He does say in Quran about abiogenesis that He created adam and eve from clay. Not abiogenesis in biological sense. But He does say that on day of judgment humans will re-emerge from scattered dust, and cremated flesh.

Of course there is design in the central dogma of biology. DNA -> mRNA -> protein (and now +/-RNA -> DNA as in HIV). Could not have arisen without intelligence, as the chances of it arising randomly are minuscule that it is easier for it to not have arisen than to arise at all. You need a working system already in place for that mechanism to survive. You cant have that mechanism survive when it is not even fully formed to reproduce itself. That is why Dawkins ashamedly admits that ToE falls on its face when it comes to origins of life and that so we far it is hard for him to understand how life originated.
Reply

MustafaMc
12-26-2011, 05:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
I also believe that Allah can do anything possible, so it is not inconceivable for Him to create life out of non-living biochemical macromolecules. He does say in Quran about abiogenesis that He created adam and eve from clay.
I think in terms of Jesus' birth to a virgin and how he was created from thin air as there is no biological explanation for his birth or for Adam's creation. Today we know that life comes only from previous existing life (e.g. mother and father) except for the first pair of each species and for miraculous examples like Jesus. Have you ever thought about how we are made of atoms - mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen - and that these atoms are mostly electrical charges or energy. It gives a new perspective on, "The life of this world is but comfort of illusion." Quran 3:185
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-26-2011, 06:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I think in terms of Jesus' birth to a virgin and how he was created from thin air as there is no biological explanation for his birth or for Adam's creation. Today we know that life comes only from previous existing life (e.g. mother and father) except for the first pair of each species and for miraculous examples like Jesus. Have you ever thought about how we are made of atoms - mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen - and that these atoms are mostly electrical charges or energy. It gives a new perspective on, "The life of this world is but comfort of illusion." Quran 3:185
Yup, I've thought about how we are mere electrons surrounding a quantum space around neutrons and protons. I have also thought how we are just cell factories, dying and replicating, dying and replicating. I have also once thought of my family members sitting on dinner table as bags of chemicals without any value/worth in biological sense yet so much importance and value in my life. It is all just too scary and fascinating that our brains can create meaning, relationships, purpose in our life that otherwise seems so "meaningless" and cold and numb at its basics. Yup, I love that Quranic verse.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
12-26-2011, 07:53 AM
:salamext:

This is a lengthy read, but it'll answer a lot of questions.

The Prophet Adam and Human Evolution


Shaikh (Dr) Haitham Al-Haddad


Last Updated on Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:28


Due to such attacks, some Muslims felt inferior and thought that the problem could be rectified by an acceptance of the evolution theory, or at least accepting it as a valid alternative. However, the decisive verses of the Qur’an as well as the ahadith (Prophetic narrations) provide a problem for such an undertaking, and so we find that there are mistakes and random misinterpretations.


Praise be to Allah, the supreme Creator, Fashioner of mankind, Sustainer of the universe. All is His divine will, and his command is executed immediately. May peace and blessings be upon Muhammad, who came from the noble Adam, created and fashioned from clay, and preceded by none.

The theory of human evolution, namely that man descended from apes, is widely accepted amongst non-Muslims although there have been many non-Muslim scientists, atheists included, who argue that it is flawed. As an opinion, it was wholly rejected by all Muslims as it goes against their basic knowledge that Allah created Adam with his own hands, from clay, in the physical form of a human being, and then breathed life into it. Even so, there have been a few Muslims over the years that have endorsed the theory attempting to initiate a discussion on the topic, whilst there are non-Muslims who criticise us for being ‘simple-minded’ and ‘scientifically inconsistent’.

Due to such attacks, some Muslims felt inferior and thought that the problem could be rectified by an acceptance of the evolution theory, or at least accepting it as a valid alternative. However, the decisive verses of the Qur’an as well as the ahadith (Prophetic narrations) provide a problem for such an undertaking, and so we find that there are mistakes and random misinterpretations. Of course, those of truth will always oppose such heresy, to which these Muslim evolutionists, if there ever was such a term (!), respond that “we believe in the existence of Allah, the initial Creator, yet what is wrong in concluding that the way in which God created all human beings, including the first human, Adam, was by means of evolution, and namely, non-human parents who descended from apes?” Such people insist that this latest version of the theory is compatible with revelation given that there is no unequivocal scriptural text to deny it!

In order to deal with such unfounded claims, I would like to approach the issue in a scholastic and systematic manner so as to demonstrate how theological deviancy comes about through incompetence in systematically and rationally deriving meaning from the scriptural texts. It is due to this incompetence (that we should all be aware of so we save ourselves) that some attempt to legitimise the theory of human evolution and others unrecognised views that accompany it.

It is commonly believed that the Qur’an and the ahadith (Prophetic traditions) are the only sources of Islamic authority, yet we find that one of the primary causes of an individual’s theological (and legal) deviancy is the attempt to fully understand the divine texts by his/herself, with complete disregard for the profound understandings and well-substantiated views of hundreds of thousands of Muslim scholars from around the world who have contributed to the vast corpus of Islamic scholarship over the last 1400 years. The irony of such disregard is that Muslim proponents of the evolution process completely brush aside Islamic scholarly consensus yet are the first to advocate the (supposed) consensus of non-Muslim scientists!

It is clear that priorities are misplaced, for in glorifying western scientists the proponents of human evolution neglect the intellectual aptitude of Muslim scholars, particularly, the early scholars who were extremely astute and would, with all dedication, intensely scrutinise each and every aspect of the Islamic religion prior to any form of endorsement or inclination towards a given view – in fact, it is only very recently that scientists have adopted the same level of rigour. Given such a profound analysis, none of Islam’s scholars, let alone the greatest amongst them, ever articulated the view that Adam came into existence as a result of some evolutionary process. In fact, none of Islam’s early scholars ever even considered the possibility of Adam being created in stages of existence, or that he experienced childhood at some time of his life.

In adopting a religious opinion which is counter to a scholarly consensus made up of thousands of Muslim scholars over a long period of time, the proponents of human evolution expose their distorted outlook on Islamic knowledge and the Muslims scholars (as a collective) whom Allah has appointed as trustees of the faith. Such an attitude implies that Allah, may he be free from such an implication, has allowed the entire Muslim ummah, over a period spanning more than a millennium, to deviate from the truth whilst the correct view is uncovered by (theological) laymen in recent times!

Disregarding the binding legacy of scholastic consensus goes against plain old common sense and a number of verses and Prophetic traditions that state that scholars, not as individuals but as a collective, are the trustees of the faith. The explicit statements are numerous, such as Allah’s statement, “And We sent not before you but men to whom We inspired, so ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know[1], and the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) saying, “the scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets.

To believe that Adam had monkey-like parents (despite the fact that overwhelming evidences go against it) and to completely abandon the consensus of Muslims is indicative of deep-rooted arrogance, a rejection of the clear evidences, or ignoring the correct methodology in understanding the divine texts. For example, the first step of a sound methodology would be to analyse whether the conclusion is consistent with the Arabic language, since Arabic is the primary tool used in interpreting divine revelation, and so, any interpretation that fails to fall within the framework of the Arabic language is one that is redundant. For example, the Arabs did not consider the phrase kun fa yakun (be! And it is/was) to be an indefinite period of time, for indeed, the phrase illustrates the power and might of God that His will is manifested immediately and decisively, without delay. Even the phrase “be! And it is/was” in English implies it(whatever it is) happens instantaneously, and to argue otherwise would be a distortion of the English language!

Another key principle that must be established when dealing with scripture is the inter-contextualisation of the entire divine text - in order to correctly interpret the Qur’an and ahadith we must approach them, not as solitary verses, but as one coherent and homogeneous unit that affords a holistic interpretation, and not an interpretation based on preconceived ideas that singles out isolated verses so as to misconstrue them. Indeed, to approach the divine scriptures having already decided the matter is an insincere attempt to justify one’s belief, and to approach them enquiring into what Allah has ordained, in an open an unbiased way, is to demonstrate the sincere intention to receive guidance.

Another irony is the fact that the evolutionists try to place a theory (evolution) over fact (the Qur’an and ahadith). Do we not ponder why it is still considered a theory despite the fact that the idea has been around, in some popular form, since Darwin and is promoted so fanatically by its protagonists? It is truly unfortunate to see those who ascribe to Islam promote the theory of human evolution, and then do so by relying on mutashabih (ambiguous) verses of the Qur’an, some of which are clear kinaya[2] (metonyms), and leave off muhkam (explicit) verses. This is precisely what Allah warns us against, saying,

“Those with deviation in their hearts follow what is undefined in it, desiring conflict, seeking its (false) interpretation.”[3]
Evolution, in relating to man, is such an unfounded concept that to engage with it on par with academic and intellectual standards is to afford it credence, it being deserving of nothing but aversion. I could perhaps list all of the scientific inaccuracies of claiming that Adam came from apes, but as a Muslim it is more than sufficient to adopt the understanding of the scholars rather than derive a misconstrued meaning from a lone verse or hadith. This should be the case with any Muslim who believes that Allah has ordained certain measures to guard Islam against innovation, and hence, I shall, very limitedly, mention a small number of proofs which, for the benefit of the Muslim masses, simply expose the foolishness of this supposition.

The Qur’an clearly states that Adam was created by Allah, and with His own hands, “He said, ‘Iblis, what prevented you prostrating to what I created with My own two hands?”[4] In addition, the famous Companion, Abdullah ibn Umar, said, “Allah created four things with His hand: the Throne, the Pen, the Garden of Eden and Adam. To the rest of His creation He said, ‘Be!’ and it was.”[5] This narration clearly shows that the Companions believed that these four things, Adam included, were created in a way different to other animals and creatures. The authenticated ahadith furnish us with further examples that leave no doubt whatsoever that this was an actual act performed by Allah. For example, the Messenger of Allah said that on the Last Day, mankind would go from Prophet to Prophet requesting intercession; they would go to Adam and say, “You are the father of mankind, Allah created you with His hands, had the angels prostrate to you, and taught you the names of all things.”[6] If Adam was created from a ‘despised drop’ and like all other human beings, then what is the point of singling him out as being created by Allah’s hands?

“The likeness of Jesus, to Allah, is the same as Adam. He created him from earth and then He said to him, ‘Be!’ and he was.”[7]

This verse is often quoted in isolation from the reasons for which it was revealed, thus, some evolutionists claim that the verse asserts that Jesus and Adam were born in the same way – through the womb of a female. Such an interpretation is deceptive as a brief look into the sabab al-nuzul (causes for revelation) quickly makes clear that the verse was revealed to repudiate the Christian argument that proof of Jesus’ divinity is his having no earthly father. The verse states that Adam had no parents whatsoever, being created instead from earth, yet this did not make him divine; the comparison then was between the single parent of Jesus and the absence of parents in regards to Adam.

The Qur’an informs us that Allah “taught Adam the names of all things[8] and so, we resolutely know that Allah engaged Adam directly. Allah also says,

“O mankind! Be mindful of your Lord who created you from a single soul and created its mate from itand then disseminated many men and women from the two of them.”[9]

“It is He who created you from a single soul and made from him his spouse so that he might find repose in her.”[10]

“O mankind! We created you from a male and female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you might come to know each other.”[11]


If we were to ignorantly suppose that Adam was born of evolved apes, we would then be positing, according to the verses above, that the creation of Hawwa’ was ever so more significant than that of Adam as she was not born but actually fashioned, by God, from Adam. Thus, in negating the instantaneous creation of Adam, the evolutionist is still left having to affirm the instantaneous creation of Hawwa’! And it is this fact, from amongst the many, that exposes the nonsense spewed by evolutionists, for in striving to negate a miracle of God (the creation of Adam), they resort to having to affirm it elsewhere (the creation of Hawwa’), that is, if they can resist the urge to deny the book of God outrightly.

The story of the Sabbath-breakers is well known whereby Allah cursed the disobedient and turned them into monkeys and pigs.[12] How then, can the honoured sons of Adam[13] actually come from that which is considered a curse? Of course, in being honoured, it is only logical to conclude that either humans haven’t come from apes, or that we negate the maskh itself and claim that the Sabbath-breakers did not turn into apes and pigs. Even if we were to state, for the sake of argument, that the transformation was metaphorical, the essential point still remains that they were cursed by taking on qualities of monkeys and apes. Correspondingly, there are various contradictions that arise in relation to Adam and Hawwa’ when attempting to scripturally justify human evolution. There are various mutawatir texts that confirm that Adam and Hawwa’ lived as spouses and that mankind came from the two, indeed the textual evidences regarding this point are particularly decisive. Furthermore, it seems quite an irrational interpretation that Allah mentions Hawwa’ as being brought into existence through Allah’s direct involvement, yet Adam, the first human being receives no such honour! It is extremely clear that the evolutionists and their deviant ideas refuse to acknowledge the entire textual discourse surrounding the creation of Adam, instead using solitary verses as a justification for evolutionist beliefs. Thus, in order to attempt some form of reconciliation between the two accounts, the evolutionist must adapt the Qur'an to fit the theory, or the theory to fit the Qur'an, or transform both equally, and in every case, each possibility is as preposterous as the others, all serving as evil paths to heresy.

In going beyond the Qur’an, we find that the ahadith are full with authentic narrations concerning the creation of Adam, and in keeping with deceitful intent we find that many liberals and evolutionists completely ignore the existence of such ahadith. Indeed they have to, for the shari’ah of Allah is preserved through the Prophetic narrations and so the evolutionists will do anything to maintain their secular outlook on the Islamic faith. In fact, the notion of evolution is deeply secular as it divorces the involvement of God in creation and attempts to posit Nietzsche’s opinion that if there is a god, then he merely initiated creation (which grew on its own) and that god is now non-existent or dead – we seek protection from Allah from such profanity.

We find that Anas ibn Malik relates from the Prophet,

“When Allah fashioned Adam in Paradise, He left him as He willed. Iblis then wandered around him examining him. Upon seeing him as hollow from within, he recognised that Adam had been created with a disposition that he would not have control over himself.”[14]

I have not seen any scholar, past or present, who affords science the authority to determine how Adam was created. In cases where scholars do refer to science (in a limited capacity), they tend to provide their conclusions and then either explicitly/implicitly mention that this matter should be dealt with through science. In numerous verses the Qur’an commands mankind to reflect on the various types of creation, the alternation of day and night, and the celestial orbit of planets, but there is no indication whatsoever of an evolved Adam. In fact, the Qur’an describes the process of human creation in the womb but discounts the evolution of humans from monkey-like beings. If it is argued that the lack of evolutionary descriptions in the Qur’an is due to evolution’s complex nature, then we retort with the fact that so too is the process of foetal development, yet revelation informs us of it and to its fullest extent.

There are countless texts that can be analysed, but to do so would make this article voluminous. However, even light analysis of the Qur’an and Sunnah makes it exceedingly evident that such heretical beliefs have no place within Islamic thought - the Companions and early Muslims all understood the manner in which Adam was created by Allah and it is preposterous to claim that Allah revealed scripture that was misunderstood by all of the aforementioned, yet the Most High did not rectify their misreading!



Is the creation of Adam a scientific or religious matter?
In reality, there is no disparity between religious creed and science, and if there seems to be so, it inevitably implies that there has been some form of misunderstanding, either in terms of our religious or scientific knowledge. However, a decisive part of being Muslim is to acknowledge that the information related by way of the Qur’an and Sunnah entails certainty, whereas any other knowledge that we acquire is prone to human error. Thus, if the scriptures posit anything related to science and the overwhelming majority of scholars affirm its meaning, then we have to believe in it accordingly as such knowledge is fact-based and not merely human perception. The Qur’an and Sunnah address various disciplines such as science, history, geography, anthropology, politics and others. Whatever is mentioned there should be adopted as an aspect of our faith, “they say: we believe in it, all of it is from our Lord.[15] Failing to do so suggests either one’s negation of more than half of the Qur’an, or accepting a text which is essentially devoid of meaning as it ends up meaning anything we desire it to, and this is how many of the obdurate fall into disbelief. For example, it has been repeatedly argued that the Qur’an is not a book of history, and so, the heretics argue that we are not obligated to believe historical details which Allah has revealed. Of course, the Qur’an is not a book of many things, but that is not to suggest that various topics are touched upon. Indeed, Allah says,

“There is not a moving (living) creature on earth, nor a bird that flies with its two wings, but are communities like you. We have neglected nothing in the Book, and then to their Lord they (all) shall be gathered.”[16]

The ruling concerning the belief in Adam’s primate descendents.

Restricting the discussion merely to a ruling may be counterproductive as anyone who mistakenly concludes that it is not kufr (disbelief) will assume such profanation is to be tolerated, and so therefore, the main issue is not the ruling of such an immoral belief and whether it is kufr, but instead the gravity of this belief and what it signifies - it is the negation of what the ummah has endorsed as well as being in violation of countless proofs that state otherwise. Endorsing the presumption that humans evolved necessitates accepting reprehensible beliefs about the noble Prophet, Adam, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and that his parents were either apes or ape-like beings! It is to insult the station of prophethood by claiming that Adam was taken care of by human-like baboons. Were Adam’s parents able to speak or did they merely grunt? Were they obliged to worship Allah or not? What was the extent of Adam’s cognitive faculties? Do human beings now have more advanced faculties than he did – have they evolved since his time on earth? How is it that the Qur’an disregards a significant aspect of Adam’s life although he discusses, in detail, what was before it and what came after.

If we believe that Allah is the Creator and can create anything, then what is wrong in accepting that he created Adam directly from clay, fashioned him, and brought him to life instantaneously? What is it that they negate? Why do we need to distort the meanings of countless Qur’anic verses in favour of a theory that continually changes? Must we negate the numerous and authentic ahadith that clearly establish a non-evolutionist narrative?

In conclusion, to use the theory of Darwin or any other theory that stems from it in order to justify the wicked belief that Adam was born of non-human parents is, in essence, to deny the existence of Allah as supreme creator who creates from nothing by mere command. It is this method of creating (although there are other ways as well) that establishes Allah’s rububiyyah (lordship), for in affirming unjustified theories of human evolution we make chance the creator, since anything that is created exists merely because chance decided so. But Allah says, “Or do they assign to Allah partners who created the like of His creation, so that (both) creations seemed alike to them?’ Say: ‘Allah is the Creator of all things; He is the One, the Irresistible.’[17]


I call upon those who believe and adhere to Islam to affirm the clear and decisive Qur’anic revelations and lucid ahadith, all of which negate the notion of human evolution, let alone Adam having non-human parents. I also call upon them to make the Islamic texts the primary source of authority in all of their affairs, since (Allah) the One who reveals revelation is most knowledgeable about the affairs of the universe. Let us not allow those of no faith to dictate our readings of scripture, our implementation of the Islamic faith, or our notions of what is to be deemed as being most superior, both in terms of creed and actions.

For those Muslims who endorse the theory of human evolution, contemplate the scripture with a believing and unbiased heart whilst keeping in mind the Sunnah of Allah’s noble Messenger. Strive against egotism and haughtiness and do not fear the criticisms of the disbelievers. Allah says,

“Therefore flee unto Allah; I am a plain warner to you from Him. And set not any other god along with Allah; I am a plain warner to you from Him.”[18]


Allah knows best.
May peace and blessings be upon the Prophet, his family, his Companions,
and all those who follow them in righteousness and the correct creed.





Notes:

Source: www.islam21c.com

[1] 16:43; 21:7

[2] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

[3] 3:7

[4] 38:75

[5] Lalika’i, no. 729-730

[6] Authenticity agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim; a mutawaatir hadith.

[7] 3:59

[8] 2:31

[9] 4:1

[10] 7:189

[11] 49:13

[12] cf. 5:60, 7:166

[13] 17:70

[14] Muslim

[15] 7:3

[16] 6:38

[17] 13:16

[18] 51:50-51



Reply

CosmicPathos
12-26-2011, 07:58 AM
^^ there are few flaws in that article by sh haitham al haddad. First of all a theory in science means the best scientific explanation of facts. Just because the name "theory" is added to it, it does not mean its a mumbo jumbo. I do not agree with evolutionary theory, but some scientific facts do support the notion of evolution, there is no denying (antibiotic resistance, flu vaccine updates etc).

Moreover, we did not descend from apes, but we and apes share common ancestor, according to ToE. I am sure there are other flaws too.

That is why I believe Muslim sheikhs should not pass comments about ToE because they are not scientists at all and we should have Muslim scientists to find flaws in ToE through experimentation.

A rational Muslim is only gonna find it foolish of Muslim scholars to pass comments about evolution without understanding it. It makes it only that much harder for the "rationalist" Muslims teetering on the boundary of belief and atheism.
Reply

Tyrion
12-26-2011, 08:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
That is why I believe Muslim sheikhs should not pass comments about ToE because they are not scientists at all and we should have Muslim scientists to find flaws in ToE through experimentation.

A rational Muslim is only gonna find it foolish of Muslim scholars to pass comments about evolution without understanding it. It makes it only that much harder for the "rationalist" Muslims teetering on the boundary of belief and atheism.
+1

Sadly, it happens waaaayyyy too often, and it leads to Muslims either arguing with non-Muslims with wrong information and making themselves and Islam look stupid, OR Muslims losing a bit of faith since our scholars seem to be ignorant of what they're speaking of.
Reply

MustafaMc
12-26-2011, 01:57 PM
The theory of human evolution, namely that man descended from apes, is widely accepted amongst non-Muslims.
Technically incorrect, but the common ancestor of apes and humans can be assumed to be ‘ape-like’.

considered the possibility of Adam being created in stages of existence, or that he experienced childhood at some time of his life
…but the likeness of Jesus is that of Adam and Jesus went through stages of development.

To believe that Adam had monkey-like parents (despite the fact that overwhelming evidences go against it)
From a scientific perspective this statement is false. There is a high degree of genetic similarity between chimpanzees and humans, but the differences in chromosomal structure mathematically could not have arisen by evolutionary processes without the direction of a Creator. The fact that there is also genetic similarity between man and a banana does not in and of itself imply descent from a 'common ancestor' though.
Evolution, in relating to man, is such an unfounded concept that to engage with it on par with academic and intellectual standards is to afford it credence, it being deserving of nothing but aversion.
I strongly disagree that we should 'stick-our-head-in-the-sand' and ignore evolutionary discussions with only religious comebacks like this article. Are we not required to oppose falsehood with truth? This approach is like turning ones back and running away from the fight on the battle front.
In addition, the famous Companion, Abdullah ibn Umar, said, “Allah created four things with His hand: the Throne, the Pen, the Garden of Eden and Adam. To the rest of His creation He said, ‘Be!’ and it was.
Would Abdullah be an authority on such matters without quoting Prophet Muhammad (saaws)? Even Adam came into existence by Allah (swt) saying 'Be!' Quran 3:59 “Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.” Should Allah (swt) fashioning of man from clay with His hands be taken literally like Jesus fashioning a bird or is it metaphorical? Either way Allah (swt) is still the Creator.
Allah cursed the disobedient and turned them into monkeys and pigs.
If Allah could turn man into monkey, why couldn’t He do the reverse if He so pleased?
In fact, the notion of evolution is deeply secular as it divorces the involvement of God in creation and attempts to posit Nietzsche’s opinion that if there is a god, then he merely initiated creation (which grew on its own) and that god is now non-existent or dead – we seek protection from Allah from such profanity.
I agree completely
When Allah fashioned Adam in Paradise, He left him as He willed. Iblis then wandered around him examining him. Upon seeing him as hollow from within, he recognised that Adam had been created with a disposition that he would not have control over himself.
It is highly doubtful that Adam would have been created hollow like a modern ceramic figure, but rather solid like a statue hewn from stone.
Endorsing the presumption that humans evolved necessitates accepting reprehensible beliefs about the noble Prophet
And how is this more repugnant than Muhammad (saaws) came from a despised fluid? Quran 32:7-9 “Who made all things good which He created, and He began the creation of man from clay; Then He made his seed from a draught of despised fluid; Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His Spirit; and appointed for you hearing and sight and hearts. Small thanks give ye!”
For those Muslims who endorse the theory of human evolution, contemplate the scripture with a believing and unbiased heart whilst keeping in mind the Sunnah of Allah’s noble Messenger. Strive against egotism and haughtiness and do not fear the criticisms of the disbelievers.
No where have I endorsed naturalistic evolution, but I engage with evolutionists to disprove their theory scientifically, mathematically and logically as opposed to arguments being based on religious texts and beliefs that they reject straight away. This approach is not a respectable refutation of a most outright challenge to a fundamental Islamic belief and that is the creation of man and all that exists by Allah (swt). We are on a battlefield and being told to use a sword against a machine gun.

I do not know the details of our creation, but I know that we are created and not 'evolved' (classic definition) beings. At the same time it is not repugnant to me, nor does it challenge my faith, that man could have arisen through what appears as evolutionary processes over an extended period of time albeit most definitely only by being guided and controlled in the most minute detail by Allah (swt). At the same time I do not deny that Allah could have literally fashioned man into a literal statue of clay before breathing life into him. I have a problem with leaving the door open for evolutionary origin of other species besides man and denying it when it pertains specifically to man. To do so seems prideful and arrogant to me.
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-26-2011, 08:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
The end goal is to destroy all religions as nothing more than fanciful, manmade myths. I thank you for enlightening me.
Speaking as somebody who would actually like to see that happen, I don't see evolution as ever doing that or being in any way fashioned to do that. It is science that many think conflicts with religion so it gets attacked by the religious. Some of us may wish it could actually dispel these myths (knowing nothing can, since they are set up to be unfalsifiable), but others, and most actual scientists (many of whom are religious themselves)have no such insidious agenda.
Reply

ajazz
04-05-2012, 04:45 PM
Assalamualykum.

I’m not an Islamic scholar in fact ‘ordinary Joe’ is first cousin of mine.

Here is my take on evolution…

There are two kinds of creation that Allah (swt) speaks about in the Noble Quran, One is “Amr”

This type of creation is instant, it just pops out into existence out of nothing, Allah (swt) only has to will and it’s there and the other is “Khalaq” this kind of creation which is achieved through evolutionary process.

There is empirical evidence that our universe was at the beginning in a state of singularity, a very tiny dot and at this point all natural laws breakdown, the question was from where did this singularity come from?

Mr. Stephen hawking wheel chair genius scientist tell us in his book the grand design that our universe was created out of nothing, it just popped out into singularity, and from then on there was rapid expansion and after that formation of star and galaxies, other scientist agree with this view.

"something from nothing, physicists are finding, may be the ultimate secret of the universe."The surprising fact is that we live in a universe that has all the characteristics of being created from nothing,"

http://tinyurl.com/6n7rwa3

What the Noble Quran says?

About the singularity…

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together ( as one unit of creation ), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

Noble Qur'an(21:30)

What about the origin of our universe?

Transliteration: “BadeeAAu alssamawati waalardi waitha qada amran fainnama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu”

“To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is.”

Noble Qur'an(2:117)

Here Allah (swt) is talking of the beginning of our universe i.e. the singularity hence he uses the word “ amran ” which is instant creation, be and it is.

Let’s take another example.

Transliteration: Inna fee khalqi alssamawati waalardi waikhtilafi allayli waalnnahari laayatin liolee alalbabi

“Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding,-“

Noble Qur'an(3:190)

Here for creation Allah (swt) has used the word “ khalqi ” which is an evolutionary process of creation, in fact this process is still going on in our universe stars are dying and new stars are being born our universe is expanding.

What about human beings?

Transliteration: Khalaqa alinsana min AAalaqin

“Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:”

Noble Qur'an(96:2)

Here again the word “ Khalaqa ” is used, which is an evolutionary process of creation.

You can check out the translations here:
http://tinyurl.com/6on7lp8

Islam does not have the problem of creation vs evolution.

Does it mean that theory of Darwin is acceptable in Islam?

Let see
The theory of evolution tells us that all life on earth had a common origin, Noble Quran agrees but with a little difference Noble Quran says all life on earth had a common source

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together ( as one unit of creation ), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe ?"

Noble Qur'an(21:30)


http://tinyurl.com/7zpzrc7


And if theory of evolution is right then are we descendants from apes?

Nope.

According to Islam we are descendants of Adam (peace be upon him), the first among the modern human (Homo sapiens) species and he was not created on earth.

But then the above verse of the Noble Quran is Wrong which state that all life on earth has a common source!

Nope

Even though Adam (peace be upon him) was not created on earth he is created from clay which is soil mixed with water and this clay was taken from the earth and thus maintaining the claim that all life on earth has a common source!


"Did clay mould life’s origins?"
http://tinyurl.com/7e7j6xt


In the chain of evolution Adam (peace be upon him) was probably introduced later on, before Adam (pbuh) species similar to modern human already existed which is supported by evidence discovered.

Creating Adam (pbuh)…

“Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: " Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood ?”
Noble Qur'an(2:30)

Here the question of the angels indicate that creation similar to humans existed and they were violent, were they talking about Neanderthals or newly discovered human species, Allah (swt) alone knows best.

"Evidence has emerged to suggest the Neanderthals had a war-mongering nature"

http://tinyurl.com/7lhppvk


“Meet the other ancestors… discovery that radically complicates the story of our origins”

http://tinyurl.com/6mwt6h2

Moving further….

“Do ye then see?- The (human Seed) that ye throw out,-“

Noble Qur'an(56:58)

It is the sperm that give the dna which give different characteristic to different species.

“Is it ye who create it, or are We the Creators?”
Noble Qur'an(56:59)

” We have decreed Death to be your common lot , and We are not to be frustrated”
Noble Qur'an(56:60)



“from changing your Forms and creating you (again) in (forms) that ye know not.”
Noble Qur'an(56:61)

Changing forms and creating again.. Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, newly discovered human species and who knows how many to be discovered.



May be Adam (pbuh) was introduced in the chain of evolution in a similar way;

“DNA in Meteorites Suggests Life Came from Space”

http://tinyurl.com/3twku9z

Or maybe we are the one (Homo sapiens) who are actually aliens on this earth!

Allah (swt) alone knows best.

If you research theory of evolution you will find there are evidences which contradict it and scientist are in progress of removing them as new evidence come up, the theory of evolution itself is in an evolutionary process and it cannot be taken to be 100% true.

“Charles Darwin's theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology”

http://tinyurl.com/78uk3ew

As you can see the Muslims get to eat their cake and keep it too!

[Whatever truth that I have said until now is form Allah (swt) because he is ‘absolute truth’ and anything false that I may have said until now is out of my ignorance I ask Allah (swt) for forgiveness and correction]



.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!