Is human evolution compatible with the quran?

[TDWT]

Ok, I'm done beating around the bush and just going to be honest now. Can human evolution be reconciled? I mean, there is so much evidence for it, and the DNA evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. In response, Yasir Qadhi said that maybe god made it appear that humans evolved or some domino effect. I heard it is against the quran closely but I am not sure. I post this here as this is where most people are, so what are thoughts?

[crimsontide06]

I personally do not try to figure out something that I do not understand. God created evolution and how it works. That's good enough for me. How is works? It's not for me to understand...

[MidnightRose]

Ok, I'm done beating around the bush and just going to be honest now. Can human evolution be reconciled? I mean, there is so much evidence for it, and the DNA evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. In response, Yasir Qadhi said that maybe god made it appear that humans evolved or some domino effect. I heard it is against the quran closely but I am not sure. I post this here as this is where most people are, so what are thoughts?

:sl: and welcome to the forum!

Here are two threads that should help out:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...rspective.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ion-islam.html

Both threads have good information and discussion on what you're looking for, :ia:.

[kritikvernunft]

Can human evolution be reconciled?

So, can they show me a species that they have experimentally evolved out of another species?
In general, what experiments can we repeat in order to find counterexamples for that claim?
As you know, it is not enough to stare at something and then conjecture about it.
In this field, only experimental testing is allowed to support the claim.

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

[drac16]

No, I don't believe it is reconcilable. The Qur'an says very clearly that man was created from clay-- not that man came into existence slowly after millions of years of evolution. Adam [peace be upon him] was the first man and he didn't come from a primitive form of primate.

[kritikvernunft]

No, I don't believe it is reconcilable. The Qur'an says very clearly that man was created from clay

It is vague enough to always be true, no matter how you redefine man or clay.
Furthermore, the Quran does not sail under the flag of provability (=math) or falsifiability (=science). In Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Immanuel Kant nicely explains why morality, i.e. the list of forbidden behaviours may not be hypothetical but must at all times categorical. Hence, the Quran correctly sails under the flag of axiomatizing categorical imperatives.

... not that man came into existence slowly after millions of years of evolution ...

The Quran does not describe the precise mechanism in which man was created from clay. I actually do not see why it should. The problem addressed in the Quran does not lend itself to that. We are looking at what types of behaviour are explicitly impermissible -- the other types of behaviour not being mentioned obviously being permissible -- and who exactly is the source for this list of impermissible behaviours, i.e. morality. It is the One God, Creator of the Universe, our Beloved Master, who pronounced and promulgated this list of impermissible behaviour, while giving us the God-given right to engage in everything that is not forbidden. Within this context, of asserting rules of morality, it is of absolutely no importance whatsoever in what way, or according to what mechanism exactly, man was created from clay.

Furthermore, that the people who claim that man was evolved from primates, and who claim to be sailing under the flag of falsifiability (=science), explain to us what experiments we should be able to repeat in order to evolve a man from a primate.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you kritikvernunft;

The Quran does not describe the precise mechanism in which man was created from clay.

Agreed, and for evolution to be true, Allah would somehow have to mix the DNA from an ape, with the DNA of clay, that he made man from. Maybe Allah made variations of clay apes that mated, and we have evolved from this mating.

As you say, Allah does not have to say how he made man from clay, but it is enough to trust that Allah has the power to make man from clay, should he choose to do so.

In the spirit of searching for God the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Eric

[Steven Caro]

I think a lot of commentators on here should go to the Natural History Museum in London and look at the Human Evolution section. It won't bite to gain a little knowledge. You can still have God in your life, but you won't be as badly informed. Win Win.

[kritikvernunft]

I think a lot of commentators on here should go to the Natural History Museum in London and look at the Human Evolution section. It won't bite to gain a little knowledge. You can still have God in your life, but you won't be as badly informed. Win Win.

I think that a lot of commentators would benefit from understanding the distinction between history and science. If you are not repeating experiments in order to search for counterexamples for a particular theorem, you are NOT doing science whatsoever. Hence, producing validation for "evolution" can only be achieved in a lab and not in a museum. Furthermore, I am sick and tired of all these pseudo-intellectuals whose only capability is to memorize ideological conjectures, en provenance from questionable textbooks. Solve an even utterly simple math equation for a change, if you are that smart! ;-)

[Steven Caro]

To Kritikvernunft. What a ridiculous reply. Evolution has been validated by natural science which is a branch of science. Wake up. A museum is for the layperson to go and see the information. Do you expect the whole population to do a degree in natural science? And yes, there are a lot of questionable books about aren't there. ;)

[kritikvernunft]

Evolution has been validated by natural science which is a branch of science.

"Validated" means that we can repeat experiments in order to look for counterexamples for the claim that a man can be evolved out of a primate.

So, now we need a suitable primate. Where can we find one?

Next, we will simply reapply the procedure that has allegedly allowed these other researchers to evolve a man out of that primate. We expect to obtain the same results as he did. Feel free to provide us with the description of that experiment.

[Steven Caro]

Oh dear, I really think it would help you to go and see it for yourself. And Natural 'History' Museum doesn't mean it's history as you were thinking of it. You should be aware that there is science involved in the study of 'natural' science. The clue is in the name. Evolution is observable through fossil records, DNA and various other observable methods. Modern man evolved out of a common ancestor, not a primate as you are thinking. Go and see the evidence. Try to understand there are many branches of science. You really need to research a lot more if you are going to keep up with the human race. Do yourself and humanity a favour and go. It's free plus there are dinosaurs there too. I realise you might find that a bit hard to swallow, but I imagine you believe some pretty crazy stuff that you can't even see so maybe you'll get it. Anyway, spend sometime in there and then if after that you are still so sure it's not true then good luck to you.

[Abz2000]

Allah does not invalidate the possibility of the Quran but rather hints at it in numerous places, the rest falls in place with sincere study and honest evaluations of what we observe with our God given tools and faculties of reason used in a halaal way.

[kritikvernunft]

Oh dear, I really think it would help you to go and see it for yourself.

Sure. Feel free to give me a link to an experiment in which they evolve a man out of a primate.

Evolution is observable through fossil records, DNA and various other observable methods.

Let's use an utterly simplistic definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.


You can clearly see that nobody gives a flying f*ck about the fact that anything would be just observable.
Seriously, nobody cares!

Try to understand there are many branches of science.

Yeah, such as alchemy and astrology! ;-)
They may have given you a "degree" in sociology or "political science" but these things are not science at all, and if that is all that you have to show for, you are not an intellectual, since nothing of what you do, is based on accredited validation methods, because those are hard, and not for everybody, but everybody still wants a "degree". Why don't you solve an utterly simple math problem, or do something else that does not amount to just repeating nonsense out of imbecile humanities' textbooks, and then come back! Seriously, if they have conned you into spending years, wasting your time on that bullsh*t, it would certainly explain why you are not employable at all ... ever! ;-)

[MisterK]

Disregarding the fact that men are primates, so evolving a man out of a primate is a non-starter, and shows a misunderstanding of science and evolution, it is not required to evolve one species into another in a lab setting to verify evolution.


As has already been stated, genetic testing, the fossil record, and more all provide an astounding amount of evidence in support of evolution. The theory of evolution, which is the explanation for the process and mechanisms of evolution actually has more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity has.


This evidence can, and has, been shown to allow for testable predictability and the formation of hypotheses. Here is one article explaining this very thing:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality

If someone doesn't want to accept the very large amount of evidence for evolution, that is their choice. Evolution being real doesn't mean it wasn't designed and put into play by Allah, Subhana wa t'alaa, after all. But claiming evolution/evolutionary theory is not scientific is either, at best, a statement of ignorance on the matter, or, at worst, intentional intellectual dishonesty.

[Serinity]

Disregarding the fact that men are primates, so evolving a man out of a primate is a non-starter, and shows a misunderstanding of science and evolution, it is not required to evolve one species into another in a lab setting to verify evolution.


As has already been stated, genetic testing, the fossil record, and more all provide an astounding amount of evidence in support of evolution. The theory of evolution, which is the explanation for the process and mechanisms of evolution actually has more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity has.


This evidence can, and has, been shown to allow for testable predictability and the formation of hypotheses. Here is one article explaining this very thing:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality

If someone doesn't want to accept the very large amount of evidence for evolution, that is their choice. Evolution being real doesn't mean it wasn't designed and put into play by Allah, Subhana wa t'alaa, after all. But claiming evolution/evolutionary theory is not scientific is either, at best, a statement of ignorance on the matter, or, at worst, intentional intellectual dishonesty.

I don't believe that we came from apes.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

[kritikvernunft]

it is not required to evolve one species into another in a lab setting to verify evolution.

no testing = no science
Therefore, it is not science.

...all provide an astounding amount of evidence in support of evolution.

No, no. We want something that can be tested.

The theory of evolution, which is the explanation for the process and mechanisms of evolution actually has more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity has.

hasSupportingEvidence is pretty much a binary (yes/no) variable, unless you are using a formal framework in which it is not, but I somehow suspect that you are not! ;-)
It means that we can repeat an experiment in order to find counterexamples for evolution. These experiments do not exist, and there is nothing to test.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/pr...ry-eusociality

We are not going to change the rules of the game for everybody who cannot meet the criteria, because that means that alchemy and astrology are coming in again through the back door. So, no. No. We won't. If the obstacle is insurmountable for you, then you should consider why exactly we have thrown up that obstacle. We do that, exactly because we know that it will be insurmountable for you! ;-)

[MisterK]

no testing = no science
Therefore, it is not science.

No, no. We want something that can be tested.

hasSupportingEvidence is pretty much a binary (yes/no) variable, unless you are using a formal framework in which it is not, but I somehow suspect that you are not! ;-)
It means that we can repeat an experiment in order to find counterexamples for evolution. These experiments do not exist, and there is nothing to test.

We are not going to change the rules of the game for everybody who cannot meet the criteria, because that means that alchemy and astrology are coming in again through the back door. So, no. No. We won't. If the obstacle is insurmountable for you, then you should consider why exactly we have thrown up that obstacle. We do that, exactly because we know that it will be insurmountable for you! ;-)

And since you choose to ignore that it can and has been used to form testable hypotheses, and it can and has been used for predictability, in addition to ignoring the other evidence supporting it, I'm done with this conversation. I will not waste anymore of my time in debate with somone showing such blatant disregard for the facts of matter.

[M.I.A.]

it seems only fair to test the Quran by the state of the people of the time..

the state of science at the time..

for instance if a person were told that man is made of clay, it does not make it any easier to explain the situation.

it's just a given that does not elude to the complexity of the situation..

although with a little thought it can be expanded upon.

...so now I'm a carbon based lifeform.

not really any easier to explain.. but with a few years of eduction most people become competent with the terminology.

it's probably important to consider that philosophy is no longer considered a hard science..

although throughout the ages there is no doubt about how philosophy influenced and established the beginnings of the scientific method..

literally missing the complexity of the situation asking simply for reproducible results and predictability..

and I'm sure it's the case with evolution.. why?

because new branches of science appear all the time.


I used to be a scientist but I was never really any good at it.. don't ever question the textbook example.

[Scimitar]

human evolution :D the words still make me laugh

sorry, as you were

[Abz2000]

وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَى أَنفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتَ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُواْ بَلَى شَهِدْنَا أَن تَقُولُواْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَذَا غَافِلِينَ {172
007:172 Khan
:
And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their seed (or from Adam's loin his offspring) and made them testify as to themselves (saying): "Am I not your Lord?" They said: "Yes! We testify," lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: "Verily, we have been unaware of this."


إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَى عِندَ اللّهِ كَمَثَلِ آدَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِن تُرَابٍ ثِمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ {59
003:059
:Indeed, the likeness of 'Iesa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was.


فَأَجَاءهَا الْمَخَاضُ إِلَى جِذْعِ النَّخْلَةِ قَالَتْ يَا لَيْتَنِي مِتُّ قَبْلَ هَذَا وَكُنتُ نَسْيًا مَّنسِيًّا {23
019:023 Khan
:
And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a date-palm. She said: "Would that I had died before this, and had been forgotten and out of sight!"



وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ مِن سُلَالَةٍ مِّن طِينٍ {12
023:012
:
And indeed We created Al Insaan (man) out of an extract of clay (water and earth).

ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاهُ نُطْفَةً فِي قَرَارٍ مَّكِينٍ {13
023:013
:
Thereafter We turned him into a drop of fluid in a safe lodging


ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ {14
023:014
:
Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (leech/suspended thing/blood clot), then We made the clot into Mudghah (a little lump of flesh/chewy substance), then We made out of that Mudghah bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.

Check where it becomes "khalq an aakhar"

But for those who just assume that it happened randomly by chance with no design in place, consider the logic and odds of this happening randomly:

My son asked me what a pearl was (he'd heard me say it) and i suddenly remembered this book, and when i found it on the shelf i stared at it in amazement for ages as if it was the first time i'd ever seen it, now when i see my cat, i wonder if it's chain of primitive ancestors chose to incrementally develop fur as they branched off when they were cold, and claws to fight with and climb, and when i see ducks and chickens start walking in 1-3 days i wonder if whatever it was that might have been a predecessor to humans just lay there for ages thinking, feeling, listening and deciding with whatever form of basic intelligence and biological faculties it had and concentrated on developing those first before deciding to get up, since human babies take years to become useful- but later end up wielding all the tools to surpass all creatures - a question of using the mind wisely, and of using tools wisely too.

And Allah knows best.

Burger king or mcdonalds, democrats or republicans, edl or nf, america or russia? Rather cling to Allah who breathed of His spirit and guided our first common ancestor and also - if He did, those things before adam all the way to the atom and beyond. (Don't ya luv the way they rhyme?)



SEEMS LIKE OUR PRIMITIVE ANCESTORS MADE THE BEST CHOICES, EVEN BEFORE BEING CALLED MAN, but then again were they the best choices,?Allah knows best. At least the other critters saved themselves from hell.


إِنَّا عَرَضْنَا الْأَمَانَةَ عَلَى السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَالْجِبَالِ فَأَبَيْنَ أَن يَحْمِلْنَهَا وَأَشْفَقْنَ مِنْهَا وَحَمَلَهَا الْإِنسَانُ إِنَّهُ كَانَ ظَلُومًا جَهُولًا {72
033:072 Khan
:
Truly, We did offer Al-Amanah (the trust or moral responsibility or honesty and all the duties which Allah has ordained) to the heavens and the earth, and the mountains, but they declined to bear it and were afraid of it (i.e. afraid of Allah's Torment). But man bore it. Verily, he was unjust (to himself) and ignorant (of its results).

لِيُعَذِّبَ اللَّهُ الْمُنَافِقِينَ وَالْمُنَافِقَاتِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ وَالْمُشْرِكَاتِ وَيَتُوبَ اللَّهُ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا {73
033:073
:
So that Allah will punish the hypocrites, men and women, and the men and women who are Al-Mushrikun (the polytheists, idolaters, pagans, those who imagine others to hold equal authority with Allah, or independent authority under Allah). And Allah will pardon (accept the repentance of) the true believers of the Islamic Monotheism, men and women. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.



Imagining that we came from some sort of bacteria that formed from essential clay isn't too difficult when you see trees bearing mangoes and others coconuts and all the baby coconuts covered by a shade that whithers away gradually -come straight out of the same soil, and the fact that the impure sperm drop appears to play a replication of millions if not billions of years of actions superfast is not at all surprising.
There's that question of qadr and self-action that we'll probably have to have explained to us on or after the day of judgement, because there are certainly massive amounts of data in that sperm and egg which makes your son grin the way you do and not the way obama does or the way your cat does. :)


Maysara Al Dhabbi (r) said he asked the Prophet (s), "Oh, Messenger of Allah, when did you become a prophet?" He (s) answered, "While Adam was still between the soul and the body."

http://www.israinternational.com/kno...phet-saws.html

They ended up meeting an old Bedouin man and the Prophet asked him, “Have you heard anything about the army of Muhammad, and the army of Quraysh?” So the man said, “Tell me who you are and then I will tell you where they are.” The Prophet said, ‘If you tell us, we will tell you.’ So the old man said, “I received information that Muhammad and his army left Madeenah on such-and-such a date. If this information is correct, they should now be in such-and-such place.” He then pointed out the right position of the Muslim army, and that indicated his truth. He then said, “And I’ve received information, that the army of Quraysh have left on such-and-such date. If that information is correct, then they would be in such-and-such place.”

The Bedouin then asked the Prophet and Abu Bakr, “Who are you, were are you from?” The Prophet said: نَحْنُ مِنْ مَاء “We are from water.” And he and Abu Bakr walked away.:D The man began flipping his hands, saying: مِنْ مَاء؟ أَمِنْ مَاءِ العِرَاق؟ “What? From water? What do you mean? Are you from the water (rivers) of Iraq?” The Prophet meant that we were created from water as Allah says in Surah Anbiya, Ayah 30: “Allah has made every living being out of water.” (Also if you didn’t understand what the Prophet meant, refer to the Qur’aan, 32:8)

http://mymonline.org/the-battle-of-badr/

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَ كُلَّ دَابَّةٍ مِن مَّاء فَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى بَطْنِهِ وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى رِجْلَيْنِ وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى أَرْبَعٍ يَخْلُقُ اللَّهُ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ {45

024:045 Khan
:
Allah has created every moving (living) creature from water.
Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Verily! Allah is Able to do all things.


Let us bear in mind though that there is no point in blaming Adam for his original sin or in saying "the fathers have eaten sour grapes therefore the childrens teeth are set on edge", since all belong to Allah and are able to follow the guidance of Allah, and that Allah will reward each person according to their abilities, circumstances and struggles, the facts make no room for people to excuse murder by nazi and rockefeller type racist thinking in Allah's dominion, those choices were and are Allah's to make.
allah has shown us examples of the people of Jonah, and Ibrahim (pbuh) the son of idol maker azar that His mercy and guidance can overcome ancestral traits, and that He can heal the breasts of people in a heartbeat.




Edit: the thought just struck me lol, to those who claim the right of unbridled freedom whilst actually never being free of laws, do take the time to consider that if the theories regarding evolution are true, and many indeed appear to be, our common ancestors, whatever they were before Adam would have had the freedom to choose to be cats and dogs, but chose to think critically and truthfully, and struggled to suppress their desire to just keep their tails (like we see in the fetus) and swing about on trees, and did major jihad of nafs in Allah's way in order to be human. It is highly unlikely that they would have seen an obvious truth ahead of them, with their minds and hearts acknowledging it, and then just chosen to ignore it and follow their short term whims whilst deluding themselves as to long term consequences. The fittest to continue during noah's time were those who's minds and hearts acknowledged the truth, and struggled and long-suffered in accepting it, and the weakest were deemed as those who rejected the obvious truth that their hearts and minds acknowledged just so they could claim to be free whilst playing in falsehood and vice, and heading to self destruction, Allah cut that short, and it's usually been the case that those who chose to accept and follow God's guidance and His messengers prevailed in this world too, their names remained whilst the crooks who opposed the truth lost.
an orwellian or huxlian atheist society couldn't and wouldn't last long logically since they're based on denying truth and/or accepting tyranny, it's degenerative from the outset.

190.*Verily in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for those who possess understanding,
191.*Those who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth:
"Our Lord! not for nothing have You created (all) this! Glory to You/You are free from imperfection! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire.
192.*"Our Lord! any whom You admit to the Fire, Truly You cover with shame, and for the unjust, there are no helpers.
193.*"Our Lord! we have heard the call of one calling (Us) to Faith, 'Believe in your Lord,' and we have believed. Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, blot out from us our iniquities, and enter us into the company of the righteous.
194.*"Our Lord! Grant us what You have promised unto us through Your messengers, and do not humiliate us on the Day of Judgment: For You never breakest Thy promise."
195.*And their Lord has responded to them: "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be they male or female: You are members, one of another: Those who have left their homes, or have been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain,- verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath;- A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards."
196.*Let not the strutting about of the rejecters (of Allah) through the land deceive you:
197.*Little is it for enjoyment: Their ultimate abode is Hell: what an evil bed (To lie on)!
198.*On the other hand, for those who fear their Lord, are Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath; therein are they to dwell (for ever),- a gift from the presence of Allah. and that which is in the presence of Allah is the best (bliss) for the righteous.
From Quran Chapter 3

As i was thinking about it all, chapter an-nisaa began to play and the words nafsin waahidatin wa khalaqa minhaa zawjahaa struck me as a possible hint.

The "haa" indicates feminine or inanimate, so since Adam was a man, the "she" is deducted from the equation and the remaining "it" would point to a previous ancestor before al insaan, or the soul of Adam.

If it is the soul, we have been given very limited knowledge and it would be pointless to rack our brains but if the "it" is a creature or a particle(since they too come in pairs with positrons and electrons and whatever stuff)....God knows....i'm getting a bit lost and it's 7:32am and i'm going to sleep. How does yogurt multiply??? Its 7:40.

Can anyone else expound on what they understand from the two "ha" s in ch4 v1?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Steven,

I think a lot of commentators on here should go to the Natural History Museum in London and look at the Human Evolution section. It won't bite to gain a little knowledge. You can still have God in your life, but you won't be as badly informed. Win Win.

Whether evolution happened, or it did not happen, evolution adds no meaning or purpose to life. We do not worship evolution the creator of all that is seen and unseen, because evolution created nothing.

If I am to spend my time searching for knowledge, I can find more meaning by searching for God, than I can by searching for the ToE. I have been to a number of natural history museums, including London, they leave me in awe of God's creation.

وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ مِن سُلَالَةٍ مِّن طِينٍ {

12
023:012
:
And indeed We created Al Insaan (man) out of an extract of clay (water and earth).

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you Steven,


Whether evolution happened, or it did not happen, evolution adds no meaning or purpose to life. We do not worship evolution the creator of all that is seen and unseen, because evolution created nothing.

If I am to spend my time searching for knowledge, I can find more meaning by searching for God, than I can by searching for the ToE. I have been to a number of natural history museums, including London, they leave me in awe of God's creation.




In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

In the book of Genesis, God commands Man to have dominion over the earth. How can you have dominion over the earth without knowing how the earth works? Also, is it enough to be in awe? If God gave Man his intelligence, isn't it implied that He wants us to use it? Wouldn't inquiry and the exploration of Creation show more appreciation and be more active forms of worship than simple awe?

[sister herb]

Is human evolution compatible with the quran?

How it could to be? What the scientists know and say about "human evolution" now, what they said 100 years ago or what they will say after 100 years isn´t same. The words in the Quran don´t change. They are same now, yesterday and also at the tomorrow. The human scientists don´t know as much as Allah knows, that´s why there are differencies with the science and in the Quran.

[kritikvernunft]

it's probably important to consider that philosophy is no longer considered a hard science..

While science are statements about facts, philosophy consists of statements about statements. Therefore, science and philosophy answer different questions. You cannot answer philosophical questions scientifically, and neither the other way around. Science cannot state anything about science, because that amounts to making statements about statements, and that is philosophy and not science. The scientific method -- statements expressing requirements for scientific statements -- is not matter of science but of philosophy.

literally missing the complexity of the situation asking simply for reproducible results and predictability.

Why would anybody have to be exempt from even the most basic requirements?
So that everybody and their little sister should also be taken seriously?

and I'm sure it's the case with evolution.. why? because new branches of science appear all the time.

New branches of science do NOT appear all the time. It rarely happens that it does.
Seriously, we do not need new branches of science to appear all the time.
New branches of science only appear all the time for people who believe in an incorrect and very permissive definition of science.

[M.I.A.]

I can't really quote on my phone so bear with me..

I did a masters degree in hard science, yet my final year dissertation was rooted in philosophy..

an ongoing study.. I think you are mistaken, maybe choose another window..

I've been through the door both ways.

although my conclusion was indeed statements about statements.

...a natural state of "humours" :| ... :/

would have made a great title for it.. had I not been a robot.

to be fair I don't know most people or there sisters.. I can live without that complexity.

:/

probably.

reformation of information occurs all the time, as bob marley would say.. don't let them rearrange ya..

it is probably how philosophy was confined to a dark corner of the library..

while people have to fill out a personality test to work at ASDA.

"new branches of science" may not do the advancement of science justice..

Maybe it translates better here, in keeping with what you just said..

http://corpus.quran.com/translation....er=17&verse=81

[kritikvernunft]

"new branches of science" may not do the advancement of science justice..

In fact, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with science as a method: "You say that water boils at 100 degrees. So, let's try to heat water and check at what temperature it boils. Next, let's try to figure out if we could make it boil at another temperature. By adding salt? By lowering the pressure? By ...?"

Understood in that way, science is just common sense.

What the evolution guys are doing, does not look like that at all: "Man has a common ancestor with other primates."
Possibly, but don't call that science, unless you have also figured out a way to grab such common ancestors, and experimentally evolve their progeny into a man.

[Abz2000]

Well, so far we appear to all be agreed on the fact that the chinese have a common ancestor with africans?

[Serinity]

you can have water boil at different temperatures depending on the atmospheric pressure. It is possible.

There is also AFAIK a ball of ice near a burning star.. Yes, Ice. But it is very hot there. The gravity must be strong, or some other sciences in there.

Science is basically observations made by man. The arrogance of man, however, seems to bother me. How can't they see the marvelous creation, and how the laws work in unison?

you could say this whole globe is a breathing being. Water doesn't have an expire date.

I am amazed at the things Allah creates. I am amazed at what He :Swt: can create.

[M.I.A.]

well I only have a moment in time..

so I'm not hung up on how it happened and even more frustrated if people tell me how it's going to happen.

enjoy your microwave and kettle..

let the creationists argue with the evolutionists while we have electricity.

*2001 a space odyssey music*

I reconcile religion with evolution simply because all those things that you point it out in..

aren't even thinking about it.


only chef is allowed in the kitchen.


...and maybe a pretty assistant.


jk I'm a jerk, back to the ores...oars.

:/ not an ants reference.

[kritikvernunft]

Well, so far we appear to all be agreed on the fact that the chinese have a common ancestor with africans?

Quite possibly, but that would be a historical fact, and hence subject to the method of history and not the method of science. What tests would there be, to be repeated? A scientific approach would amount to finding such common ancestor and getting both chinese as african progeny out of him, using reproduction methods. It is just not realistic to do that. It is again, obviously not within the application area of science.

If you want to do science, you should rather think of boiling water, and discovering invariants when you do that: "No matter how I boil water, the following will always be true ..." Even though you can discover quite a few invariants by doing science, that still does not mean that the validation of every possible statement would lend itself to that particular method. Seriously, claiming that the chinese and the africans have a common ancestor is really not part of the application domain of science, and I do not believe that anybody would ever be interested in investigating it in that way.

Note that anything that you could say about, for example, numbers, is also not a valid subject for science. Numbers are a subject of math, which is not based on experimented testing, but on axiomatic derivation. It is also a completely different method altogether. The scientific method would be utterly ineffective when investigating invariants concerning numbers.

[M.I.A.]

does relativity have anything to do with numbers?

I am clutching at straws to be fair.

[Scimitar]

#kritikvernunft - Philosophy is the intellectual dissemination of logic and morality in the pursuit of higher wisdom. You CAN answer philosophical questions scientifically. Science is in fact - a methodical and formalised approach to answering philosphical questions - and you should know this.

Even the words "philo-sophia" translate to "Love of wisdom/knowledge" and science is at the hearts of our need to "know everything". The Scientific approach to asking and answering what we have determined to be the most rational and reasonably sound lines of inquiry do not start and end with the laboratory lol.

Science is not just periodic tables, bunson burners, microscopes and safety goggles mate.

True science is "investigative" and a sister to philosphical pursuit.

Without philosophy and the great questions which abound from it (which abound from our need to know our place in the world among other things) science has no reason to exist.

So when you write:

While science are statements about facts, philosophy consists of statements about statements. Therefore, science and philosophy answer different questions. You cannot answer philosophical questions scientifically, and neither the other way around. Science cannot state anything about science, because that amounts to making statements about statements, and that is philosophy and not science. The scientific method -- statements expressing requirements for scientific statements -- is not matter of science but of philosophy.

It does make me do eyebrow raisers on repeat.

Scimi

[Abz2000]

It appears that Allah Himself has left many questions for the mind to ponder on as a way of sifting between the truthful and the arrogant, it would be easy for him to say "here i am, look at me and receive scientific proof" but He doesn't, He sends enough clear signs so that hearts and minds will acknowledge the truth, but leaves some rope for the arrogant whose wish is to deny the obvious.....

[Scimitar]

It appears that Allah Himself has left many questions for the mind to ponder on as a way of sifting between the truthful and the arrogant, it would be easy for him to say "here i am, look at me and receive scientific proof" but He doesn't, He sends enough clear signs so that hearts and minds will acknowledge the truth, but leaves some rope for the arrogant whose wish is to deny the obvious.....

Seems that God almighty prefers the philosopher mind to the lay mind - so many ayaat in the Qur'an state to humanity "do ye not think? do ye not consider? do ye not reason? do ye not wonder?" etc etc - this is the ONLY HOLY BOOK on earth which actually asks the reader not to accept blindly but to investigate so "faith" reaches "conviction".

I can drop names here - Dr Mauric Bucaille comes to mind instantly. Among others.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

In the book of Genesis, God commands Man to have dominion over the earth. How can you have dominion over the earth without knowing how the earth works? Also, is it enough to be in awe? If God gave Man his intelligence, isn't it implied that He wants us to use it? Wouldn't inquiry and the exploration of Creation show more appreciation and be more active forms of worship than simple awe?

I'd argue - awe itself is also a very pure form of worship.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

Well, so far we appear to all be agreed on the fact that the chinese have a common ancestor with africans?

There's a lot of truth in this.

Scimi

[Abz2000]

The fact that the Quran is so concise, yet leaves the reader with the ability to reason and find answers to questions neither asked nor answered is itself a testament to it's maturity.

I can remember when i was little and used to sit on the stairs and read books as my mum sewed on the machine, i used to pester my brothers and sisters with "what does this mean?" and "what does that mean?" - until my sister showed me how to sift through a dictionary........

Also a bit like the difference between teaching how to count on fingers held high in the air, only for students to get stuck when the equations start reaching three figures. Yet teaching algebra makes them lightning fast and witty.
Therefore "x" must obviously be............

[Scimitar]

Ok, I'm done beating around the bush and just going to be honest now. Can human evolution be reconciled? I mean, there is so much evidence for it, and the DNA evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

Sorry bro - what DNA evidence? I can just as easily claim humans are descended from koala bears - or rats, who share more dna with us than apes do lol. DNA is simply a string of ingredients bro -

what scientists do is claim that madras chicken curry is fashioned off of traidtional british beef stew, lol - you gotta do some serious mental gymnastics to make that work.

In response, Yasir Qadhi said that maybe god made it appear that humans evolved or some domino effect. I heard it is against the quran closely but I am not sure. I post this here as this is where most people are, so what are thoughts?

Had no idea Dr Yasir Qadhi was a biologist :D

Scimi

[Abz2000]

There's a lot of truth in this.

Scimi

It appears that you delved into the question rather than just look at it superficially : )
it appears that you have two eyes open!

[Scimitar]

The fact that the Quran is so concise, yet leaves the reader with the ability to reason and find answers to questions neither asked nor answered is itself a testament to it's maturity.

Many naysayers claim that the Qur'an is a doctrine - yet we find that it has elements of doctrine and elements of inquiry - leaving it to the reader to decide n whether the revelation is sound or not - this honest approach to scripture divinely ordained for mankind is what truly makes me believe - no other holy book in the world has this fair nuance - they all just command "or else"... yet the Qur'an makes it clear "no compulsion in deen" you either do or you don't - simple - the truth came to you and now you decide what you do with it.

This to me - appeals more than "do or die" attitude of other scriptures.

I can remember when i was little and used to sit on the stairs and read books as my mum sewed on the machine, i used to pester my brothers and sisters with "what does this mean?" and "what does that mean?" - until my sister showed me how to sift through a dictionary........

Seems we share a history - my mother also sewed on machines in the cellar and I too would sit and fumble around - but we had a spare machine and I learnt to sew on it lol. I used to make topi's for masjid lol.

Also a bit like the difference between teaching how to count on fingers held high in the air, only for students to get stuck when the equations start reaching three figures. Yet teaching algebra makes them lightning fast and witty.
Therefore "x" must obviously be............

I'm reminded of Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - I'll toast my laban to that :)

Scimi

[Scimitar]

It appears that you delved into the question rather than just look at it superficially : )
it appears that you have two eyes open!

Around the time of Cyrus the persian, the Chinese were not always "Chinese"... they were an Hamitic race (descended from Ham son of Nuh AS) and some of their descendents who lived on the east coast of Africa joined with the Phoenicians and travelled to China where they settled - over generations. This happened way before 600 BCE and was an effort which happened over generations.

Southern China was fertile and mostly uninhabited.

Though there was some diversity in ancient chinese genome, the Qin army shows us that most of the soldiers were black.

Shang dynasty statue of black King

Herodotus in his histories mentions "hyperboreans" who were a fair haried race of people, living to the north of Cathay (China) while in the south there were negroid nations living in fear of attack - their language was isolated and over the ages became separated from their ethnic dialect as philology and morphology occurred until the language lost its rooted connection to the hamitic branch of languages - the language developed in isolation bro and even today, Chinese sounds distinctly recognisable and alien to other language groups because of this... The mingrant Negroes lived in mountainous regions of China's south and became farmers - where we have the infamous six tea mountains named:

1.Gedeng（革登山）：The term for "leather stirrup"·
2.Mansa（慢撤业）:The term for"seed sowing bag"
3.Mangzhi（莽枝山）：The term for"copper cauldron"
4.Manzhuan（蠻磚山）:The term for“iron brick”
5．Yibang（倚邦山）:The term for"wooden clapper"
6. Youle（攸樂山）:The term meaning “copper gong”


Did you see the code, bro Abz?

Scimi

[jabeady]

I'd argue - awe itself is also a very pure form of worship.

Scimi

Perhaps. A little like the difference between enjoying a ride in a luxury automobile, and appreciating the engineering under the hood.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

In the book of Genesis, God commands Man to have dominion over the earth. How can you have dominion over the earth without knowing how the earth works?

Adam and Eve knew enough about the earth to survive, so I am not sure what your point is.

Also, is it enough to be in awe? If God gave Man his intelligence, isn't it implied that He wants us to use it?

Of course we should use our intelligence to progress, man can send probes to Mars, and I am ever so slightly in awe of man's achievements. However God created, Mars, and galaxies and all of life, that I am in awe of.

Wouldn't inquiry and the exploration of Creation show more appreciation and be more active forms of worship than simple awe?

I am not sure that the exploration of creation will bring us closer to God, we have everything we need for that in our sacred scriptures, and I include the Quran in that statement.

In the spirit of searching for God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Eric

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;



Adam and Eve knew enough about the earth to survive, so I am not sure what your point is.

Survival is the bare minimum, it is not domination. Fleas survive; humans are supposed to dominate, by divine command. If all you do is survive, you are disobeying God.

course we should use our intelligence to progress, man can send probes to Mars, and I am ever so slightly in awe of man's achievements. However God created, Mars, and galaxies and all of life, that I am in awe of.

I am not sure that the exploration of creation will bring us closer to God, we have everything we need for that in our sacred scriptures, and I include the Quran in that statement.

In the spirit of searching for God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Eric

God gave you the Quran and He gave you the physical universe. To ignore or discount one or part of one of them is to ignore or discount part of what He gave you. Seems to me that would be skirting awfully close to blasphemy.

[Scimitar]

Perhaps. A little like the difference between enjoying a ride in a luxury automobile, and appreciating the engineering under the hood.

You forgot to mention anything about the designer *sigh

Scimi

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

Survival is the bare minimum, it is not domination. Fleas survive; humans are supposed to dominate, by divine command. If all you do is survive, you are disobeying God.

We were given domination over plants, animals and fish, how much intelligence do we need for that today? But if you are to quote the bible, then we have the greatest commandments to love God and to love our neighbour, we can do nothing greater.

God gave you the Quran

God gave me the Bible, but I also recognise that the Quran came from the same God that gave me the bible. there is 'One God'

and He gave you the physical universe. To ignore or discount one or part of one of them is to ignore or discount part of what He gave you. Seems to me that would be skirting awfully close to blasphemy.

We are both guest on a Muslim forum, my prayers are for a greater interfaith cooperation and understanding.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[jabeady]

You forgot to mention anything about the designer *sigh

Scimi

Is it possible to appreciate the design without appreciating the designer?

[M.I.A.]

1.Gedeng（革登山）：The term for "leather stirrup"·
2.Mansa（慢撤业）:The term for"seed sowing bag"
3.Mangzhi（莽枝山）：The term for"copper cauldron"
4.Manzhuan（蠻磚山）:The term for“iron brick”
5．Yibang（倚邦山）:The term for"wooden clapper"
6. Youle（攸樂山）:The term meaning “copper gong”


Did you see the code, bro Abz?

Scimi



....this went right over my head, the entire thing rather than just the finer points.

I have learned to appreciate just how vast the world is.

[kritikvernunft]

Philosophy is the intellectual dissemination of logic ...

Logic concerns the axiomatization of algebraic lattices that correctly implement the absorption law. Therefore, logic is a sub-discipline of math. Non-mathematical statements about logic have long ago become meaningless. Logic is no longer part of philosophy proper. Of course, math is just a particular subset of philosophy that happens to be staunchly axiomatic, and entirely satisfies the laws governing axiomatic systems.

... and morality ...

A "morality" is a set of forbidden behaviours, while assuming that all other unmentioned behaviours are permissible. According to Immanuel Kant'ts Kritik der practischen Vernunft, morality may only consist of categorical imperatives, meaning that outcome-based morality is necessarily invalid. Hence, valid morality will always be revealed, and not further explained as to why particular behaviours are forbidden. There is simply no point in asking why particular behaviours are forbidden. They simply are. Since morality is part of revelation, it is part of religion and not of philosophy proper.

You CAN answer philosophical questions scientifically. Science is in fact - a methodical and formalised approach to answering philosphical questions - and you should know this.

You have statements about facts. [1] (science)
You have statements about statements. [2] (philosophy)

Science necessarily are statements about facts, only. It is simple why it is like that. Science cannot deal with statements about statements, because the subject statements themselves do not appear in the real world. Only facts to. Therefore, it is impossible to test statements about statements empirically. Without empirical testing, no science.

[kritikvernunft]

Many naysayers claim that the Qur'an is a doctrine.

Concerning morality, we are sitting on the problem that the set of forbidden behaviours must have the form of categorical imperatives. Explaining why a particular behaviour is forbidden, would require access to the theory of everything (ToE), of which Kurt Gödel demonstrated later on, in his incompleteness theorems, that this would be impossible. Therefore, the Quran is necessarily a revelation, i.e. a doctrine. It must be a doctrine, or otherwise, it would simply be invalid.

...yet we find that it has elements of doctrine and elements of inquiry - leaving it to the reader to decide n whether the revelation is sound or not ...

A revelation describes the axioms of a moral axiomatic system. If it is possible to investigate an axiom of an axiomatic system, within the axiomatic system, it is an invalid axiom. Axioms may never be explained by other axioms, within the same system. The Quran gives rise to an axiomatic system of Divine Law that is consistent and complete.

• Consistent: It should not be possible to derive from Divine Law that a particular behaviour is simultaneously permissible and impermissible. It must be the one or the other.
• Complete: It should always be possible to derive from Divine Law whether a particular behaviour is permissible or impermissible. The question may not remain unanswered. This is guaranteed by the fact that all behaviour that cannot be derived as being impermissible, will be considered permissible.

Therefore, the revelation in the Quran specifies categorical imperatives that constitute a list of forbidden behaviours, and gives rise to a consistent and complete axiomatic system of Divine Law. Hence, the only valid inquiry consists in operations of axiomatic, deductive derivation from its axiomatic base.

[TDWT]

Disregarding the fact that men are primates, so evolving a man out of a primate is a non-starter, and shows a misunderstanding of science and evolution, it is not required to evolve one species into another in a lab setting to verify evolution.


As has already been stated, genetic testing, the fossil record, and more all provide an astounding amount of evidence in support of evolution. The theory of evolution, which is the explanation for the process and mechanisms of evolution actually has more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity has.


This evidence can, and has, been shown to allow for testable predictability and the formation of hypotheses. Here is one article explaining this very thing:


If someone doesn't want to accept the very large amount of evidence for evolution, that is their choice. Evolution being real doesn't mean it wasn't designed and put into play by Allah, Subhana wa t'alaa, after all. But claiming evolution/evolutionary theory is not scientific is either, at best, a statement of ignorance on the matter, or, at worst, intentional intellectual dishonesty.

Btw, how do you view the theory of evolution in regards to islam?

[kritikvernunft]

... it is not required to evolve one species into another in a lab setting to verify evolution ...

A non-permissive definition of science happens to suit us very well, thank you. Our definition happily includes things like physics, chemistry, and biology, but it also staunchly excludes things like alchemy and astrology.

As a matter of fact, it just suits us in that way. Why would we adopt a more permissive definition for science? Because it would suit particular charlatans better? So?

According to this non-permissive definition for science, the evolutionists must demonstrate to us how we can evolve a man out of a primate-like ancestor. So, we have a primate-like male and a female, and next they will be so friendly to extract a human out of that. Please, also describe how we can repeat that experiment by ourselves.

Concerning any link with the Quran, the scripture defines a list of forbidden types of behaviour -- a morality -- and in that way constitute Divine Law, along with a claim as to the divine origin of this Law. I wonder what the link could possibly be with the idea of experimentally incarcerating and molesting primate-like individuals in order to extract a human out of that? In my opinion, both subjects are simply not related at all.

[Abz2000]

Around the time of Cyrus the persian, the Chinese were not always "Chinese"... they were an Hamitic race (descended from Ham son of Nuh AS) and some of their descendents who lived on the east coast of Africa joined with the Phoenicians and travelled to China where they settled - over generations. This happened way before 600 BCE and was an effort which happened over generations.

Southern China was fertile and mostly uninhabited.

Though there was some diversity in ancient chinese genome, the Qin army shows us that most of the soldiers were black.

Shang dynasty statue of black King

Herodotus in his histories mentions "hyperboreans" who were a fair haried race of people, living to the north of Cathay (China) while in the south there were negroid nations living in fear of attack - their language was isolated and over the ages became separated from their ethnic dialect as philology and morphology occurred until the language lost its rooted connection to the hamitic branch of languages - the language developed in isolation bro and even today, Chinese sounds distinctly recognisable and alien to other language groups because of this... The mingrant Negroes lived in mountainous regions of China's south and became farmers - where we have the infamous six tea mountains named:

1.Gedeng（革登山）：The term for "leather stirrup"·
2.Mansa（慢撤业）:The term for"seed sowing bag"
3.Mangzhi（莽枝山）：The term for"copper cauldron"
4.Manzhuan（蠻磚山）:The term for“iron brick”
5．Yibang（倚邦山）:The term for"wooden clapper"
6. Youle（攸樂山）:The term meaning “copper gong”


Did you see the code, bro Abz?

Scimi

:)

Appears that many are unaware of their biological relationship, hence the irrational racial prejudices and unnecessary fighting along the exploited method of racist / tribal nationalism.



With regard to the descriptions of mountains, it appears that you're alluding to the possibility of a northern army as mentioned in joel 2, the hadith re. the banu asfar (yellow tribe), and the small eyed peopl with faces like hammered shields.
It could be a red herring from amongst the mysteries of Allah and it could be something to also be educated and aware of.

The real shield to focus on however is that within every person, remember, the door is a person, the afflictions are like rain drops, and they surge like waves.
Confusing unless one sees through the shape-shifting qualities and focuses inwardly.

Remember, the sahabah thought that the dajjal is here, there, in the thicket, everywhere....
....and some people wonder if the messiah is here, there, in the desert, on the rooftop, in the closet.....

Btw, i think the pilgrimage thing i mentioned was in a very vivid dream, though i did open the book on that page later, it seemed real afterwards especially since the bro in law and nephew part really happened first (as far as i can recall), but the one eyed dark dude, i think he was in the dream just after.
Just mentioned it since i remembered and didn't want to leave it incorrectly narrated.

The potential for good and evil is in everyone.

[MisterK]

Btw, how do you view the theory of evolution in regards to islam?

Basically how I put it in what you quoted, that it was designed and put into motion (like everything else) by Allah (Subhana wa ta'alaa). To expand on that, I see the path from the big bang to us is all part of the plan. And when Adam ( ʿalayhi as-salām) is exiled to Earth, I think it likely occurred with the historical rise of the first true male of our species (Y-Chromosomal Adam)... or perhaps the first human male rose, evolutionarily, once Adam ( ʿalayhi as-salām) was exiled, either way, it would look the same historically, and scientifically in the genetic and fossil records.

I understand I'm probably in a minority here with this view, it is simply that the scientific evidence for evolution, even human evolution, is quite vast and strong for me to just try and hand wave it away because it doesn't fit my preconceived view of reality. One can choose to ignore it, hold views that run counter to the facts and evidence, that it certainly their right, but high-horsed claims of evolution being untrue or unscientific are, at best, ignorant, or, at worst, intentionally dishonest.

[Abz2000]

Basically how I put it in what you quoted, that it was designed and put into motion (like everything else) by Allah (Subhana wa ta'alaa). To expand on that, I see the path from the big bang to us is all part of the plan. And when Adam ( ʿalayhi as-salām) is exiled to Earth, I think it likely occurred with the historical rise of the first true male of our species (Y-Chromosomal Adam)... or perhaps the first human male rose, evolutionarily, once Adam ( ʿalayhi as-salām) was exiled, either way, it would look the same historically, and scientifically in the genetic and fossil records.

I understand I'm probably in a minority here with this view, it is simply that the scientific evidence for evolution, even human evolution, is quite vast and strong for me to just try and hand wave it away because it doesn't fit my preconceived view of reality. One can choose to ignore it, hold views that run counter to the facts and evidence, that it certainly their right, but high-horsed claims of evolution being untrue or unscientific are, at best, ignorant, or, at worst, intentionally dishonest.

Well when you think about it, Moses too existed when he was taken from Adam's back and questioned, along with you and me, but he came to earth after many generations, and when he was chosen as a messenger when he reached the age of strength, he found out that he was chosen before he was born, and him floating along the nile, being chosen by the wife of Pharaoh, and being reared up in a place of authority and center of decision making was all a part of his evolution.

It is not impossible that Adam heard a voice or received guidance long after he grew up, but it would also imply that his predecessors were removed, or annihilated each other, and that he and hawwa were sole survivors, scary, makes me think of John Connor (J.C) and Katherine Brewster.

[TDWT]

Basically how I put it in what you quoted, that it was designed and put into motion (like everything else) by Allah (Subhana wa ta'alaa). To expand on that, I see the path from the big bang to us is all part of the plan. And when Adam ( ʿalayhi as-salām) is exiled to Earth, I think it likely occurred with the historical rise of the first true male of our species (Y-Chromosomal Adam)... or perhaps the first human male rose, evolutionarily, once Adam ( ʿalayhi as-salām) was exiled, either way, it would look the same historically, and scientifically in the genetic and fossil records.

I understand I'm probably in a minority here with this view, it is simply that the scientific evidence for evolution, even human evolution, is quite vast and strong for me to just try and hand wave it away because it doesn't fit my preconceived view of reality. One can choose to ignore it, hold views that run counter to the facts and evidence, that it certainly their right, but high-horsed claims of evolution being untrue or unscientific are, at best, ignorant, or, at worst, intentionally dishonest.

Would it be ignorant to deny that human and apes share a common ancestor and simply say that it only looks like humans evolved from apes?

[OmAbdullah]

1. The Quraan and Islam has no place for the theory of evolution.


2. The theory of evolution is proven FALSE by the modern science.

[MisterK]

Would it be ignorant to deny that human and apes share a common ancestor and simply say that it only looks like humans evolved from apes?

From what I gather, your asking what if man was created special, and, basically, inserted onto the Earth in such a way as to blend perfectly into the evidence of evolution, then we wouldn't be able to say for certain one way or the other. It'd be a matter of faith.

Based on the evidence, there is no sign of this, but as I said, it'd be about faith, just like any other act of Allah (Subhana wa ta'alaa) or any other miracle. Science is not suited for determining such acts, if it were, there would be very little debate about the existence of God, I would think (devate over the detail, however, would be another matter). This view would not conflict with the evidence.

[MisterK]

1. The Quraan and Islam has no place for the theory of evolution.


2. The theory of evolution is proven FALSE by the modern science.

1. That's between you and Allah (Subhana wa ta'alaa).

2. The exact opposite is true, so much so that, basically, the entirety of modern biological and medical science is based on evolution being fact. If science had actually proven evolution wrong, rather than continuing to confirm it as it does, this would not be the case, and advances and discoveries made based on evolution/evolutionary theory would not continue to bear fruit.

[Scimitar]

Is it possible to appreciate the design without appreciating the designer?

Without the Designer, the very idea of "appreciation" is lost, as there is no "design" to "appreciate" ;)

When we appreciate the design, we are also appreciating the designer, whether we know it or not - but when we do this knowingly, it is because we were able to see more than just the design, we were able to understand a greater being has done this. And that, is where the "awe" becomes augmented.

Light upon light, my friend.

Scimi

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MisterK;

I understand I'm probably in a minority here with this view, it is simply that the scientific evidence for evolution, even human evolution, is quite vast and strong for me to just try and hand wave it away because it doesn't fit my preconceived view of reality. One can choose to ignore it, hold views that run counter to the facts and evidence, that it certainly their right, but high-horsed claims of evolution being untrue or unscientific are, at best, ignorant, or, at worst, intentionally dishonest.

Fair enough, but what do you say to atheists who say, evolution is such a powerful theory, that it does not require any gods?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady,

Is it possible to appreciate the design without appreciating the designer?

You might appreciate the design of a Lamborghini. But with all Lamborghinis, you know there are intelligent designers, even if you do not appreciate them. The difference being, a God who has the knowledge and power to create the universe and life IS worth seeking, because this is where we shall all end up.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[MisterK]

Greetings and peace be with you MisterK;


Fair enough, but what do you say to atheists who say, evolution is such a powerful theory, that it does not require any gods?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

No theory in science requires the existence of a god. One could argue that without the existence of a god, there would not be an existence for science to explain, but that would be a matter of faith and/or philosophy, not science. Evolution, functioning as it does, functions whether one attributes Godly origins to life, the universe, and everything, or a godless origin to life, the universe, and everything.

So if one is an atheist, then evolution is a purely mechanistic process/property held by living things through which they adapt to their environment over time, which, given enough time and change, leads to the rise of new species.

If one holds a god created and designed all things, then evolution is a process/property held by living things through which they adapt to their environment over time, which, given enough time and change, leads to the rise of new species via a process functioning as God designed.

Neither view changes the facts or evidence of what evolution is and how it works over time.

[Serinity]

:salam:

as a Muslim, I do not deny evolution, but I do deny we came from Apes. We came from Adam :as: , period. I deny the notion "after 1000 mutations, the strawberry became a dragon". No matter how much, as Humans, we evolve, we will still be HUMANS.

Besides, it'd require CREATIVITY as well as KNOWLEDGE to create something. You can't make a car, unless you have the knowledge of how to, etc. So The One Who created this Universe is all-knowing, and Wise.

Allahu alam

[ZeeshanParvez]

No, it is not compatible.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MisterK;

If one holds a god created and designed all things, then evolution is a process/property held by living things through which they adapt to their environment over time, which, given enough time and change, leads to the rise of new species via a process functioning as God designed.

Neither view changes the facts or evidence of what evolution is and how it works over time.

life exists today, so we extrapolate back 3 -4 billion years when there was no life, and we conveniently use the ToE to fill in the gaps. Science cannot explain how life started in the first place, so science seems to skip this point, and talk evolution. If there was no God, then we would not exist, but God exists, and as others have stated, scripture clearly states that man did not evolve.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[anatolian]

I believe there is human evolution and it is not incompatible with Quran. We might have just misinterpreted the creation of Adam.

[Scimitar]

No theory in science requires the existence of a god.

False.

Ptolemy inferred the bodies in space directly affected our destinies which is shirk, and he played this astrological card in his astronomical calculations - which Ibn Al Haythm the Muslim, corrected with his inference for God.

You can research this if you like.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

I believe there is human evolution and it is not incompatible with Quran. We might have just misinterpreted the creation of Adam.

:D

Yeah?

Please do carry on, thank you.

Scimi

[Serinity]

I think what many misunderstand, and I could be wrong, is that people think that this earth and Universe was created together with Adam's.

Before Adam :as: was created, this universe existed, etc.

Allahu alam.

[Scimitar]

I've heard Christians claim that before God created anything, HE created Jesus pbuh.

Muslims claim the same for Muhammad pbuh.

Jews, the same for Moses pbuh.

All this is nonsense to me, when Allah clearly mentions the first man created was Adam. Pbuh.

As for the theory of Creation, according to science - it still has massive holes in it. And anyone who claims that the theory is a fact, clearly needs to re-educate themselves on the dictionary term for theory and for fact. This a-contextual propagation by the scientists that a theory is factual, shows me how out of context they are with simple English and they have the hubris to believe they can convince us?

Regarding the Creation of the Universe:

Did you know that the "Relativity of Time" was announced over 1400 yrs ago

Throughout history, “time” was assumed to apply equally in every imaginable spot in the universe and in every medium. If we consider this conception, we can see the radical change that the verses of the Qur'an brought. The Qur'an said that, according to circumstances, the “day” concept might equal even up to fifty thousand years. These verses which must have encountered objections have been elucidated in the twentieth century and shed light on important truths.

The theory of relativity is Einstein’s best known discovery. However, many people whose interests are not in any way related to physics are at a loss to understand what this theory signifies. The Quran had already touched on these facts 1400 years ago. Einstein’s theory of relativity has two main divisions, namely the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity.

According to Einstein, time would pass more slowly for somebody driving a vehicle at a speed close to the velocity of light. In a medium in which an inhabitant of the earth passes one hundred days, it may take a person fifty days to displace at a speed nearing the propagation speed of light. This finding is the most interesting fact of the relativity theory. Time slows down in direct proportion with speed. Time is therefore a relative conception, as indicated in the Quran. Hours differ and days are conceived differently according to the medium, place and speed involved.

The general theory of relativity deals with gravitational fields and tries to demonstrate that time is slower in the fields of greater gravitation. A man walking on the surface of the sun will see that his clock runs more slowly, as do the biological and anatomical functions and all the motions in terms of his atoms. Recent experiments have corroborated this fact. One of these experiments was conducted in the British National Institute of Physics. John Laverty, researcher, synchronized two clocks indicating the exact time (two clocks of optimum perfection; error of precision in the course of a space of time of 300,000 years would be not more than 1 second). One of these clocks was kept at a laboratory in London; the other was taken aboard an airplane shuttling between London and China. The high altitude at which the aircraft flies is subject to a lower gravitational force. In other words, time was expected to pass at a faster rate aboard a plane in conformity with the general relativity theory. There is not so great a difference in terms of gravity between someone treading upon the earth and someone flying in the air. This difference could only be established by a precision instrument. It was established that the clock aboard the aircraft had a greater speed, one per fifty five billion seconds. This experiment is one of the proofs of the relativity of time. According to the prevailing prejudice, there should not be any difference between the two clocks. This supports the dispelling of prejudices as foreseen in the Quran. Had it been possible to make this experiment on a planet with greater gravitational force, there would be no need for precision instruments to measure the difference, since normal watches could do the job.

THE USE OF THE WORD “DAY” IN THE QURAN

V4- To Him ascend the angels and the spirit in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.
70-The Heights, V4 [70 SURAh AL-MAARIJ, V 4]

V5- He regulates all affairs from the heaven to the earth. Then they ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is a thousand years as you count.
32-The Prostration, V5 [032 SURAH AS-SAJDAH, V5]

Verse 5 of the sura The Prostration and Verse 4 of the sura The Heights not only point to the relativity of time, but give also a clear meaning of the Arabic word “yawm” (which translates to the word - "day") that denotes not only the space of time of one day - which comprises 24 hours - but also a certain period of time. This makes it easier to understand the six “yawm”s mentioned in the Quran (See: 7-The Purgatory, 54; 11-Hud, 7; 10- Jonah, 3; 25-The Distinguisher, 59; 32-The Prostration, 4; 57-Iron, 4.) Before the creation of the universe and the world there was no notion of “day,” a period of 24 hours. Therefore, the six “yawm”s must be understood as six “periods.”


A NOTE TO CHRISTIANS AND JEWS ABOUT "TIME"

This gives a clue to the Jews and Christians for the interpretation of the Biblical account according to which the world was created in six days. Findings in the domain of space physics show that the universe and our world passed through many stages, from a gaseous state to galaxies, to the formation of the atmosphere surrounding the Earth, and of waters and metals. The fact that the Quran refers to the stages that the process of creation went through is also better understood by modern cosmology.

If we remember the stories of creation of ancient Egypt, China and India, we encounter wild fancies such as a universe standing on a tortoise or as an eternally existing entity. None of the past civilizations had made any reference to the stages of this evolution. This message of the Quran contributes to a correct interpretation of Biblical exegeses of the concept of day. The message in the Bible that reads: “And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done.” (Genesis 2, 2) was thus corrected, as fatigue was certainly out of the question for God.

V38- We created the heavens and the earth, and all that lies between them in six days, and no fatigue touched us.
50-Qaf, V38 [50-Sura Qaf, V38]

CONTRIBUTION OF THE RELATIVITY THEORY

Einstein postulated that the concept of time was relative. For Kant time was an innate function of reason. He contended that the perception of time was an a priori category. Einstein’s physics was henceforth the science that integrated time and space, so that, instead of space we had now space-time.

There is something that must not escape attention, however: the perception of time is achieved by the intellect. Since according to our estimation, just as the special relativity theory establishes that velocity makes time relative and the general relativity theory postulates that gravity makes time relative, one should elaborate on “the intellect’s relativity” which posits that the intellect’s perception manner would render the relative perception of time. Like a key that fits the lock, our intellect also has the capacity of perceiving time and the universe. That is (1) time exists in the universe, (2) and the intellect is created with a priori abilities to perceive time and the universe. The two processes are coexistent, just like the coexistence of the world seen by us and the eyes.

It seems to us only fair to add the intellect’s perception factor to Einstein’s concepts relating velocity and gravity and time. Comprehension of time’s relativity will contribute to a better understanding of the Quran. For instance, it is said in the Quran that the dead will think when resurrected that their span on the earth had been very brief. Once time’s relativity has been conceived, the puzzling question of the time to elapse from one’s death till the Day of Judgement will be clear. Such questions for the inquisitive mind that sees the time upon the earth as the only valid time regardless of the attending circumstances will find their answer, once time’s relativity is understood. Given the fact that a deceased person is outside the confines of the temporal dimensions of the earth, the time to elapse after his death, regardless of its actual duration, would be of no consequence.

V45- On the day when He gathers them, it will appear to them as if they had tarried an hour of a day...
10-Jonah, V45 [010 SURAH YUNUS, V45]

V112- He said: “How many years did you stay on earth?”
V113- They said: “We stayed a day or part of a day, ask those who account.”
23-The Believers, V112-V113 [23 SURAH AL-MOMINOON, V112-V113]

ANYONE AMONG US TIRED OF WAITING FOR EONS?

The reason why the fifteen billion years that elapsed from the moment the universe was created until the creation of man was made clear by time’s relativity. In a different context, fifteen billion years may be conceived as one minute or even less. The length of its duration depends on our perception and standpoint.

Scientists, based on the most recent and accurate calculations, assert that approximately fifteen billion years have elapsed since the creation of the universe until this very moment. Is there anyone who feels tired of waiting for eons? The evident answer being in the negative, the time the departed will have to wait as from their decease until resurrection will not cause anxiety in them. Comprehension of time’s relativity renders possible the solution of many problems believed to be beyond the grasp of the intellect.

PROOF FROM NECESSARY VERSUS POSSIBLE BEING

A host of celebrated philosophers like Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Farabi, Taftazani and Jurjani had recourse to this argument in proving God’s existence. They asserted that all the possible creatures upon the earth could not exist by themselves as they owed their existence to a Creator. “The created” requires a Creator while God, “the Self-Existent” (whose existence is a necessity) does not need a creator. The created is a product of causality; their existence or non-existence are within the confines of possibility. To think of the non-existence of the existent poses no contradiction. However, this does not hold true for the Self-Existing, God; otherwise the contradiction would be evident. Philosophers like Leibniz argued in like manner the principle of “Sufficient Reason.” According to him, the universe is made of possible beings. The universe itself is a possibility. If we try to trace back the chain of causality (which is impossible) until the infinite this would not explain the universe. Yes, the universe is a possibility but requires a Sufficient Reason outside its confines. To allege that the reasons may be traced back to the infinite would mean that we were created after eternity. But since eternity is endless there would be no question of any lapse of time after eternity; if there has been a chain of causality, it would necessarily follow that it had had an end. If there had been a chain of causality that came to an end, it would prove the existence of a “first cause.” There may be persons who would find the existence of a first cause difficult to grasp. On the other hand, an eternal chain of causes would be a self-contradiction.

Absurd and incomprehensible are not the same thing. For instance, the structure of a space-shuttle may be incomprehensible for us, but we cannot deny its existence. The number 5 cannot be higher than the number 10; that is absurd. As the contrary is absurd (that the eternal chain of causes has led to this point), the existence of a first cause is a necessity (although there are those who contend that this argument is “beyond comprehension”).

What I propose to do is to reformulate the approaches of a series of thinkers from Avicenna to Leibniz in the light of scientific data obtained in the twentieth century in a richer and more scientific context. Findings related to the relativity theory may be used for this end. That the perfect use of time existing only in relative terms in the universe, in the formation of the universal targets, can only be grasped by the existence of an Absolute and Indispensable Regulator, that the existence of time can only be explained in a satisfactory way by the Cause behind the creation of time, that the harmony existing between time and intellect can be imagined to exist by the presence of a Regulator outside the confines of time and intellect and that even time is a possibility depending on a Creator should be integrated for use with the explanation of the “proof from necessary versus possible beings.”

C40:V81- Qur'an And He shows you His signs: Then which of the signs of God will you deny?

Scimi

[Scimitar]

Looking at the works of Ibn Sina, Farabi, Taftazani and Jurjani as well as the works of Einstein, Newton, etc - we can see quite clearly that when Allah mentions in the Qur'an:

[7:54] Your Lord is the one GOD; who created the heavens and the earth in six days,* then assumed all authority. The night overtakes the day, as it pursues it persistently, and the sun, the moon, and the stars are committed to serve by His command. Absolutely, He controls all creation and all commands. Most Exalted is GOD, Lord of the universe.

[11:7] He is the One who created the heavens and the earth in six days—*and His (earthly) domain was completely covered with water—**in order to test you, to distinguish those among you who work righteousness. Yet, when you say, "You will be resurrected after death," those who disbelieve would say, "This is clearly witchcraft."

[10:3] Your only Lord is GOD; the One who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then assumed all authority. He controls all matters. There is no intercessor, except in accordance with His will. Such is GOD your Lord. You shall worship Him. Would you not take heed?

[25:59] He is the One who created the heavens and the earth, and everything between them, in six days, then assumed all authority. The Most Gracious; ask about Him those who are well founded in knowledge.

[32:4] GOD is the One who created the heavens and the earth, and everything between them in six days, then assumed all authority. You have none beside Him as Lord, nor do you have an intercessor. Would you not take heed?

[57:4] He is the One who created the heavens and the earth in six days,* then assumed all authority. He knows everything that enters into the earth, and everything that comes out of it, and everything that comes down from the sky, and everything that climbs into it. He is with you wherever you may be. GOD is Seer of everything you do.

These are periods of measurement, in time - and time wasn't always a constant.

For example, we know from modern cosmology that time moves differently in different parts of the galaxy, and universe. For example, an earth day is 24 hours, but how long is a Mars day? or a Jupiter day? When "space" affects "time" - we understand that "time" itself is not a constant. So, therefore a day cannot be a constant according to "time" and "space", and the perception of time is wholly dependant on the witnessing of its passing.

To my knowledge, no human beings saw the universes creation... and so, the 6 periods mentioned in the Quran and the bible as "days" are indeed days (periods of time) but not in the way we measure them today. Nope. A Day by the reckoning of the creator is sometimes 1000 years, sometimes 50,000 years and sometimes even longer - dependant on what action is being referred to in the Quran.

is it all relative? of course... Einstein himself had no problem with it.

Scimi

[Serinity]

This whole "theory" = "fact" is what is many disbelievers say.

In the scientific community, theories are accepted as facts. This is wrong, especially for the Theory of Evolution. BUT, how is it wrong for "Theory of Gravity" etc.?? why call it a theory when it is a fact? What attracts us to the Earth is what we call gravity.

Anyways, Allah :swt: created this Universe in Six days, Earthly days? No. Time is relative. Allah can make a TRILLION of years pass by in a SECOND.

So time is all relative. In fact Allah :swt: could have created this Universe in an instant, but He :swt: does as He :swt: wills.
Allahu alam.

[Scimitar]

False.

Ptolemy inferred the bodies in space directly affected our destinies which is shirk, and he played this astrological card in his astronomical calculations - which Ibn Al Haythm the Muslim, corrected with his inference for God.

You can research this if you like.

Scimi

Just to add to this, Ibn Al Haythm formulated the modern scientific method - which has inferences with God. So again, you'd be wrong.

In fact, I can honestly make a claim against modern day science, because it seems to only follow this method when there is no contradiction in scientific dogma, but when there is - suddenly, the method which Ibn Al Haythm formulated, which got us this far in science today, becomes ignored in lieu of bias.

Let's not forget, Piltdown man, among others - scientific embarrassments.

Yet, they were sold as truth for over fifty years - by which time two generations of humans had already ascribed to the idea of atheism via the scientific propagations - and so, even they knew they'd been had with this lie - they'd already committed, and were not honest enough to deny their atheism, because - man is a creature of habit... and nurturing lies, has been on big long bad habit for the scientific communities since that time. And they know it, I know it.

So my challenge remains,

prove to me with all you got - that man evolved :D And I'll show you where you are going massively wrong in sha Allah.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

This whole "theory" = "fact" is what is many disbelievers say.

In the scientific community, theories are accepted as facts. This is wrong, especially for the Theory of Evolution. BUT, how is it wrong for "Theory of Gravity" etc.?? why call it a theory when it is a fact? What attracts us to the Earth is what we call gravity.

Anyways, Allah :swt: created this Universe in Six days, Earthly days? No. Time is relative. Allah can make a TRILLION of years pass by in a SECOND.

So time is all relative. In fact Allah :swt: could have created this Universe in an instant, but He :swt: does as He :swt: wills.
Allahu alam.

Theory of relativity is incomplete as it is untested out there in space - but the local theory sticks, although there are places on earth where gravity becomes wonky, like here:



Imagine a convo between Newton and Einstein, two scientists of great reknown who both believed in a Divine Creator ;) (MisterK, this also disproves your position)

Scimi

[MisterK]

Greetings and peace be with you MisterK;

life exists today, so we extrapolate back 3 -4 billion years when there was no life, and we conveniently use the ToE to fill in the gaps. Science cannot explain how life started in the first place, so science seems to skip this point, and talk evolution. If there was no God, then we would not exist, but God exists, and as others have stated, scripture clearly states that man did not evolve.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Science cannot explain how life started yet. However, when it does, as it likely will be able to given enough time, that will not change whether or not there is a god. If, for example, we end up discovering that first there were viruses, which slowly developed, and from viruses came life, it would not change whether or not God set those events into the motion. It would not change whether or not all things were designed by an unseen hand, even if designed in such a way as to appear to not need a designer.

[MisterK]

False.

Ptolemy inferred the bodies in space directly affected our destinies which is shirk, and he played this astrological card in his astronomical calculations - which Ibn Al Haythm the Muslim, corrected with his inference for God.

You can research this if you like.

Scimi

This doesn't really refute my statement, as astrology is not science, no matter how one pretties it up with calculations. Simply being a scientist, or mostly logical or skeptical person doesn't inherently make someone immune to an irrational or unscientific points of view or belief.

As for the theory of Creation, according to science - it still has massive holes in it. And anyone who claims that the theory is a fact, clearly needs to re-educate themselves on the dictionary term for theory and for fact. This a-contextual propagation by the scientists that a theory is factual, shows me how out of context they are with simple English and they have the hubris to believe they can convince us?

Yes, the mechanics behind the origin of life is unknown. We have some ideas about it, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim with certainty that science knows how life began. This is irrelevent to evolution, however, which is the topic at hand. Evolution deals with life changing, adapting, and forming new species over time. It does not deal with the origin of life.

As for scientific theories, a scientific theory is an explanation based upon a collection of facts and data obtained from both observation and testing. It is not the same as the generic, non-scientific notion of a theory, which can basically be used to describe a random idea. The defintion of the two uses of the word "theory" are different from one another. People often to like to incorrectly equate them as one and the same in order to try and disregard scientific evidence they don't like or agree with for philosophical or ideological reasons.

Just to add to this, Ibn Al Haythm formulated the modern scientific method - which has inferences with God. So again, you'd be wrong.

While, obviously, I cannot have done extensive research on the topic in a day or so, from what I have seen, both from secular and Islamic sites, when referring to Ibn Al Haythm and the scientific method, is that it was based on pretty much the same things as the modern scientific method, no mention of God being required for it. Do you have any links or references that you can direct me to to show me where he infers God for his scientific methodology (beyond the idea of God being behind all things, as that implies God as the designer, but does nothing for explaining the mechanics of things).

In fact, I can honestly make a claim against modern day science, because it seems to only follow this method when there is no contradiction in scientific dogma, but when there is - suddenly, the method which Ibn Al Haythm formulated, which got us this far in science today, becomes ignored in lieu of bias.

Let's not forget, Piltdown man, among others - scientific embarrassments.

Yet, they were sold as truth for over fifty years - by which time two generations of humans had already ascribed to the idea of atheism via the scientific propagations - and so, even they knew they'd been had with this lie - they'd already committed, and were not honest enough to deny their atheism, because - man is a creature of habit... and nurturing lies, has been on big long bad habit for the scientific communities since that time. And they know it, I know it.

Your own statement sort of refutes itself, as it was scientists that refuted the Piltdown Man fraud. Besides, the fraud of Piltdown Man doesn't change the truth behind finds like Lucy or Ardi. When fraudulent claims are made in science, it is the work of other scientists that tend to refute it and clear the air. Science is always expanding, and is self-correcting. Sometimes that correction can be slow going, and some people can be resistant to it, even in the scientific community, sure, but it happens.

As for evolution, you've already shown your bias against it, shown that you won't accept the mountains of evidence that support and show it to be true when you said;

So my challenge remains,

prove to me with all you got - that man evolved And I'll show you where you are going massively wrong in sha Allah.

So I'll drop some links that detail evolution, and some of the evidence for it, though you've already made it clear it will be irrelevant to the conversation.

http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/...nce_intro.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...ptions_faq.php

And then I'll add these, to get your thoughts on them;

Muslim thought on evolution takes a step forward

And I'm trying to post a link to another link, but the board keeps editing the address, making it unlinkable. The post is called "Evolution in Islam" from the Answering Islamic Skeptics page.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MisterK;

As for evolution, you won't accept the mountains of evidence that support and show it to be true.

I think there are mountains of assumptions regarding the ToE, the real evidence and detail seems to be lacking. For instance the evolution of the eye, and the full skeletal system.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[Serinity]

:salam:

If we see at games today. We know that map-making takes a lot of skill. and to implement the physics, does too. It requires creativity, knowledge, and comprehensive knowledge.

It is nearly Impossible for 1 man alone to make a game like BF1 or any real-life-like game.

So what about this world??

Allahu alam.

[Scimitar]

This doesn't really refute my statement, as astrology is not science, no matter how one pretties it up with calculations. Simply being a scientist, or mostly logical or skeptical person doesn't inherently make someone immune to an irrational or unscientific points of view or belief.

Wait lol.

Brother, Ptolemy was attempting to formulate the science of ASTRONOMY, and not Astrology, yet he used Astrology to explain some rather weird things, which led to shirk - the rest of the world had no problem with this - until Ibn Al Haythm looked at his work, saw the fundamental flaw within and corrected it with INFERENCE FROM QUR'AN that there is only on Creator and this is why everything exists. Study Ibn Al Haythm's scientifc method and see for yourself how you are holding the wrong end of the stick.

You was wrong bro.

Yes, the mechanics behind the origin of life is unknown. We have some ideas about it, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim with certainty that science knows how life began. This is irrelevent to evolution, however, which is the topic at hand. Evolution deals with life changing, adapting, and forming new species over time. It does not deal with the origin of life.

Which is why Science can never adequately convince me of anything to do with my theological grounding in Islam. It is still taking large stabe in the dark.

You speak of evolution, yet ignore the fundamental flaw of probability within Protein Isomer and Peptide bonds, a massive acchiles heel for the evolutionary scientist.

With a probability which remains so improbable that mathematicians have calculated the chance of probability is smaller than the number of seconds elapsed since the big bang to our current time. And scientists ignorantly claim, "it happened once and repeated itself so many times that we have "Life" in various forms.

Philosophically there are arguments as well, which evo scientists run away from, what I am demonstrating to you is the fact that evo science is a one trick pony, whereas we who have inference from God, have many ways to prove the foolishness of evo science.

Let me continue. As for science, that one trick pony I mentioned, is "observation" - so if it can't be witnessed, it can't be believed - yet who saw the big bang? Claiming to use deductive method to prove the universe came from a common point of origin, contradicts the well trodden idea of science which claims "observation".

At least in Islam, we count observation as only one type of proof and know there are other ways to prove a statement.

As for scientific theories, a scientific theory is an explanation based upon a collection of facts and data obtained from both observation and testing. It is not the same as the generic, non-scientific notion of a theory, which can basically be used to describe a random idea. The defintion of the two uses of the word "theory" are different from one another. People often to like to incorrectly equate them as one and the same in order to try and disregard scientific evidence they don't like or agree with for philosophical or ideological reasons.

Which is the only true method of inqury evo scientists have - and it's a one trick pony evo scientists claim is "fact" in their hubris. I see it as a theory, which is entertaining, and hardly worth losing sleep over ;)

While, obviously, I cannot have done extensive research on the topic in a day or so, from what I have seen, both from secular and Islamic sites, when referring to Ibn Al Haythm and the scientific method, is that it was based on pretty much the same things as the modern scientific method, no mention of God being required for it. Do you have any links or references that you can direct me to to show me where he infers God for his scientific methodology (beyond the idea of God being behind all things, as that implies God as the designer, but does nothing for explaining the mechanics of things).

Ibn Al Haythm is responsible for formulating the scientific method which evo scientists utilise (abuse) in a very dishonest way, as I explained in my previous post.

Ibn Al Haythm, championed scientific inquiry.

Evo Scientists champion Neo Darwinism to get ahead in their careers.

Your own statement sort of refutes itself, as it was scientists that refuted the Piltdown Man fraud. Besides, the fraud of Piltdown Man doesn't change the truth behind finds like Lucy or Ardi. When fraudulent claims are made in science, it is the work of other scientists that tend to refute it and clear the air. Science is always expanding, and is self-correcting. Sometimes that correction can be slow going, and some people can be resistant to it, even in the scientific community, sure, but it happens.

Are you attempting to claim that I beleive all scientists are liars? Because that's not what I said - in fact I know it was sicentists who made the discovery that piltdown man was a hoax - but hey - those scientists didn't want to be lied to - I can accept their honesty in this regard... btw none of those scientists who discovered the hoax stayed with evolution after discovering the hoax.

What does that tell you?

As for evolution, you've already shown your bias against it, shown that you won't accept the mountains of evidence that support and show it to be true when you said;

What mountains of evidence? I used to be an atheist when I apostated many moons ago. What evidence? the type where i lay down and just take it like a drip feed? That type of ridiculous evidence which remains improbable as in protein isomer and peptide bonds which are necessary for life to form?

Which?

Please do enlighten me lol

So I'll drop some links that detail evolution, and some of the evidence for it, though you've already made it clear it will be irrelevant to the conversation.

http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/...nce_intro.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...ptions_faq.php

And then I'll add these, to get your thoughts on them;

Muslim thought on evolution takes a step forward

And I'm trying to post a link to another link, but the board keeps editing the address, making it unlinkable. The post is called "Evolution in Islam" from the Answering Islamic Skeptics page.

None of these are what I call authoritatively convincing, rather, they remind me of when I tried to play darts in the dark, I thought I was hitting triple20's each time, but I accidently broke the window.

You claim you are Muslim?

When Allah wills a thing into being, how does it happen? Please tell me how?

And now tell me how the Qur'an describes the creation of Adam pbuh?

Now repeat your evo drivel, and try not to feel silly ;)

:D

Scimi

[Zeal]

:salam:

If we see at games today. We know that map-making takes a lot of skill. and to implement the physics, does too. It requires creativity, knowledge, and comprehensive knowledge.

It is nearly Impossible for 1 man alone to make a game like BF1 or any real-life-like game.

So what about this world??

Allahu alam.

https://youtu.be/wmhWQnAQR5M

[Eric H]

Greetings nd peace be with you MisterK;

It would not change whether or not all things were designed by an unseen hand, even if designed in such a way as to appear to not need a designer.

I believe God wants us to look at his creation in awe, because this would prove that God exists. We are not created by a process of natural events, we were created purposely by God to do his will.

Evolution could not happen without God, life is too complex, and when we look at the scripture given to us by our creator, it says that Adam was created by God.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[Scimitar]

MisterK,

You make claims to authority, while ignoring or remaining unaware of the following Scientists who rejected Evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=660

24 pages full of signatories, and all these scientists were authorities in their respective fields.

Here is just one page as an example:

24 pages of it to go.

You should study their reasons for denying evolution. I fail to see how you justify this evolution as a fact given the number of signatories from authority ;)

Scimi

[TDWT]

No, it is not compatible.

When Adam came down to earth according to scholars, was he a fully grown man?

[Scimitar]

When Adam came down to earth according to scholars, was he a fully grown man?

Not only was he a fully grown man - he was a giant of 60 cubits tall (90 feet tall)

I ask - which ape did he evolve from?

KING KONG?

:D

Do you now see, TWDT, why this evolution is bogus?

Scimi

[TDWT]

Not only was he a fully grown man - he was a giant of 60 cubits tall (90 feet tall)

I ask - which ape did he evolve from?

KING KONG?

:D

Do you now see, TWDT, why this evolution is bogus?

Scimi

No you just don't understand it. We did not evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with them.

[Scimitar]

No you just don't understand it. We did not evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with them.

I do understand it. One side of the argument is evolution from ape to man, with the claim of common ancestor/progenitor. That one has failed.

The other is common ancestor, in which case where is DNA evidence of King Kong? Smithsonian have already made all the bones of giant humans disappear. Also fail.

You're still young, given time and research in sha Allah, you will be able to follow a line of inquiry which lets you see through the bogus scientific theory. Seems you are set on believing in evolution but have no claim except "it seems to make sense"... so does killing the only other person on an island because he is the one with the water. Doesn't make it right.

These experts and voices of authority in the Sciences claim "evolution does not make sense" http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=660

You should reserve your judgement until you've researched why.

Simple things you can grasp right away are things like how improbable it is to have protein, isomer and peptide bonds form on their own, by chance - the improbability is so ridiculous, to entertain it is in my honest opinion a sign of madness. But until you can understand this, what's the point?

My advice - click the link, and follow up on those authority voices, find out and understand what they are disagreeing with, you will find there are MANY issues with evo theory, each one requires a HUGE amount of faith to believe, and the inferences are all unjustified.

Scimi

[TDWT]

I do understand it. One side of the argument is evolution from ape to man, with the claim of common ancestor/progenitor. That one has failed.

The other is common ancestor, in which case where is DNA evidence of King Kong? Smithsonian have already made all the bones of giant humans disappear. Also fail.

You're still young, given time and research in sha Allah, you will be able to follow a line of inquiry which lets you see through the bogus scientific theory. Seems you are set on believing in evolution but have no claim except "it seems to make sense"... so does killing the only other person on an island because he is the one with the water. Doesn't make it right.

Scimi

No you do not understand it at all. We did did not say we evolved from apes,we have a common ancestor. If you actually did research instead of relying on fake conspiracy theories, you would be able to. I'm not going to force but it's up to you if you choose to remain ignorant. Honestly, the reasons you have presented are just......no, just no, ok. Actually do research

[Scimitar]

No you do not understand it at all. We did did not say we evolved from apes,we have a common ancestor. If you actually did research instead of relying on fake conspiracy theories, you would be able to. I'm not going to force but it's up to you if you choose to remain ignorant. Honestly, the reasons you have presented are just......no, just no, ok. Actually do research

You can't make such claims when you've clearly not checked the edit I just did above (what you left unquoted)

For brevity,

These experts and voices of authority in the Sciences claim "evolution does not make sense" http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=660 which is better than the "i think it makes sense" coming from you, a nobody in the scientific circles like me ;)

You should reserve your judgement until you've researched why they've not taken evolution as viable explanation for humanity.

Simple things you can grasp right away are things like how improbable it is to have protein, isomer and peptide bonds form on their own, by chance - the improbability is so ridiculous, to entertain it is in my honest opinion a sign of madness. But until you can understand this, what's the point?

My advice - click the link, and follow up on those authority voices, find out and understand what they are disagreeing with, you will find there are MANY issues with evo theory, each one requires a HUGE amount of faith to believe, and the inferences are all unjustified.

it seems you are the one making blanket claims and are unable to prove them, and you'v not actually done any research from the other side of the scientific camp either - which shows exactly how you do not know how to research critically ;) click the link, follow from there.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

TWDT, I'll ask you the same questions I asked MisterK:

You claim you are Muslim?

When Allah wills a thing into being, how does it happen? Please tell me how?

And now tell me how the Qur'an describes the creation of Adam pbuh?

Try answering these while not getting confused :D

Allah is NOT the author of confusion ;)



Scimi

[Abz2000]

Greetings and peace be with you MisterK;



I think there are mountains of assumptions regarding the ToE, the real evidence and detail seems to be lacking. For instance the evolution of the eye, and the full skeletal system

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

The eye is a sensory organ and since humans have already reached the stage where we make lenses that zoom further than can be imagined by the eye and see better than the eye in terms of light sensitivity, colour depth recognition, and image enhancement, there is much room for pondering.

I am aware that the book of genesis may make it difficult for you to accept anything further than 6, 000-10, 000 years due to the lineage lines, and the writings of some Islamic historians who relied heavily on what remains of previous scripture to fill in the blanks, but anybody who goes directly to the Quran and compares the information we have from recent research and findings and thinks from a fresh perspective instead of basing their conclusions on scholarly works of the past few centuries realizes that there's a lot more to the story and the Quran has hints scattered all over it.

Ok, Allah tells us in the Quran that it was all essential vapour at one time, then liquid ("maa-" ), with the heavens and earth being "cloven asunder/separated" somewhere down the line and drawn together again at some point.
We see cells divide and replicate and we see the process of evolution as described by scientists appear to be repeated in living creatures within the womb or egg in relatively short span of time. Slimy bacteria using cell division, worms, maggots etc in open air, slithering serpents, legged serpents, dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, birds, poultry etc using the more protective egg incubation method, and the more advanced and capable mammals using the even more protective "carry it around with you wherever you go" method, from at least serpents onwards we notice that the fetus starts off looking almost identical, a process which continues to diverge and advance as we move up the line till humans and elephants which take ages to give birth and reach maturity.
Another thing we notice is that the male species of mammals use bacteria like sperm whereas the females use eggs and wombs, notice also that just as with humans, the elephant female matures faster than the male as pick up different traits as they grow, go to a secondary school or college if you don't believe me. Notice also that the fetus of a female has what loooks like a pebis until it is later absorbed, all this indicates that females contain latter data and are to an extent utilised as vessels and means of support by males, the male cat just does it's thing and goes off galavanting while the female is left to carry the burdens and nurture at risk of own life, human males are (usually) a little more civilized and disciplined, and therefore work and sacrifice more.
Allah clearly indicates this too in the Quran and the ahadith state that hawwa /"eve" came from Adam's shortest rib.
The evolutionary theory and observations also indicate that the female came into the picture later on an only received necessary data from the later stages, the x y chromosomes in males and yy in females also indicates this.
The births of jesus and adam however appear to be unique in relation to the normal cloning/replicating process.

It is not at all difficult to imagine the eyes, ears, nose, etc coming out of one highly sensitive organ which initially combined all the sensory qualities in a more primitive and less specialized fashion such as "hunch", some creatures do combine some of these senses and some have more power in some organs yet completely miss other organs, notice that some still grope about blind whilst others see infrared with fuzzy vision.
Carnivourous plants are a good example of sensory perception without other developed specialized organs present in even serpents - let alone mammals.
Brain scans and dna testing of mammals amply demonstrates a very close relationship in contrast to other critters and plants, although the relationship of humans to plants is there all the way down to soil, water and bacteria (as seen in cell division and multiplication.

Think about it like this, if there was no evolution, we would all be carbon copies of each other and different nations based wouldn'' exist. There would be no "half-cast" kids.

And Allah knows best.

Bro Eric, consider the fact that dinosaurs have existed a long time before humans (at least tens of millenia) and follow the trail from bacteria to man at the pinnacle of creation.
It takes humility to accept, but the signs are there.

[MisterK]

MisterK,

You make claims to authority, while ignoring or remaining unaware of the following Scientists who rejected Evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=660

24 pages full of signatories, and all these scientists were authorities in their respective fields.

Here is just one page as an example:

24 pages of it to go.

You should study their reasons for denying evolution. I fail to see how you justify this evolution as a fact given the number of signatories from authority ;)

Scimi

I'll give a more complete reply when I have more time, I just wanted to point out that the probability of life forming from non-life is irrelevant to this conversation as the thread is about evolution, not the origin of all life. The origin of life on Earth and evolution are two different things.

Besides, even if the origin of life on Earth were relevent to evolution, the probability of life forming from non-life would be at a 100% chance of happening if it was the design/method of how God brought forth life.

Also, regarding the list of scientists, first thing I noticed is most of them are not any sort of life scientist, so their opinion is basically irrelevant on evolution (just like a geneticist's opinion would likely be irrelevent on how structurally sound a bridge was). And second, it is only an incredibly small number of scientists who signed it, and since you presented a list of scientists who apear to deny the evidence supporting evolution, I'll go ahead and counter with a list of nearly 1500 scientists with variations of the name Steve that support evolution;

https://ncse.com/list-of-steves

And again, a more complete reply later, when time allows.

[Simple_Person]

No you do not understand it at all. We did did not say we evolved from apes,we have a common ancestor. If you actually did research instead of relying on fake conspiracy theories, you would be able to. I'm not going to force but it's up to you if you choose to remain ignorant. Honestly, the reasons you have presented are just......no, just no, ok. Actually do research

I felt compelled to respond to this topic as an ex-atheist. Bro, evolution theory is a very big hoax. These so called evidences are mostly based on assumptions and desires not real evidence.

There is no common ancestor with the apes. Or well you could say there is..(everything is created from water) ;). This is still the so called missing link, based on a ASSUMPTION. Science does not go by assumptions but by FACTS. However a believe is based on what exists already with that you make a conclusion. Atheist is like this [Beginning]- ---- - - - --- - [End], While investigating in this case Islam it becomes like this [Beginning]-----------------[End]. What i mean by this example is that atheism misses A LOT of connections between the different kind of species found. To give a more down to earth example.

Skull and bone findings of a so called prehistoric human being of certain build etc are found in part X of the world, however of this same species are not found ANY where else on the planet. Another skull and bones are found in another part of the world but there is absolutely NO connection between either one of them. In those atheist magazines these so called skull and bones are brought fourth, but instead of seeing a skull and bones you see a full "prehistoric human being". However through science it is possible to determine how the face looks like, but the color of his eyes? color of his hair? The amount of body hair? Amount of muscles? Clothes?..all these things are being made up to fulfill the desire of peoples hearts of evolution theory to be a fact. So the "[Beginning]- ---- - - - --- - [End]" that i was talking about are being filled with lies by filling those missing lines with assumptions and coloring by giving some skull, color eyes, hair and amount of hair and clothes ..muscles you name it. In science you do NOT do that and also are prohibited to do such a thing.

So when you see a house with 5 pillars but you expected to see and wanted to be 6 pillars instead, you do not say well the house is missing 1 pillar. No you say this house has 5 pillars and based on that the conclusion is drawn.

The biggest question however isn't even evolution-theory, it is rather what came before the big bang or what started all of this. Atheists LOVE to talk about whole skull findings and bones, but the most essential part is missing..which is the beginning of all of this. When you try to have a discussion about what started all of this, they are rather kind of quite. They have no explanation and are just trying to shoot arrows but they themselves know they are not seeing a target to shoot at.

Qur'an gives this a PERFECT explaining to all of it.

So far that i have heard is that big bang theory is being branded as a fact. Why? The universe is expanding, this is a fact what expands, is equal to like a explosion. So if something explodes it expands to everywhere from the starting point. What i also have heard is that time and space began with the start of the big bang. So before there was not space and before there was no time.

Scimitar already posted some comments about time, however for us human beings, it is rather unimaginable to say there is no time. The concept of time is i believe impossible to understand. The difference in time dimensions also exist and a good example is dreaming. In our dreams we witness DAYS, when we wake up see that just 30 minutes have gone by.

So the question is what can you "imagine" what was before the big bang WITHOUT time and space? Well that is still if you ask me impossible, because saying there is no time it is already hard to grasp also there is not space, matter etc..just NOTHING..but nothing is still something. Vacuum is still something.

The big bang itself by logic must have a cause as mathematics 0+0=0. So something must be the cause to give it a 1 (big bang). If you ask atheist, they come with a multiverse, however my question also to that, what came before a multiverse? So this also does not give a explanation. A atheist girl mentioned once a theory that something can come out of nothing, (causing of the big bang), however atheism doesn't believe in such a thing, as their sole BELIEVE is based on 1+1=2 (although they say that), but follow rather 1+0=2.

Islam btw, confirms something coming out of nothing.

"...."Be," and it is...." Qur'an 6:73

So logic, rationality and reason on this cannot give a good explanation as those are solely based on something and not nothing. So what we can resort is philosophy. To give a philosophical argument that something must already have existed or else the big bang cannot become a fact, we can agree on this. Big bang of it self is a beginning and everything that has a beginning has a end. You are born and you will die, a tree comes to life and will die one day. The life span of things might differ but everything that has a beginning has also a end. So the philosophical argument of SOMETHING must have already existed doesn't apply to the argument of "beginning and end" as it is outside this universe which everything has a beginning and a end.

Qur'an answers this question.

"Allah , the Eternal Refuge." Qur'an 112:2
"He neither begets nor is born," Qur'an 112:3

Something that is eternal and has no beginning, has also no end. So the philosophical "theory" of something must have already existed is being answered by these ayaat and confirmed.

Then you also have people that want to know well who is this Creator and how is He and what is He etc.?

Also the Qur'an answers this question. I already said that outside this universe of no time and space. So to imagine something, we tend to compare it with. So for example saying i have a fast car, i COMPARE it with other kind of cars. As i know majority of cars can only reach certain amount of speed and based on that i say i have a fast car. So i make a comparison. Allah also answers this in the Qur'an.

"Nor is there to Him any equivalent." Qur'an 112:4

Saying there is no equivalent, says you cannot compare Him with ANYTHING. This again confirms as when we tend to imagine outside this universe, our understanding is still bound by time and space. So we tend to compare whatever is outside this universe with what is inside this universe. Saying there must be no gravity for example, well no..as you compare it with knowing what is gravity.

So with these 3 very short ayaat for us answers such MAJOR questions. The rest is history so to say as when you have confirmed the existence of a Creator and the start of big bang, then from here we can apply logic, rationality and reason. Which again are PERFECTLY in line with a Creator. Islam also is the ONLY religion that is in line with this. Also Adam(as) can be explained by logic, rationality and reason. Science tells us, that human beings come from 1 human being. Which is even logical. For example when we look at Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc.) they look very much alike, however this comes because they also have 1 ancestor. When you look at some people from some place, many look a like. Look at Scottish people for example. Many gingers. In the Middle East many look alike. I myself a Kurd sometimes even mistake Afghans with Kurds because they look similar. However a Chinese is clearly not looking like a Kurd. So the split came after 1 ancestor that connects all of us, as we are human beings. I can have children with a Chinese woman or a African woman. Allah even gives this explanation in the Qur'an.

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted." Qur'an 49:13

[Scimitar]

I'll give a more complete reply when I have more time, I just wanted to point out that the probability of life forming from non-life is irrelevant to this conversation as the thread is about evolution, not the origin of all life. The origin of life on Earth and evolution are two different things.

No they are not, they are related and part of the same belief process which atheists sponsor and Muslims as well, although with totally separate inferences.

Besides, even if the origin of life on Earth were relevent to evolution, the probability of life forming from non-life would be at a 100% chance of happening if it was the design/method of how God brought forth life.

This compromised narrative is what will get you stuck :) In one breath you claim the possibility of life evolving from nothing, and in the next - "BE" and it "Becomes manifest" in whole, no evolution necessary,

When you are done flip flopping between ideas, let me know ;)

Also, regarding the list of scientists, first thing I noticed is most of them are not any sort of life scientist, so their opinion is basically irrelevant on evolution (just like a geneticist's opinion would likely be irrelevent on how structurally sound a bridge was). And second, it is only an incredibly small number of scientists who signed it, and since you presented a list of scientists who apear to deny the evidence supporting evolution, I'll go ahead and counter with a list of nearly 1500 scientists with variations of the name Steve that support evolution;

https://ncse.com/list-of-steves

And again, a more complete reply later, when time allows.

Life scientist? Bro, listen to me becuase you sound really ignorant right now.

Have you seen the list of LIFE SCIENTISTS in that list? basically all of them barring the theoretical scientists who are no different to the very same scientists who claim evolution - except the ones in the list, do not claim evolution.

Brother, you need to take a few more days off, and prepare your case ;)

Scimi

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MisterK;

Besides, even if the origin of life on Earth were relevent to evolution, the probability of life forming from non-life would be at a 100% chance of happening .

As you say, the chance of life happening is a 100% yes, because we are here today. Life is so complex that I firmly believe it could not happen without God.

if it was the design/method of how God brought forth life

When we turn to scripture, then it seems that the evolution of man did not happen. I prefer to rely on the word of God, rather than science, which like the theory of evolution is still evolving.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[Scimitar]

which like the theory of evolution is still evolving.

There is more than just one theory for evolution - I counted five at my last stop. :D

Scimi

[Zeal]

Is it just me or is it that with all these theories going around and new ideas it get's quite confusing how creation began in islam?

[Simple_Person]

Is it just me or is it that with all these theories going around and new ideas it get's quite confusing how creation began in islam?

It is only confusing for the Muslims that follow like sheep without asking any question why this or why that with intellectual debate. Islam prohibits us doing as such. Islam rather tries to push us to seek knowledge, use our mind, ponder about things, ask questions. There are many brothers and sisters here and without any proud, but rather alhamdulillah i count myself among them that i am not confused whatsoever about all those theories. For me i just ponder about those theories and ask questions. Those theories are based on such shallow thinking that you would almost think that these theories are especially made for those sheep believers, being Muslims or Christians or Jews. I am more than happy to untangle some of those theories that are kind of almost believable for the sheep believer, but just recently with these topics the people asking these questions it isn't about the intellectual debate anymore, their heart already believes it when reading their comments and replies. So if you even would give them intellectual debate that it is all shallow and those theories don't give you real factual evidence that adds up to be solid theory and more based on assumptions and lies, still the individual doesn't believe it. He/she is rather already hooked on the theory.

For me sub'han'Allah this is rather confirmation that being born a Muslim or Christian or Jew, doesn't guarantee us to die as a Muslim or Christian or Jew that believes in tawheed or just simply die as none of those groups but still believe in one Creator.

Also i am very grateful that such theories have come in to existence, because the sheep are being separated in to people that start using their minds and ponder about things thus become firm in their believe or follow other religion based on tawheed. The other group being dishonest people that were hiding their true feelings about the religion among Muslims, Christians and Jews and get thrown in to the group of disbelievers. This last group is the one causing much harm to Muslims, Christians and Jews, as they don't believe in a Creator whatsoever.

[Abz2000]

كَيْفَ تَكْفُرُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَكُنتُمْ أَمْوَاتاً فَأَحْيَاكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيكُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ {28

[l]

How can you disbelieve in (and reject and be ungrateful to) Allah when you were lifeless and He brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you [back] to life, and then to Him you will be returned.

[/B][/I]

Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 28

Amino acids are important biological molecules that serve as the basic molecular building blocks of proteins and enzymes used by all living things on Earth. All amino acids have a similar basic structure like that below, with different amino acids differing only in the specific structure that lies in the location labeled with the “R”.

Our work has shown that when mixed molecular ices of the sorts we see in space are irradiated by UV photons, amino acids are one of the types of products that are created.

So far we have only been able to detect the presence of some of the simpler amino acids in our photolysis residues. Below is a figure showing high-performance liquid chromatography data from a residue made by the UV photolysis of an ice containing H2O, CH3OH, CO, and NH3. Note the double peaks for serine and alanine, showing we have made both right and left handed versions of these molecules (glycine, where R = H, is not chiral).

Extensive sets of experiments have shown that the production of amino ices during ice photolysis is a relatively robust process. Most ices that contain C, H, O, and N within their original molecular components will yield some amino acids when irradiated by ionizing radiation.

This work shows that chemistry that occurs in space can lead to the production of amino acids, one of a number of materials critical to life on Earth and a material whose presence likely played a key role in the origin of life on Earth.
Since the process of ice photolysis is thought to be occurring wherever new stars and planets are formed, this implies amino acids may well be introduced to the surfaces of all newly formed planets.


One of the peculiar properties of amino acids is that they are “chiral” or “handed”. Because of the arrangement of chemical groups around the ‘central’ carbon atom of an amino acid, it is possible to make two versions of an amino acid that have identical chemical formulas but that are geometrically different, each being the mirror image of the other.

The situation is somewhat similar to your two hands. They have the same ‘formula’ (Palm1Fingers4Thumb1), but no amount of rotating of either hand can get the two to perfectly superpose. In keeping with your hands, these two variants of an amino acid are often referred to as being ‘right’ and ‘left’ handed versions of the same molecule.

http://www.astrochem.org/sci/Amino_Acids.php

[l]

36- Glory be to the One, who created in pairs all things that the earth produces, as well as themselves, and other things they do not know.
[/B][/I]

Quran Ya-Seen 36:36)


وَمِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَا زَوْجَيْنِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ

[l]

And of all things We created two mates; perhaps you will remember.
[/B][/I]


Quran 51:49

[Serinity]

:salam:

We didn't come from Apes. IMO, whenever I see into evolution, I see soo many "Leaps of faith", LITERALLY.

Take for example "We came from Apes" I say "How did we ??" How did the CELLS know what to do and where did the information come from? there are sooo many assumptions, that are taken without question. There is literally no critical thinking when people are taught evolution.

I see no critical thinking. I rather believe in Allah :swt: . Makes sense, and actually answers my questions.

Pe
Allahu alam.

[Abz2000]

Lol, it wouldn't make much sense for me to say that "I don't believe in cups or saucers but I believe in Allah",
But if I said that men and women are the same, and that I also believe in evolution, that would be illogical and irrational and my orwellian situation would be one of confusion and self deceit.
The body has an immune system which evolves every nano-second, and traits are then also passed on as inheritance to an extent.
Allah clearly tells us in the Quran that Jesus was born and evolved in the womb, he evolved from a child into a man, yet his example is that of Adam. Savvy? (As scimi and jack birdie would say).
My aim here is not to argue with you but to clarify my observations and let people think for themselves.
Qadr and freewill are a lot more difficult to comprehend than the obvious evolution of species, yet we observe it with amazement rather than incredulity.
-

2:117- He is the One Who has originated the heavens and the earth, and when He wills to (originate) a thing, He only says to it: ‘Be,’ and it becomes.

3:47- Maryam (Mary) submitted: ‘O my Lord, how shall I have a son when no man has ever touched me?’ He said: ‘Just as Allah creates what He pleases.’ When He decides (to do) some work, He just gives it the command ‘Be,’ and it becomes.
[B]
3:59- Surely, the example of ‘Isa (Jesus) in the sight of Allah is the same as that of Adam whom He formed from clay, then said (to him): ‘Be.’ And he became.

6:73- And He is the One (Allah) Who has created the heavens and the earth (in accordance with His decreed celestial order based) on truth. And the Day when He will say: ‘Be,’ then it will come into being.
His Word is the truth. And His will be the sovereignty on the Day when the Trumpet will be blown (by Israfil). He (is the One Who) has the knowledge of the unseen and the seen, and He is All-Wise, All-Aware.

16:40- Our command for a thing is but only this much that when We intend (to bring) it (into existence), We say to it: ‘Be,’ and it becomes.

19:35- It is not Allah’s Glory that He should take (to Himself anyone as) a son. Holy and Glorified is He (above this)! When He decrees any matter, He only says to it: ‘Be,’ and it becomes.

36:82- His command (of creation) is only that when He intends (to create) something, He says to it: ‘Be,’ so it instantly becomes (existent or visible and continues becoming).

40:68- He is the One Who gives life and causes death. Then when He decides upon a thing, He says to it only: ‘Be,’ so it becomes.





Chapter (5) sūrat l-māidah (The Table spread with Food)
- [l]


Say, "O People of the Scripture, do you resent us except [for the fact] that we have believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed before and because most of you are defiantly disobedient?"

Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah?
(It is that of) those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way."
[/I]

Quran, Chapter 5, Verse 60

Interesting critters considering the fact that the Prophet pbuh was a shepherd of sheep some 1400 years ago and that we find both critters to be very close in terms of dna proximity.



Edit: appears that some humans are getting ready to devolve in a few generations again.......

Since they are the closest relatives to humans, non-human primates were first considered as a potential organ source for xenotransplantation to humans. Chimpanzees were originally considered the best option since their organs are of similar size, and they have good blood type compatibility with humans, which makes them potential candidates for xenotransfusions. However, since chimpanzees are listed as an endangered species, other potential donors were sought. Baboons are more readily available, but impractical as potential donors. Problems include their smaller body size, the infrequency of blood group O (the universal donor), their long gestation period, and their typically small number of offspring. In addition, a major problem with the use of nonhuman primates is the increased risk of disease transmission, since they are so closely related to humans.[17]

Pigs are currently thought to be the best candidates for organ donation. The risk of cross-species disease transmission is decreased because of their increased phylogenetic distance from humans.[18] They are readily available, their organs are anatomically comparable in size, and new infectious agents are less likely since they have been in close contact with humans through domestication for many generations.[19] Current experiments in xenotransplantation most often use pigs as the donor, and baboons as human models.

In the field of regenerative medicine pancreatogenesis- or nephrogenesis-disabled pig embryos, unable to form a specific organ, allows experimentation toward the in vivo generation of functional organs from xenogenic pluripotent stem cells in large animals via compensation for an empty developmental niche (blastocyst complementation).[20] Such experiments provide the basis for potential future application of blastocyst complementation to generate transplantable human organs from the patient's own cells, using livestock animals, to increase quality of life for those with end-stage organ failure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotransplantation

No wonder we were learning about beebop and rocksteady in after-school sessions with the t.v....

That verse about apes and pigs appears to be a very serious warning.
Still, who would say no to a loved one ne getting a chimp or pig transplant if they had a life threatening injury? Probably not me. But I would definitely ensure they got a guaranteed non-reversible vasectomy first.

[Scimitar]

Is it just me or is it that with all these theories going around and new ideas it get's quite confusing how creation began in islam?

Honestly, Creation in Islam is easy to digest.

But these competing theories of evolution, are not ;)

Scimi

[Abz2000]

Honestly, Creation in Islam is easy to digest.

But these competing theories of evolution, are not ;)

Scimi

:D
If you can reconcile qadr and a'mal, it shouldn't be too difficult to reconcile certain events taking place in paradise, and re-playing in a different lonf drawn our manner on earth.




It's a lot easier to reconcile creation and qadr with intelligent choice struggle and practiced discipline during evolution of species than it is to reconcile unrestrained feminism and evolution of species, and the male is not like the female.

I recall the movie "twins" starring the stronger swarchenegger and the smaller danny davito, when thinking of it in parables, it appears that the producers knew more than they expounded, when I recall the identical sets of twins at the end and remember the story of the marriages of Adam and Hawwa's offspring - I just smile.



003:036 Khan
:
Then when she delivered her [child Maryam (Mary)], she said: "O my Lord! I have delivered a female child," - and Allah knew better what she delivered, - "And the male is not like the female, and I have named her Maryam (Mary), and I seek refuge with You (Allah) for her and for her offspring from Shaitan (Satan), the outcast."


003:037 Khan
:
So her Lord (Allah) accepted her with goodly acceptance. He made her grow in a good manner and put her under the care of Zakariya (Zachariya). Every time he entered Al-Mihrab to (visit) her, he found her supplied with sustenance. He said: "O Maryam (Mary)! From where have you got this?" She said, "This is from Allah." Verily, Allah provides sustenance to whom He wills, without limit."



[/B]

The goodly food that we eat.
Does Allah feed us even though it comes through a process.
Understanding Allah requires elevated thought processing - and still we never cease to be surprised.
Life's a funny thing, with a mill-i-on surpri-ses,
Life's a funny thing, when a wise man real-i-ses,
That only a fool would believe he had it all worked out.

[Abz2000]

I also found this compiled material though it is mostly without source:

The Reason for Eve's Creation
Adam knew the names of everything. Sometimes he talked to the angels, but they were preoccupied with worshiping Almighty Allah. Therefore, Adam felt lonely. One day he slept and when he awoke he found, near his head, a woman gazing at his face with beautiful, tender eyes. Perhaps they had the following conversation:
Adam: You were not here before I slept.
She: Yes.
He: From what...?
She: I came out of you. Allah created me while you were asleep. Do you not desire to restore me to you while you are awake?
He: Why has Allah created you?
She: To be your solace.
He: Thanks to Allah I was feeling lonely.
Eve's Name
The angels asked him her name. He replied: "Eve (Hawwa)." They asked: "Why did you call her Eve?" Adam said: "Because she was created of me, and I am a living being." (The root of the name Hawwa" means "living things.")
Adam Sees Eve
Ibn Abbas and a group of the companions of the Prophet narrated that when Iblis was sent out of Paradise and Adam was accommodated therein, Adam was alone in Paradise and did not have a partner from whom he could get tranquillity. He slept for some time and when he woke up, he saw a woman whom Allah had created from his ribs.
So he asked her: "Who are you?" She replied: "A woman."
He asked: "Why have you been created?" She replied: "So that you could find tranquillity in me."
The angels, trying to find out the extent of his knowledge, asked him: "What is her name, 0 Adam?" He replied: "Eve."
They asked: "Why was she so named?" He replied: "Because she was created from something living."

Eve's Creation
Muhammad Ibn Ishaaq and Ibn 'Abbas related that Eve was created from the shortest left rib of Adam while he was sleeping, and after a while she was clothed with flesh. That is why Allah the Exalted said: 0 Mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam) and from him (Adam) He created his wife (Eve), and from them both He created many men and women. Surah 4: 1
Allah also said: It is He Who has created you from a single person (Adam), and (then) He created from him his wife (Eve), in order that he might enjoy the pleasure of living with her. Surah 7: 189

http://www.alim.org/library/biograph...ion%20of%20Eve

(11) - وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ ثُمَّ جَعَلَكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا ۚ وَمَا تَحْمِلُ مِنْ أُنْثَىٰ وَلَا تَضَعُ إِلَّا بِعِلْمِهِ ۚ وَمَا يُعَمَّرُ مِنْ مُعَمَّرٍ وَلَا يُنْقَصُ مِنْ عُمُرِهِ إِلَّا فِي كِتَابٍ ۚ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرٌ
And Allah created you from dust,
then from a drop;
then He made you mates.
And no female conceives nor does she give birth except with His knowledge. And no aged person is granted [additional] life nor is his lifespan lessened but that it is in a register.
Indeed, that for Allah is easy.



And this from quora:

Genetic Engineering: Is it possible to clone an opposite-gender version of yourself?

A normal male has two sex chromosomes, an X from his mother and a Y from his father;
a normal female has two X chromosomes, one from each parent.
You can create a female version of a man by replacing the Y chromosome with a second copy of the existing X chromosome. However, note that the resulting woman could not be his genetic "sister", since the woman has no X component from the original man's (and, I suppose, her) father, which his sisters would inherit. In other words, the resulting woman cannot be the biological child of the original man's parents.


The reverse direction doesn't work at all. If you were to create male version of a particular female individual, you would need to obtain a Y chromosome and its associated DNA, which is missing from the original woman's genome. A reasonable source would be the woman's father. Although the result would be, essentially, the male version of the woman, you are still introducing a small amount of new genetic material. Also, by replacing an X with a Y chromosome, you may express phenotypes from the remaining maternal X chromosome that were previously overridden or influenced by the paternal X. For instance, the genes for red and green color receptors in the eye are located on the X chromosomes. If the woman originally inherited faulty color genes from her mother but normal ones from her father, she would have normal color vision. However, by replacing the paternal X with a Y, which has no genes for color receptors, the resulting male "semi-clone" would be red-green colorblind.

https://www.quora.com/Genetic-Engine...on-of-yourself

Though it did make me wonder how hens continually lay eggs without the presence of a male.

And this on Islam123 attributed to fath al bari; God knows why the author thought that Prophe's couldn't have wer dreams.

A second myth is that people believe that Ya'juj and Ma'juj were created from Adam without Eve (Hawa) on the basis of Ka'ab's narration, "They are from the children of Adam. That is Adam had a wet dream, the semen intermingled with the earth and they were created from that Earth." (Fathul-Bari)

It should be noted that this narration is very weak and objectionable as it is proven from many Ahadith that the Prophets of Allah do not have wet dreams because the wet dream is from the devil and the Prophets of Allah are protected from the devil.

Secondly there is a hadith which can be found in Fathul-Bari that clearly states that they are from the progeny of Prophet Nuh. The Prophet Nuh was definitely from the children of Adam and Eve.

http://www.islam123.in/2010/07/yajuj-majuj.html?m=1

[Scimitar]

And this on Islam123 attributed to fath al bari; God knows why the author thought that Prophe's couldn't have wer dreams.

One word bro,

Israliyah.

Scimi

[Abz2000]

Israiliyyah does talk of Gog and magog as a unisol like force, in the book of joel chapter 2.

It may seem like something straight out of a Sci-Fi Movie such as "The Matrix," having a baby be grown completely outside of a mother's womb. Yes, technology has taken us to the level where the egg and sperm can be fertilized in a lab, to create the embryo, and even frozen if necessary. But as far as growing the actual fetus outside the womb this is something that wasn't possible outside of a movie; that is until now.

A research team in Tokyo is working on growing the fetuses of goats in what can only be described as an artificial womb. Within this unit, the fetuses are given oxygenated blood through tubes that are similar to an umbilical cord. The fetuses also exist and grow within liquid similar to the amniotic fluid that is kept at the necessary body temperature to sustain the fetus. The environment is made as similar to that of the mother's womb as possible.

http://www.disclose.tv/news/The_Arti..._MATRIX/114199

Beebop and rocksteady are being slowly introduced to the masses in line with propaganda and surveys too:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...ealth-science/

[MuslimInshallah]

Science cannot explain how life started yet. However, when it does, as it likely will be able to given enough time...

Assalaamu alaikum MisterK,

Mmm... you do realize that this is a declaration of blind faith...? (I mean that it is not based on any kind of evidence)

God Bless.

[praisetoallah]

I have heard Islam is very accepting of scientific thought

[Scimitar]

I have heard Islam is very accepting of scientific thought

Considering it was the Muslims who formulated the Scientific Method, :) YES!

Scimi

[praisetoallah]

Is the idea of human evolution bad? Or haram ?

[Abz2000]

You may be surprised at how far some creatures have come in learning:

[anatolian]

What do you think/know about this ayah?

76:1 "There surely came over man a period of time when he was a thing not worth mentioning."

[MuhammadHamza1]

Ok, I'm done beating around the bush and just going to be honest now. Can human evolution be reconciled? I mean, there is so much evidence for it, and the DNA evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. In response, Yasir Qadhi said that maybe god made it appear that humans evolved or some domino effect. I heard it is against the quran closely but I am not sure. I post this here as this is where most people are, so what are thoughts?

As a matter of fact,
Evolution lacks evidence.
It is a theory.
See many youtube videos in this regard.

[DanEdge]

MisterK,

You make claims to authority, while ignoring or remaining unaware of the following Scientists who rejected Evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=660

24 pages full of signatories, and all these scientists were authorities in their respective fields.

....

You should study their reasons for denying evolution. I fail to see how you justify this evolution as a fact given the number of signatories from authority ;)

Scimi

I hate to tell you, Schimi, but those scientists do not deny evolution or universal common descent. They only challenge that blind natural selection is the primary vehicle of evolution. From that website:

"Whenever talking about challenges to “evolution,” it’s vital to carefully define terms, otherwise confusion can result. There are three common usages of the term “evolution”:

• Evolution #1 — Microevolution: Small-scale changes in a population of organisms.
• Evolution #2 — Universal Common Descent: The idea that all organisms are related and are descended from a single common ancestor.
• Evolution #3 — Darwinian Evolution: The view that an unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutation has been the primary mechanism driving the evolution of life.

No one doubts Evolution #1, which is sometimes called “microevolution.” Some scientists doubt Evolution #2. But the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list only concerns Evolution #3, also called Darwinian evolution or Darwinism. "

[Zafran]

"Random Mutation" or we have no idea but things just mutated.

[STN]

It's not as simple. This is a topic right up my alley and i think there is some truth mixed with speculations and lies.

Did humans come from apes and monkeys ? NO WAY it is impossible even if you just think of it scientifically. As a muslim i whole-heatedly believe what Allah says and it is also closer to logic.

Is natural selection true ? Yes

Is mutation true ? Yes

What i think has happened is science was still backwards in Darwin's era, he saw something and made this big conclusion that because some species look alike they came from one ancestor. If the knowledge of micro-organism and their mutations was as advanced as it is now and of DNA, he wouldn't have made this rather stupid claim.

But his theories has some merit, for one natural selection in animal kingdom makes sense and is prevalent. But does that mean species evolve to another completely different species? No, not at all. It's just not possible scientifically, the number of mutations needed for that are far too numerous and somatic cell changes (non-sex cells) don't necessarily pass on to gametes.

And i believe if evolution had any merit, you would see one bacteria change to another. Because the rate of their mutations("evolution") is far too fast than ours...we take one year(nine-months) for one generation whereas bacteria and micro-organism takes a few minutes - E-Coli divides in 20 minutes and their rate of growth is exponential.

Will E.Coli ever mutate or evolve to S.Aureus or any other species? Huh, anyone with slight knowledge will know that NOT every mutation is beneficial to the organism. Bacteria that become drug-resistant and select these specific genes that favor them against drugs aren't fit in a normal environment without drugs and can't compete against bacteria with normal genetic makeup. They get wiped out by other competing bacteria. They have an advantage in a host or environment with no other competing organisms and the drug eradicating susceptible bacteria.

^Now just imagine that. These small mutations that are actually favorable in an environment are a disadvantage when in a normal environment. Darwin and these ape lovers didn't take competition into factor but how could they? they thought malaria was caused by bad air at the time.

Then there's mutations that are unfortunate and just bad.

And lastly, here's something darwin was clueless about

CANCER

You know what happens to big animals when they mutate uncontrollably? Yeah right, apes mutated just the right amount and introduced the right amount of new genes and deleted the right amount of genes to become humans. Like there has to be thousands of genes that had to be mutated with the perfect combination for a human to come into existence and it gets even better, a female ape mutated at the same time or did that human have sex with a gorilla? Well, wow...things sure decided to defy science that day and the human felt attraction to an ape, decided to just ---- it and lo and behold, science decided to take a vacation that day and the kid that was born was a human baby which was not sterile and it also decided to just say lets not be an ape anymore and become this human genes which i am completely clueless about but i'll do it anyway to please ape lovers.

I don't think they have thought this through and i pity the people's intelligence if they believe this.

You know what happens when things mutate in a human and big animals? Cancer. There are super controlled checks against mutations, extremely controlled checks and then there are extremely vigilant control mechanisms and immune cells that destroy any cells which mutate or fail to "accept orders" to put it simply - from the body.

Like how do you even dare to believe that mutations after mutations with the perfect combination evading cancer, defects and sterility and against all odds (those were some impossible odds) did an ape mutate to a human?

But STN, the dna is similar...that must mean my father is an ape or a donkey. Well yours must be not mine.

Look this is what i believe and makes the perfect sense and it is the only truth. It makes sense scientifically, logically, spiritually and doesn't require lies to make-believe.


The Almighty, The All-Powerful Allah (SWT) created humans and all the creatures(animals/plants) in the world. We are allowed to eat them. Their DNA is similar to ours so it would not be foreign to us and it will be compounds and chemicals our body recognizes already so it can get nutrition from it. Indeed, if you look every living thing from smallest like viruses to biggest rely on the same compounds for food. Carbohydrates, sugars, fat etc. and same compounds for carrying out their metabolism - proteins, lipids etc. And our immune system recognizes and can defend against them.

Imagine if other creatures had an alien building blocks, not dna, not carbon, something that old movie has "Outbreak" with dustin hoffman in it. Can you imagine how detrimental that would have been to us?


And this makes the perfect sense to me. Of course Allah knows the wisdom and reasoning behind this and i could be very wrong. This is just my thinking though.

It is sufficient for me what Allah says and i believe in it.

[Karl]

It's interesting that the theory of evolution in Europe also coincided with the rising of socialism and Godlessness. For eons of years all over the world people believed that one God or many gods created everything. But when socialism was dreamed up things must have "evolved" and we are all the decedents of monkeys and we are all equal and we are all one big happy family under the universal world state "Kum bye ya"! I don't buy it people.
I got a pile of scrap metal out the back and I'm waiting for it to "evolve" into a Ferrari. Chemicals in the soil and a few lightning strikes in the right places and give it some time....I don't know how it is going to paint itself though... oh yes ochre comes from rocks, a red Ferrari, perfect.

[DanEdge]

"Random Mutation" or we have no idea but things just mutated.

Zafran,

Random mutations are caused by errors in the transcription of DNA when a cell replicates.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...f-mutation-409

Darwin did not know this at the time, he merely posited that random mutations occur based on the differences we see in members of the same species. The discovery of random DNA errors is considered to be a huge chunk of supporting evidence for evolution theory.

--Dan Edge

- - - Updated - - -

Greetings,

In my opinion, Darwinian evolution is now as firm a scientific principle as Newton's Laws of Gravity. This wasn't the case when Darwin first put forth his theory, but subsequent discoveries -- particularly the existence of DNA -- have greatly strengthened his argument. We see what can be considered evidence of evolution everywhere, and there are currently no workable competing theories. Scientists have every incentive to assume the truth of Darwinian evolution until something better comes along. I keep in mind, however, that Newton's Laws of Gravity, as timeless as they seemed, have been superseded by Einstein. There is no such thing as 100% certainty in science.

Sincerely,

--Dan Edge

[Karl]

The truth is that a single cell is so complex that it cannot create itself even under the best circumstances, like chemicals, energy etc . My pile of scrap turning into a Ferrari is more likely to happen. Believe it or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Zafran,

Random mutations are caused by errors in the transcription of DNA when a cell replicates.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...f-mutation-409

Darwin did not know this at the time, he merely posited that random mutations occur based on the differences we see in members of the same species. The discovery of random DNA errors is considered to be a huge chunk of supporting evidence for evolution theory.

--Dan Edge

- - - Updated - - -

Greetings,

In my opinion, Darwinian evolution is now as firm a scientific principle as Newton's Laws of Gravity. This wasn't the case when Darwin first put forth his theory, but subsequent discoveries -- particularly the existence of DNA -- have greatly strengthened his argument. We see what can be considered evidence of evolution everywhere, and there are currently no workable competing theories. Scientists have every incentive to assume the truth of Darwinian evolution until something better comes along. I keep in mind, however, that Newton's Laws of Gravity, as timeless as they seemed, have been superseded by Einstein. There is no such thing as 100% certainty in science.

Sincerely,

--Dan Edge

You are obviously a Bolshevik, as this is a Muslim Forum and Allah created everything, please do not peddle the false science of evolution here. To be scientific you must witness the process not speculate from limited data. And Newton's law of gravity is specific to one place and one time. He has no knowledge of inter dimensional and trans dimensional space, let alone hyperspace interspace drive. DNA, RNA, or whatever, cannot create itself.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you DanEdge;

I keep in mind, however, that Newton's Laws of Gravity, as timeless as they seemed, have been superseded by Einstein. There is no such thing as 100% certainty in science.

That is one of the reasons I do not believe the ToE is the truth, we are just waiting for science to come up with a better theory and prove it wrong. Even if the ToE is remotely correct, it could not happen without guidance from a creator.

Regards
Eric

[Abz2000]

The truth is that a single cell is so complex that it cannot create itself even under the best circumstances, like chemicals, energy etc . My pile of scrap turning into a Ferrari is more likely to happen. Believe it or not.

I agree with you in your opinion that a self cannot create itself, but that's obvious when you think about it :)
It would have to be itself in order to to create anything, and if it created something, the created thing wouldn't be itself, because only itself is itself.

أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ {35
052:035
:
Were they created from nothing, or were they themselves the creators?

------

The answer that Allah is eternal and able to create is the only rational answer

You are obviously a Bolshevik, as this is a Muslim Forum and Allah created everything, please do not peddle the false science of evolution here.

Lol at obviously a bolshevik, i'm sure he's giving his genuine opinion in this instance and that he's not peddling something which he doesn't accept.
How do you know it's a false science? According to your logic, i'll ask you: did you witness the process?
Does Allah :swt: deny that He brought this universe and it's inhabitants about by a process? Do the Quran and other signs not point to the fact that creatures and tribes evolve? Is our common ancestor Adam not the father of the people who dwell in china, Africa, the middle east, south east asia, europe etc? Are they all carbon copies of Adam and eve? Do children not inherit appearance and other traits from their fathers' side and their mothers' side? Does this continuous mutation not take place in front of our eyes?

I do believe that monkeys and pigs are branches of the mammalian race and i don't think that they are ancestors of human beings, and at the same time i don't know how Adam arrived on planet earth, or whether there was an ancestry not categorised by Allah as human beings before him which wiped each other out of existence out of tribal and selfish warfare, but i do know that the brains, blood, bones, eyes, noses, and most other internal organs of mammals are similar to those of human beings, but i also believe that the superior intellect of human beings is above all the other creatures on this planet, and that all non humans have been subjected to human beings by Allah, even to the extent that we enslave them, use some of them for irrigation of fields, carrying of loads, and raise some of them for slaughter as food, it's quite nasty when you think about it, but that's our humble situation, where we survive off cells carrying energy similar to ours, but not the same species, and slowly other restrictions have come into place through the ages including restrictions on marriage, making humans who live by Allah'screvelation and guidance more civilized.

After all those observations, one of the things that does leave room for thought and uncertainty is that Adam's son was shown how to dig a grave by a crow, so the crow knew, but why hadn't Adam taught his sons how to bury him after his tenure on earth would be ended....since, if there were other ancestors before him not categorized as humans, they would likely have had a lot more intelligence than a crow....unless Adam just hadn't got around to teaching them about all that depressing stuff so there is room for lawful (halal) research and humble pondering. One thingcwe can be certain of though is that the description "human beings" (al-Insaan) applies only to Banee Aadam, the offspring of Adam :saws:

To be scientific you must witness the process not speculate from limited data. And Newton's law of gravity is specific to one place and one time. He has no knowledge of inter dimensional and trans dimensional space, let alone hyperspace interspace drive. DNA, RNA, or whatever, cannot create itself.

To be scientific you must be sincere, truthful, and just. A human being cannot know everything. It is only Allah :swt: who knows everything.

[Bhabha]

The problem with "Human Evolution" and as such "Darwinism" is that it was concocted and used as a means to elevate the "white" / Caucasian traits to a higher stature. People still continue to thrive on Darwinism mentalities to legitimate their efforts at "educating" people who are seen as physically / culturally / etc. inferior to the those attributes seen as "evolved". In Islam, there is no "race", and people shouldn't judge or base each other on the differences in physical looks, but rather understand that we're all part of a great ecosystem, diverse and from diversity we can learn to be better.

[Abz2000]

The problem with "Human Evolution" and as such "Darwinism" is that it was concocted and used as a means to elevate the "white" / Caucasian traits to a higher stature. People still continue to thrive on Darwinism mentalities to legitimate their efforts at "educating" people who are seen as physically / culturally / etc. inferior to the those attributes seen as "evolved". In Islam, there is no "race", and people shouldn't judge or base each other on the differences in physical looks, but rather understand that we're all part of a great ecosystem, diverse and from diversity we can learn to be better.

If it was really put forward to elevate the status of people who are light skinned, then the people who first put their observations out to the public were going about it the wrong way, the true effect shows that biological organisms have a nature of dropping traits and immune system defences which they don't need for a long time for the sake of efficiency faster than they pick up new traits - and this can span over a few generations, thus the high cancer rates in the sun due to melanin deficiency etc. Especially with all these sudden high temperature rises we are witnessing in the previously coldest of countries, the sun bursts are more threatening to some than others, in terms of technology dependence too.
Some gambles pay off whereas others don't, those who are more cautious and take their time in any endeavour risk less but also risk being overtaken or dominated, especially if they're too late in a just and lawful endeavour, so theres a balance that it is wise to refrain from transgressing.
I still remember when I was little and used to play cards with my brother and cousin (I think it was pontoon 21) I'd always call small numbers and usually win, though sometimes I didn't get the time due to the quick success of their high calls.
One thing to remember though is that it has been historically demonstrated that injustice doesn't pay off even in this world. Injustice is unstable, comes to be despised by the masses, and Allah tips the balance when the petitions going up to him become powerful enough as long as those who call do their reasonable best with justice in the circumstances.

Those who read and ponder carefully on the Quran and abide by it sincerely according to their reasonable best will continue to increase in wisdom since the Quran itself is a training manual in clarity of thought and excercises in wisdom (it is called al-hakeem and li-ad-dhikr rather than 'aleem) whilst others will choose to be ignorant of it and fall short, whereas others who discard wisdom and justice whilst focusing on increasing knowledge and the strength of their own arm will inevitably be dealt with with a heavy hand unless they repent before it's too late.

Qad aflah al Mu-minoon.
Fa basshir al Mu-minoon.

And Allah swt knows best.

IMF Survey online

October 4, 2010

Islamic banks fared differently from conventional banks during global crisis
Weaknesses in risk management hurt Islamic bank profitability in 2009
Crisis revealed important regulatory and supervisory challenges
A new IMF study compares the performance of Islamic banks and conventional banks during the recent financial crisis, and finds that Islamic banks, on average, showed stronger resilience during the global financial crisis.


But the study also finds that Islamic banks faced larger losses than their conventional peers when the crisis hit the real economy.

In “The Effects of the Global Crisis on Islamic and Conventional Banks: A Comparative Study,” economists Jemma Dridi of the IMF’s Middle East and Central Asia Department and Maher Hasan of the IMF’s Monetary and Capital Market Department look at the effects of the crisis on bank profitability, credit, and asset growth in countries where both types of banks have a significant market share. The new working paper adds an empirical dimension to the debate on the relationship between Islamic banking and financial stability, a topic that has generated renewed interest since the global crisis.

Too big to ignore

Islamic finance is one of the fastest growing segments of the global financial industry. In some countries, it has become systemically important and, in many others, it is too big to be ignored. It is estimated that the size of the Islamic banking industry at the global level was close to $820 billion at end-2008. The largest Islamic banks are located in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates).

While Islamic banks play roles similar to conventional banks, fundamental differences exist between the two models. The main difference between Islamic and conventional banks is that the former operate in accordance with the rules of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. The central concept in Islamic banking and finance is justice, which is achieved mainly through the sharing of risk. Stakeholders are supposed to share profits and losses, and charging interest is prohibited.

There are also differences in terms of financial intermediation, the paper notes. While conventional intermediation is largely debt based, and allows for risk transfer, Islamic intermediation, by contrast, is asset based, and centers on risk sharing. One key difference between conventional banks and Islamic banks is that the latter’s model does not allow investing in or financing the kind of instruments that have adversely affected their conventional competitors and triggered the global financial crisis. These include toxic assets, derivatives, and conventional financial institution securities ......

Although the authors failed to state the fact that the usury based banks only survived by plundering the public treasuries, and also the fact that the price of precious metals was manipulated via virtual precious metals exchange, so the above article only displays a small part of the overall picture.


Anyways, it all intertwines.

[ZeeshanParvez]

No, it is not compatible.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you think/know about this ayah?

76:1 "There surely came over man a period of time when he was a thing not worth mentioning."

al-‘Allaamah al-Taahir Ibn ‘Ashoor (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:


What this means is: Does every man who exists realize that he was non-existent for a long time, and he was not a thing worth mentioning, i.e., he had no name and he was not spoken of.

[Mustopha]

hear and obey, that is islam. if the theory of creation is false then what of the scientific verses in the quran that was revealed 1400 years ago.

[anatolian]

No, it is not compatible.

- - - Updated - - -



al-‘Allaamah al-Taahir Ibn ‘Ashoor (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:


What this means is: Does every man who exists realize that he was non-existent for a long time, and he was not a thing worth mentioning, i.e., he had no name and he was not spoken of.

The ayah have a generalization of man(human). It doesnt refer to individuals I believe. And uses past tense came over man a period of time not present tense as comes over men a period of time . It specifically refers to a past event which came over. What kind of an event? An event in which man was a thing not worth mentioning.

[Abz2000]

Now I'm reminded of the old debates about whether the Quran was created or eternal.

https://islam.stackexchange.com/ques...what-does-this

Issue that some of us appear to be having is that there are a bunch of wolves hoping to create a sargon type controversy in the background, and some of us therefore tailor our opinions in order to suit the situation.
I personally think it's better to just reseach and ponder and speak truth with justice whilst following the most just and truthful way available through life - since Allah best sorts out what is beyond our control.

Take a look at bush and his dad then wonder if there's such a thing as genetic mutation.

Allah :swt: knows better and we humans will always continue to find that we know hardly anything.

Attachment 6221 Attachment 6222 Attachment 6223

[STN]

Please stop embarassing yourself (goes for some people in this thread), it just looks bad when people with zero knowledge of science try to act experts. I gave a detailed answer on what was possible with "evolution" and the dire consequences of the darwinian evolution i.e monkey to humans if that were to occur which it didn't, can't and will not ever. Especially this bit

Originally Posted by DanEdge

Zafran,

Random mutations are caused by errors in the transcription of DNA when a cell replicates.

Darwin did not know this at the time, he merely posited that random mutations occur based on the differences we see in members of the same species. The discovery of random DNA errors is considered to be a huge chunk of supporting evidence for evolution theory.

--Dan Edge

- - - Updated - - -

Greetings,

In my opinion, Darwinian evolution is now as firm a scientific principle as Newton's Laws of Gravity. This wasn't the case when Darwin first put forth his theory, but subsequent discoveries -- particularly the existence of DNA -- have greatly strengthened his argument. We see what can be considered evidence of evolution everywhere, and there are currently no workable competing theories. Scientists have every incentive to assume the truth of Darwinian evolution until something better comes along. I keep in mind, however, that Newton's Laws of Gravity, as timeless as they seemed, have been superseded by Einstein. There is no such thing as 100% certainty in science.

Sincerely,

--Dan Edge

On the contrary, random mutations are evidence of evolution theory being a baseless stupid theory from a man who saw something and in hopes of fame or whatever, put forth a theory. Where are you getting this stupidity from ? I am sorry, i have to call as it is. To give you an idea, please study cancer and how it happens and the defense mechanisms against it then make such big claims.

Your opinion is not worth anything because it is coming from ignorance. Do you have any clue what effects mutations has before you make bold statements like "The discovery of random DNA errors is considered to be a huge chunk of supporting evidence for evolution theory."

Please study cells, micro-organisms (they're the best example of fastest evolution/mutation now and you don't have to hypothesize for billion of years), cancer and immune systems and genetics especially concerning how traits are passed down.

I have a degree in micro-biology and i can tell you from what i've seen mutations are bad for you buddy. Why do you wear sunscreen when you go out in sun? Do you know why that causes cancer?

And as far as Holy Quran is concerned, it is the truth and Allah(SWT) created everything. As our knowledge increases, darwin's ape loving theories are being ridiculed in scientific circles but you've to be in those circles to know.

Before you guys post anything next, please do yourself a favor and go to your nearest university and ask the microbiologist or science professor what science thinks of darwin theory now.

[Abz2000]

...

The meaning of the term "evolution" seems to be getting obscured.
What do you understand as "evolution of species", and "mutation", do you accept that dna from parents provides data to offspring, and that this process continues to change the appearance and many other traits of offspring through the generations?

I believe that offspring get dna from both parents, and the offspring of those offspring vary depending much on the spouses their parents chose, that this is a form of mutation along with all the other mutations which occur through interaction with other elements and experiences which cause chemical reactions within the body, and that no mutation is random.
I believe that monkeys are a totally different species to human beings and are not the parents, nor are pigs, but I also believe that it may be possible that all creatures on earth evolved from base primordial matter and that the creatures with dna resembling that of humans most may possibly have a common ancestor which no longer exists.

I believe that Jesus who's creation is like that of Adam did not appear on earth in full human form, and was made by Allah to go through a process in the womb of his mother, similar to the long process described by some who propound the theory of the evolution of species ie, from liquid to leech like clot to fleshy clot to bones to skin to fully formed human with many stages in between, and that he demonstrated how Allah created Adam before, by breathing life into a clay bird by Allah's leave.
Though Allah :swt: knows best.

I have no problem discussing or debating in a civilized manner unless I find I'm being trolled or abused so feel free to argue points which you genuinely believe to be true.

[anatolian]

Before you guys post anything next, please do yourself a favor and go to your nearest university and ask the microbiologist or science professor what science thinks of darwin theory now.

They think that Darwin's theory had missing points but just like every scientific theory this doesnt neccesarily mean the theory was wrong at all. There is evolution theory and Darwin's contribution to it was a milestone. Today we have "modern" evolution theory which is heavily supported by modern genetics and micro-biology which was not the case 150 years ago. However, Darwin's opinions are still influencing the biologists. You can't find any respected biologist in any respected university to deny the ToE as a whole. So yes, we come from something else which were not human beings once upon a time..And I believe this does not contradict with Islam.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with "Human Evolution" and as such "Darwinism" is that it was concocted and used as a means to elevate the "white" / Caucasian traits to a higher stature. People still continue to thrive on Darwinism mentalities to legitimate their efforts at "educating" people who are seen as physically / culturally / etc. inferior to the those attributes seen as "evolved". In Islam, there is no "race", and people shouldn't judge or base each other on the differences in physical looks, but rather understand that we're all part of a great ecosystem, diverse and from diversity we can learn to be better.

Yes but the problem arises when we confuse science with "religion" or ideology or philosophy etc. It is true that ET was used as a means to promote the white supremacy by many people including Darwin's himself. He said that the European white race is more evolved so superior to other races. He was even an anti-Turkist and supported the idea that Turks as a sub evolved people must be eliminated from Europe. Of course this was because of his political views. Nazis used a similar agenda for their Germanic supremacy. But we cant deny the reality just because people confuse scientific theories with other things, even though they are the ones who invented the theory.

[DanEdge]

Please stop embarassing yourself (goes for some people in this thread), it just looks bad when people with zero knowledge of science try to act experts...
Before you guys post anything next, please do yourself a favor and go to your nearest university and ask the microbiologist or science professor what science thinks of darwin theory now.

You have very poor manners, young man. You should be ashamed.

Regarding academia's position on evolution, why don't we ask Watson and Crick, the discoverers of DNA? Or if they're too old school for you, how about the chair of the Phd program on Organismic Biology at Harvard University? How about from the a professor of Microbiology at Cairo University? What school did you go to that you studied microbiology and there was no mention of the strong connection between evolution and DNA mutation? Do you have any references for your outrageous claims, son? You have to know that what you're saying is wildly unorthodox in Academia.

My knowledge of science > 0.

--Dan Edge

[STN]

You have very poor manners, young man. You should be ashamed.

Regarding academia's position on evolution, why don't we ask Watson and Crick, the discoverers of DNA? Or if they're too old school for you, how about the chair of the Phd program on Organismic Biology at Harvard University? How about from the a professor of Microbiology at Cairo University? What school did you go to that you studied microbiology and there was no mention of the strong connection between evolution and DNA mutation? Do you have any references for your outrageous claims, son? You have to know that what you're saying is wildly unorthodox in Academia.

My knowledge of science > 0.

--Dan Edge

Oh i love James Watson. He says

"If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her" and my favorite

"stupidity is a disease and the "really stupid" bottom 10% of people should be cured"

But i realize how futile this is to argue with "internet scientists"- you say one thing and they understand another. Like this

What school did you go to that you studied microbiology and there was no mention of the strong connection between evolution and DNA mutation?

[Abz2000]

Oh i love James Watson. He says

"If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her" and my favorite

"stupidity is a disease and the "really stupid" bottom 10% of people should be cured"

But i realize how futile this is to argue with "internet scientists"- you say one thing and they understand another. Like this

:) I noticed that most questions to you were respectful and logical but went unanswered,
You c'n do better'n a single hit piece with no opinions of your own......


Regarding what this so called watson said about physically removing sexual genes, I think it's a matter that requires healing, and that human understanding of complex genetics still has far to go, and that attempted lobotomy of genes like they foolishly tried with brains in the past runs a high risk of damage and destruction within a few generations.
The medical establishment only began to admit that mercury is dangerous to the brain after decades of pushing and cajoling people to take injections containing high amounts in the past, so it is stupid and unjust to tell people it's ok to have genetic lobotomy for non-life threatening illnesses, and then try to pretend you want to help by fixing the bottom 10% once the brains and bodies of millions are damaged to below 10% health.

I believe leanings towards homosexuality and other sexual perversions begin in the brain matrix, and once accepted, cause chemical reactions in the body which in turn make a slight change in dna, which is passed on to an extent to offspring, who then have to work harder to suppress perversions, and if they add to the perversion and make it worse, they make it even more difficult for the next generation in their tree.
So yes, I believe healing must come through psychological and emotional support, and a community which is slightly better in adherence to Islam than the person. If you place a very corrupted person into a pious community with very high discipline and moral standards, the person is likely to rebel and be alienated or even imprisoned, such rehabilitation and choice of placement would be for those in authority in a genuine Islamic caliphate to decide based on feedback and statistical analysis from different governorates and regions.

Stupidity is healed not by pop music, alcohol, drugs, and dance, but by exercises in wisdom over generations.

[ZeeshanParvez]

The ayah have a generalization of man(human). It doesnt refer to individuals I believe.

Given that you do not have any credentials in the Religious sciences it does not matter what you believe.

And uses past tense came over man a period of time not present tense as comes over men a period of time It specifically refers to a past event which came over. What kind of an event? An event in which man was a thing not worth mentioning.

Ibn Aashuur was a master of the Arabic language. His Tafsiir is a gem which contains explanation of grammatical aspects of the Qur'aan.

You seem ignorant of the different grammatical possibilities of lam yakun shai'am madhkoora.

Since you have brought up the Arabic Grammar of the Qur'aan, explain to us what Ibn Aashuur has said below? If you cannot then I suggest you stop twisting the Qur'aanic Verses to try to fit in the materialistic secularist ideology of the kufr better known as evolution.

وجملة { لم يكن شيئاً مذكوراً } يجوز أن تكون نعتاً ل { حين } بتقدير ضمير رابط بمحذوف لدلالة لفظ { حين } على أن العائد مجرور بحرف الظرفية حذف مع جاره كقوله تعالى : { واتقوا يوماً لا تجزي نفس عن نفس شيئاً } [ البقرة : 48 ] إذ التقدير : لا تجزي فيه نفس عن نفس شيئاً ، فالتقدير هنا : لم يكن فيه الإِنسان شيئاً مذكوراً ، أي كان معدوماً في زمن سبق .
ويجوز أن تكون الجملة حالاً من { الإنسان } ، وحذف العائد كحذفه في تقدير النعت .
والشيء : اسم للموجود

[Abz2000]

This is an edit of my post since my premise was wrong. The verse in question was mistranslated in a manner more concerning than the difference of understanding by translators regarding ataa and yakun.

Originally Posted by anatolian
What do you think/know about this ayah?

76:1 "There surely came over man a period of time when he was a thing not worth mentioning."

I'm editing this after going back and reading your original post.

The verse is not a statement but a question, a call to ponder.
It doesn't say "inna" but "hal".

It's clearly wrong without even a shadow of doubt, .


Re: ataa

There are other statements in the book of Allah such as
ataa amr Allah
Hal ataaka hadeeth
Hattaa ataana al yaqeen.


The translations of the first example vary widely depending on the understanding of the sentence.

أَتَى أَمْرُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَسْتَعْجِلُوهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ {1
016:001 Khan
:
The Event (the Hour or the punishment of disbelievers and polytheists or the Islamic laws or commandments), ordained by Allah will come to pass, so seek not to hasten it. Glorified and Exalted be He above all that they associate as partners with Him.
016:001 Maulana
:
Allah's commandment will come to pass, so seek not to hasten it. Glory be to Him, and highly exalted be He above what they associate (with Him)!
016:001 Pickthal
:
The commandment of Allah will come to pass, so seek not ye to hasten it. Glorified and Exalted be He above all that they associate (with Him).
016:001 Rashad
:
GOD's command has already been issued (and everything has already been written), so do not rush it. Be He glorified; the Most High, far above any idols they set up.
016:001 Sarwar
:
God's help will certainly support (the believers), so pagans do not (seek) to hasten it. God is too Glorious and Exalted to be considered equal to idols.
016:001 Shakir
:
Allah's commandment has come, therefore do not desire to hasten it; glory be to Him, and highly exalted be He above what they associate (with Him).
016:001 Sherali
:
The decree of ALLAH is at hand, so seek ye not to hasten it. Holy is HE and exalted far above all that which they associate with HIM.
016:001 Yusufali
:
(Inevitable) cometh (to pass) the Command of Allah: seek ye not then to hasten it: Glory to Him, and far is He above having the partners they ascribe unto Him!


Allah knows best what the verse from al insaan means, when I first read it, it read as a soothing to the prophet :saws: and a reminder of Allah's mercy and favour to man, however, the verses of Quran do tend to question the mind of the reader through different angles depending upon their circumstances, just as the verses revealed directly addressing the prophet also make us think when we read them or hear them in salaah.
Although I am human and could possibly be mistaken in my understanding (though I have a duty to read it in the language I understand best) and I am required to be sincere in my interpretation.....otherwise I will be the first to go astray. And Allah knows best.


I don't think understanding a language is a sign of understanding Allah and possesing 'aql or taqwa, although it is certainly useful to understand Arabic since it makes understanding the original texts easy without having to rely on and trust the readings of others as a blind mufti or illiterate man would despite his high intellect.
The story reported about imaam Abu Haneefa who was said to have been sitting in halaqah when a scholar of hadeeth narrated a hadith he didn't know is more appropriate, when a woman came and asked a question which the others couldn't answer, Abu haneefa answered it, when the scholar of hadeeth asked him how he had arrived at the answer (he may have had a feeling from the sequence of events) Abu Haneefa is reported to have said: from the hadeeth you just narrated earlier.
The knowledge of the topic was with one person whereas the 'aql to interpret it was with another.

(I found this interesting article as I was searching for a quote on the above which I couldn't find:
https://sunnahmuakada.wordpress.com/...d-its-sources/ )


So the argument that the individual lacked Arabic and relied on testimony of individuals whom he trusted (if he was being sincere) doesn't refute his answer - but the facts might.



See also:

So Ibn Atheer (rahimahullah) says these 'Ulema ran away when they heard of
the numbers; and because he is an 'Alim he is going to find an excuse for it as
well as daleel - he will know how to twist ayaat or ahadith and make it sound
that this is the Shari'ah thing to do. He will not admit that he's afraid by
saying, 'Sorry I'm a coward, so I can't go ahead with this,' rather he will say
that to go ahead with fighting is not hikmah and that there is no hikmah in it, or
that Salahuddin is insane and we told him not to go ahead with the fighting
yet he still did, or that Salahuddin does not have 'Ilm or he does not speak
Arabic right or know it so who is he to give a fatwa and take this Ummah to
this trouble and bring upon them this disaster by taking on this huge army.
'He needs to go to the 'Ulema and take the fatwa from us but he did not so let
him go and die.' So they ran away; what happened? It is a test from Allah

From the lecture: Allah is preparing us for victory by Imam Anwar al Awlaki (may Allah :swt: grant him a high staus amongst the martyrs and revivers).

Regarding the claim that the theory is kufr, what do you base it on, and would you also hand over the hypothesis that the earth was a rough sphere to kufr maybe a thousand years ago or a little less if someone (Such as ibn Taymiyyah - labelled "the heretic from Harran" by some of his numerous detractors) stated it?
What makes you believe that the earth is spherical?

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاء لِلّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالأَقْرَبِينَ إِن يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقَيرًا فَاللّهُ أَوْلَى بِهِمَا فَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ الْهَوَى أَن تَعْدِلُواْ وَإِن تَلْوُواْ أَوْ تُعْرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا {135
004:135
:
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice and fairness as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin (and or close ones), be they rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both. So follow not the lusts and vain desires lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort (your witness) or refuse to give it, then (know that) certainly Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do

[anatolian]

Given that you do not have any credentials in the Religious sciences it does not matter what you believe.

Salam. Of course what I believe matters to me and people who think like me not you or people who think like you.

Ibn Aashuur was a master of the Arabic language. His Tafsiir is a gem which contains explanation of grammatical aspects of the Qur'aan.

You seem ignorant of the different grammatical possibilities of lam yakun shai'am madhkoora.

Since you have brought up the Arabic Grammar of the Qur'aan, explain to us what Ibn Aashuur has said below? If you cannot then I suggest you stop twisting the Qur'aanic Verses to try to fit in the materialistic secularist ideology of the kufr better known as evolution.

وجملة { لم يكن شيئاً مذكوراً } يجوز أن تكون نعتاً ل { حين } بتقدير ضمير رابط بمحذوف لدلالة لفظ { حين } على أن العائد مجرور بحرف الظرفية حذف مع جاره كقوله تعالى : { واتقوا يوماً لا تجزي نفس عن نفس شيئاً } [ البقرة : 48 ] إذ التقدير : لا تجزي فيه نفس عن نفس شيئاً ، فالتقدير هنا : لم يكن فيه الإِنسان شيئاً مذكوراً ، أي كان معدوماً في زمن سبق .
ويجوز أن تكون الجملة حالاً من { الإنسان } ، وحذف العائد كحذفه في تقدير النعت .
والشيء : اسم للموجود

I agree I am not a Quran expert. I don't speak even Arabic. However, I am not in a postion to be tested by you. Let's focus on the topic.

76.1 "هَلْ أَتَى عَلَى الْإِنسَانِ حِينٌ مِّنَ الدَّهْرِ لَمْ يَكُن شَيْئاً مَّذْكُور"
(hal 'ataa ealaa al'iinsan hin mmin alddahr lam yakun shayyaan mmadhkur)
(Has there not been over Man a long period of Time, when he was nothing - (not even) mentioned?) ( BY A. YUSUF ALI )
(There surely came over man a period of time when he was a thing not worth mentioning.) ( BY M.H. SHAKIR )
(HAS THERE [not] been an endless span of time (1) before man [appeared - a time] when he was not yet a thing to be thought of? (2)

1 - Implying, according to all the classical commentators, "there has indeed been an immensely long [or "endless"] span of time" - the interrogative particle hal having here the positive meaning of qad. However, this meaning can be brought out equally well by interpolating the word "not".

2 - Lit., "a thing mentioned" or "mentionable" - i.e., non-existent even as a hypothetical concept. The purport of this statement is a refutation of the blasphemous "anthropocentric" world-view, which postulates man as he exists - and not any Supreme Being - as the centre and ultimate reality of all life.) (COMMENTARY BY MUHAMMED ESED)

The question is a "rhetorical" question. Quran has many examples of this. Quran asks these questions to imply that they really is or was. And all these three translations give us the impression that this (has) happened in the past. I am not saying anything against Ibn Aashuur. I even didn't know him before you mentioned. I am just requesting your answer. So, you are saying it has nothing to do with past but it is only for present?

Btw, I don't regard ToE as a materialistic secularist ideology of the kufr. It is just a scientific theory which is accepted by the majortiy of the scientific enviroment. Rejecting the ToE is just like rejecting the idea that World is round or it is orbitting around the Sun.

- - - Updated - - -

This is an edit of my post since my premise was wrong. The verse in question was mistranslated in a manner more concerning than the difference of understanding by translators regarding ataa and yakun.



I'm editing this after going back and reading your original post.

The verse is not a statement but a question, a call to ponder.
It doesn't say "inna" but "hal".

It's clearly wrong without even a shadow of doubt, .


Re: ataa

There are other statements in the book of Allah such as
ataa amr Allah
Hal ataaka hadeeth
Hattaa ataana al yaqeen.


The translations of the first example vary widely depending on the understanding of the sentence.

أَتَى أَمْرُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَسْتَعْجِلُوهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ {1
016:001 Khan
:
The Event (the Hour or the punishment of disbelievers and polytheists or the Islamic laws or commandments), ordained by Allah will come to pass, so seek not to hasten it. Glorified and Exalted be He above all that they associate as partners with Him.
016:001 Maulana
:
Allah's commandment will come to pass, so seek not to hasten it. Glory be to Him, and highly exalted be He above what they associate (with Him)!
016:001 Pickthal
:
The commandment of Allah will come to pass, so seek not ye to hasten it. Glorified and Exalted be He above all that they associate (with Him).
016:001 Rashad
:
GOD's command has already been issued (and everything has already been written), so do not rush it. Be He glorified; the Most High, far above any idols they set up.
016:001 Sarwar
:
God's help will certainly support (the believers), so pagans do not (seek) to hasten it. God is too Glorious and Exalted to be considered equal to idols.
016:001 Shakir
:
Allah's commandment has come, therefore do not desire to hasten it; glory be to Him, and highly exalted be He above what they associate (with Him).
016:001 Sherali
:
The decree of ALLAH is at hand, so seek ye not to hasten it. Holy is HE and exalted far above all that which they associate with HIM.
016:001 Yusufali
:
(Inevitable) cometh (to pass) the Command of Allah: seek ye not then to hasten it: Glory to Him, and far is He above having the partners they ascribe unto Him!


Allah knows best what the verse from al insaan means, when I first read it, it read as a soothing to the prophet :saws: and a reminder of Allah's mercy and favour to man, however, the verses of Quran do tend to question the mind of the reader through different angles depending upon their circumstances, just as the verses revealed directly addressing the prophet also make us think when we read them or hear them in salaah.
Although I am human and could possibly be mistaken in my understanding (though I have a duty to read it in the language I understand best) and I am required to be sincere in my interpretation.....otherwise I will be the first to go astray. And Allah knows best.


I don't think understanding a language is a sign of understanding Allah and possesing 'aql or taqwa, although it is certainly useful to understand Arabic since it makes understanding the original texts easy without having to rely on and trust the readings of others as a blind mufti or illiterate man would despite his high intellect.
The story reported about imaam Abu Haneefa who was said to have been sitting in halaqah when a scholar of hadeeth narrated a hadith he didn't know is more appropriate, when a woman came and asked a question which the others couldn't answer, Abu haneefa answered it, when the scholar of hadeeth asked him how he had arrived at the answer (he may have had a feeling from the sequence of events) Abu Haneefa is reported to have said: from the hadeeth you just narrated earlier.
The knowledge of the topic was with one person whereas the 'aql to interpret it was with another.

(I found this interesting article as I was searching for a quote on the above which I couldn't find:
https://sunnahmuakada.wordpress.com/...d-its-sources/ )


So the argument that the individual lacked Arabic and relied on testimony of individuals whom he trusted (if he was being sincere) doesn't refute his answer - but the facts might.



See also:



Regarding the claim that the theory is kufr, what do you base it on, and would you also hand over the hypothesis that the earth was a rough sphere to kufr maybe a thousand years ago or a little less if someone (Such as ibn Taymiyyah - labelled "the heretic from Harran" by some of his numerous detractors) stated it?
What makes you believe that the earth is spherical?

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاء لِلّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالأَقْرَبِينَ إِن يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقَيرًا فَاللّهُ أَوْلَى بِهِمَا فَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ الْهَوَى أَن تَعْدِلُواْ وَإِن تَلْوُواْ أَوْ تُعْرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا {135
004:135
:
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice and fairness as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin (and or close ones), be they rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both. So follow not the lusts and vain desires lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort (your witness) or refuse to give it, then (know that) certainly Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do

It is a "rhetorical" question. A question asked to imply that it surely happened. And "al insaan" means "the man" and it refers to all mankind not a specific man or men. Just as in this ayah.

103:2 (إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ)
('inn al'iinsan lafi khusr)
(Most surely man is in loss) ( BY M.H. SHAKIR )

It means all mankind in the substance of "man"

[Abz2000]

It is a "rhetorical" question. A question asked to imply that it surely happened. And "al insaan" means "the man" and it refers to all mankind not a specific man or men. Just as in this ayah.

103:2 (إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ)
('inn al'iinsan lafi khusr)
(Most surely man is in loss) ( BY M.H. SHAKIR )

It means all mankind in the substance of "man"

It appears to be asking reader from amongst humankind, "al-insaan" usually means "the human" in contrast to "an-Naas" "humankind".

As we've seen with the numerous translations, the understanding of the verse is limited, and each person seems to get puzzled at some verses and stop and think for a while.
What if it's a question that asks: "has there ever come upon man a time when he wasn't anything of mention?" As a way of making the reader wonder "actually there never has" or "there certainly was" depending upon the context the reader thinks of.

Yusuf 'Ali's "has there not" just isn't there in literal translation and there doesn't seem to be a valid reason to add that "not" in translation. You'll notice there's only one "not" and it comes later in the verse.


And Allah :swt: knows best.

[ZeeshanParvez]

Salam. Of course what I believe matters to me and people who think like me not you or people who think like you.





I agree I am not a Quran expert. I don't speak even Arabic.

Case closed. The rest of what you say, given that, has no merit.

[Abz2000]

Case closed. The rest of what you say, given that, has no merit.

What are you talking about?
Answer valid questions and explain your position and refrain from attempting to discredit without basis.
Have you studied the lives of the sahabah?
Are you aware that a significant number and possibly the majority of people out there defending the truth with their tongue and providing verses from translations do not speak arabic as a first language?

Does the good that they do and teach "have no merit"?
Keep the illiteracy and limited knowledge of some sahabah in mind as you respond, and the fact that Abu Dharr turned the hearts of the majority of his whole tribe ghifaar towards Allah :swt: with a few days of knowledge, mainly testimony based. And that there are more than a few small bunches of trolls (with not much more knowledge than islam for dummies) being paid by the zionist neocon secularits to sit at computers and spout hatred against islam and turn people away from the faith like the poets of ukaz were hired by abu lahab and co., will you take the responsibility of training and hiring scholars of the highest eminence to refute every single falsehood?

Here's an example of a person who understands Islam to an extent reasonable enough to give dawah and to refute falsehood, who was able to patiently refute a hysterical troll despite the undue vilification, my comment appears below part 1:
His level of Arabic appears to be irrelevant here and he's using a translation that he appears to trust as truthful:

[Abz2000]

Maybe read up on this man of falsehood and treachery who grabbed the collar of Allah's messenger on behalf of the enemies of Allah who only wanted him to preach and confirm what they already accepted - even if he was telling them the truth for Allah's sake and even if some of their previous reasoning was false and irrational. Arrogance and 'asabiyyah al jaahiliyyah do indeed keep people from truth and can lead them to kufr and Allah's displeasure in absence of repentance.

Complements the above videos well too:




67. Narrated Usama bin Zaid
The Prophet rode a donkey having a saddle with a Fadakiyya velvet covering. He mounted me behind him and went to visit Sa`d bin 'Ubada, and that had been before the battle of Badr. The Prophet proceeded till he passed by a gathering in which `Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul was present, and that had been before `Abdullah embraced Islam. The gathering comprised of Muslims, polytheists, i.e., idolators and Jews. `Abdullah bin Rawaha was also present in that gathering.

When dust raised by the donkey covered the gathering, `Abdullah bin Ubai covered his nose with his upper garment and said, "Do not trouble us with dust." The Prophet greeted them, stopped and dismounted. Then he invited them to Allah (i.e., to embrace Islam) and recited to them some verses of the Holy Qur'an. On that, `Abdullah bin Ubai said, "O man ! There is nothing better than what you say if it is true. Do not trouble us with it in our gathering, but return to your house, and if somebody comes to you, teach him there."

On that `Abdullah bin Rawaha said, Yes, O Allah's messenger! Bring your teachings to our gathering, for we love that."

So the Muslims, the pagans and the Jews started abusing each other till they were about to fight. The Prophet kept on quietening them till they became calm.
Thereupon the Prophet mounted his animal and proceeded till he entered upon Sa`d bin Ubada. He said to him "O Sa`d! Have you not heard what Abu Hubab (i.e., `Abdullah bin Ubai) said?" Sa`d said, 'O Allah's messenger! Excuse and forgive him, for Allah has given you what He has given you. The people of this town (Medina decided unanimously to crown him and make him their chief by placing a turban on his head, but when that was prevented by the Truth which Allah had given you he (`Abdullah bin Ubai) was grieved out of jealously, and that was the reason which caused him to behave in the way you have seen."

http://www.theonlyquran.com/hadith/S...49&pagesize=20


وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ يَا قَوْمِ لِمَ تُؤْذُونَنِي وَقَد تَّعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ فَلَمَّا زَاغُوا أَزَاغَ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِينَ {5
061:005 Khan
:
And (remember) when Musa (Moses) said to his people: "O my people! Why do you hurt me while you know certainly that I am the Messenger of Allah to you? So when they turned away (from the Path of Allah), Allah turned their hearts away (from the Right Path). And Allah guides not the people who are Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).


--------

Hypocrites are not interested to ask the prophet to ask Allah to forgive Them


Allah the Exalted states about the hypocrites, may Allah curse them,
﴿وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْاْ يَسْتَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ لَوَّوْاْ رُءُوسَهُمْ﴾

(And when it is said to them: "Come, so that the Messenger of Allah may ask forgiveness from Allah for you,'' they twist their heads,) meaning, they turn away, ignoring this call in arrogance, belitt- ling what they are invited to. This is why Allah the Exalted said,
﴿وَرَأَيْتَهُمْ يَصُدُّونَ وَهُم مُّسْتَكْبِرُونَ﴾

(and you would see them turning away their faces in pride.) Allah punished them for this behavior, saying,
﴿سَوَآءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَسْتَغْفَرْتَ لَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تَسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ لَن يَغْفِرَ اللَّهُ لَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يَهْدِى الْقَوْمَ الْفَـسِقِينَ ﴾

(It is equal to them whether you ask forgiveness or ask not forgiveness for them, Allah will never forgive them. Verily, Allah guides not the people who are the rebellious.)

As Allah said in Surat Bara'ah, and a discussion preceded there, and here we will present some of the Hadiths reported that are related to it. Several of the Salaf mentioned that this entire passage was revealed in the case of `Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul, as we will soon mention, Allah willing and our trust and reliance are on Him. In his book, As-Sirah, Muhammad bin Ishaq said, "After the battle of Uhud ended, the Prophet returned to Al-Madinah.

`Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul -- as Ibn Shihab narrated to me -- would stand up every Friday, without objection from anyone because he was a chief of his people, when the Prophet would sit on the Minbar, just before he delivered the Jumu`ah Khutbah to the people.

`Abdullah bin Ubay would say, `O people! This is the Messenger of Allah with you. Allah has honored us by sending him and gave you might through him. Support him, honor him and listen to and obey him.' He would then sit down.

So after the battle of Uhud, even after he did what he did, that is, returning to Al-Madinah with a third of the army, he stood up to say the same words. But the Muslims held on to his clothes and said to him, `Sit down, O enemy of Allah! You are not worthy to stand after you did what you did.'

`Abdullah went out of the Masjid crossing people's lines and saying, `By Allah, it is as if I said something awful when I wanted to support him.' Some men from Al-Ansar met him at the gate of the Masjid and asked him what happened. He said, `I just stood up to support him and some men, his Companions, jumped at me, pulled me back and admonished me, as if what I said was an awful thing; I merely wanted to support him.' They said to him, `Woe to you! Go back so that Allah's Messenger asks Allah to forgive you.' He said, `By Allah, I do not wish that he ask Allah to forgive me.'''


Qatadah and As-Suddi said, "This Ayah was revealed about `Abdullah bin Ubay. A young relative of his went to Allah's Messenger and conveyed to him an awful statement that `Abdullah said. The Messenger called `Abdullah, who swore by Allah that he did not say anything. The Ansar went to that boy and admonished him. However, Allah sent down what you hear about `Abdullah's case and Allah's enemy was told, `Go to Allah's Messenger,' but he turned his head away, saying that he will not do it.''

Muhammad bin Ishaq said that Muhammad bin Yahya bin Hibban, `Abdullah bin Abi Bakr and `Asim bin `Umar bin Qatadah narrated to him the story of Bani Al-Mustaliq.

They said that while the Messenger of Allah was in that area, Jahjah bin Sa`id Al-Ghifari, a hired hand for `Umar, and Sinan bin Wabr fought over the water source. Sinan called out, "O Ansar'', while Al-Jahjah called, "O Muhajirin!'' Zayd bin Arqam and several Ansar men were sitting with `Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul at that time. When `Abdullah heard what happened, he said, "They are bothering us in our land. By Allah, the parable of us and these foolish Quraysh men, is the parable that goes, `Feed your dog until it becomes strong, and it will eat you.' By Allah, when we go back to Al-Madinah, the most mighty will expel the weak from it.'' He then addressed his people who were sitting with him, saying to them, "What have you done to yourselves You let them settle in your land and shared your wealth with them. By Allah, if you abandon them, they will have to move to another area other than yours.'' Zayd bin Arqam heard these words and conveyed them to Allah's Messenger . Zayd was a young boy then.
`Umar bin Al-Khattab was with the Messenger and he said, "O Allah's Messenger! Order `Abbad bin Bishr to cut off his head at his neck.'' The Prophet replied,
«فَكَيْفَ إِذَا تَحَدَّثَ النَّاسُ يَا عُمَرُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا يَقْتُلُ أَصْحَابَهُ، لَا، وَلَكِنْ نَادِ يَا عُمَرُ الرَّحِيل»
(What if people started saying that Muhammad kills his companions, O `Umar No. However, order the people to start the journey (back to Al-Madinah).)
When `Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul was told that his statement reached Allah's Prophet , he went to him and denied saying it. He swore by Allah that he did not utter the statement that Zayd bin Arqam conveyed. `Abdullah bin Ubay was a chief of his people and they said, "O Allah's Messenger! May be the young boy merely guessed and did not hear what was said correctly.'' Allah's Messenger started the journey at an unusual hour of the day and was met by Usayd bin Al-Hudayr, who greeted him acknowledging his prophethood. Usayd said, "By Allah! You are about to begin the journey at an unusual time.'' The Prophet said,
«أَمَا بَلَغَكَ مَا قَالَ صَاحِبُكَ ابْنُ أُبَيَ؟ زَعَمَ أَنَّهُ إِذَا قَدِمَ الْمَدِينَةَ سَيُخْرِجُ الْأَعَزُّ مِنْهَا الْأَذَل»
(Did not the statement of your friend, Ibn Ubay reach you He claimed that when he returns to Al-Madinah, the mighty one will expel the weak one out of it.) Usayd said, "Indeed, you are the mighty one, O Allah's Messenger, and he is the disgraced one.'' Usayd said, "Take it easy with him, O Allah's Messenger! By Allah, when Allah brought you to us, we were about to gather the pearls (of a crown) so that we appoint him king over us. He thinks that you have rid him of his kingship.'' The Messenger of Allah traveled with the people until the night fell, then the rest of the night until the beginning of the next day and then set camp with the people. He wanted to busy them from talking about what had happened. The minute people felt the ground under their feet, they went to sleep and Surat Al-Munafiqin was revealed. Al-Hafiz

Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi recorded that Jabir bin `Abdullah said, "We were in a battle with Allah's Messenger and a man from the Emigrants kicked an Ansari man. The Ansari man called out, `O Ansar!' and the Emigrant called out, `O Emigrants!' Allah's Messenger heard that and said,
«مَا بَالُ دَعْوَى الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ؟ دَعُوهَا فَإِنَّهَا مُنْتِنَة»

(What is this call of Jahiliyyah Abandon it because it is offensive.) `Abdullah bin Ubay heard that and said, `Have they (the Emigrants) done so By Allah, if we return to Al-Madinah, surely, the more honorable will expel therefrom the meaner.' The Ansar at that time, were more numerous that the Emigrants when the Messenger of Allah came to Al-Madinah, but later on the Emigrants imcreased in number.

When this statement reached the Prophet , `Umar got up and said, `O Allah's Messenger! Let me chop off the head of this hypocrite!'



The Prophet said:
«دَعْهُ، لَا يَتَحَدَّثُ النَّاسُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا يَقْتُلُ أَصْحَابَه»

(Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions.)''

Imam Ahmad, Al-Bukhari and Muslim collected this Hadith. `Ikrimah and Ibn Zayd and others said that when the Prophet and his Companions went back to Al-Madinah,`Abdullah, the son of `Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul, remained by the gate of Al-Madinah holding his sword. People passed by him as they returned to Al-Madinah, and then his father came. `Abdullah, son of `Abdullah, said to his father, "Stay where you are,'' and his father asked what the matter was His son said, "By Allah! You will enter through here until the Messenger of Allah allows you to do so, for he is the honorable one and you are the disgraced.'' When the Messenger of Allah came by, and he used to be in the last lines, `Abdullah bin Ubay complained to him about his son and his son said, "By Allah, O Allah's Messenger! He will not enter it until you say so.'' The Messenger gave his permission to `Abdullah bin Ubay and his son said, "Enter, now that the Messenger of Allah gave you his permission.''

In his Musnad, Abu Bakr `Abdullah bin Az-Zubayr Al-Humaydi recorded from Abu Harun Al-Madani that `Abdullah, the son of `Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul, said to his father, "You will never enter Al-Madinah unless and until you say, `Allah's Messenger is the honorable one and I am the low.'' When the Prophet came, `Abdullah, son of `Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul said to him, "O Allah's Messenger! I was told that you have decided to have my father executed. By He Who has sent you with Truth, I never looked straight to his face out of respect for him. But if you wish, I will bring you his head, because I would hate to see the killer of my father.''

﴿يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تُلْهِكُمْ أَمْوَلُكُمْ وَلاَ أَوْلَـدُكُمْ عَن ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْخَـسِرُونَ - وَأَنفِقُواْ مِن مَّا رَزَقْنَـكُمْ مِّن قَبْلِ أَن يَأْتِىَ أَحَدَكُمُ الْمَوْتُ فَيَقُولُ رَبِّ لَوْلا أَخَّرْتَنِى إِلَى أَجَلٍ قَرِيبٍ فَأَصَّدَّقَ وَأَكُن مِّنَ الصَّـلِحِينَ - وَلَن يُؤَخِّرَ اللَّهُ نَفْساً إِذَا جَآءَ أَجَلُهَآ وَاللَّهُ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ ﴾

(9. O you who believe! Let not your properties or your children divert you from the remembrance of Allah. And whosoever does that, then they are the losers.) (10. And spend of that with which We have provided you before death comes to one of you, and he says: "My Lord! If only You would give me respite for a little while, then I should give Sadaqah from my wealth, and be among the righteous.) (11. And Allah grants respite to none when his appointed time comes. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do.)

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...337&Itemid=119


-------




Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul (King of Hypocrites) and Zayd ibn Arqam (Young Child)

Lesson 168 – Book of Funerals was delivered on 31st August 2007.


باب: الكَفَنُ لِلمَيّت


Ch. 10 - The shroud for a dead body.

These are detailed notes from part of the lesson taught by Shaykh Riyadh ul Haq where he commented on Hadeeth 645.

This is an incomplete chapter heading. The full chapter heading in the original Saheeh of Imam Bukhari is ‘Chapter of the shroud being of a shirt which is sown or unsown and chapter of one who is buried without a shirt’. The chapter heading given in al tajrid al Sarih doesn’t correspond in any way with the original.


645. عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُمَا:

أَنّ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ أُبَيّ لَمّا تُوُفّيَ, جَاءَ ابْنُهُ إِلَى النّبِيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ, أَعْطِنِي قَمِيصَكَ أُكَفّنْهُ فِيهِ, وَصَلّ عَلَيْهِ, وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُ. فَأَعْطَاهُ النّبِيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَمِيصَهُ, فَقَالَ: (اَذِنِي أُصَلّي عَلَيْهِ). فَاَذَنَهُ, فَلَمّا أَرَادَ أَنْ يُصَلّيَ عَلَيْهِ جَذَبَهُ عُمَرُ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ, فَقَالَ: أَلَيْسَ اللهُ نَهَاكَ أَنْ تُصَلّيَ عَلَى المُنَافِقِينَ فَقَالَ: (أَنَا بَيْنَ خِيرَتَيْنَ, قَالَ: (اسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ أَوْ لاَ تَسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ إِنْ تَسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ سَبْعِينَ مَرّةً فَلَنْ يَغْفِرَ اللهُ لَهُمْ)). فَصَلّى عَلَيْهِ, فَنَزَلَتْ: (ولاَ تُصَلّ عَلَى أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ ماتَ أَبَدًا). رواه البخاري: 1269


645. Narrated Ibn 'Umar رضى الله عنهما : When 'Abdullâh bin Ubay (the chief of hypocrites) died, his son came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and said, O Allâh's Messenger, please give me your shirt to shroud him in it, offer his funeral prayer and ask for Allâh's Forgiveness for him. So Allâh's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم gave his shirt to him and said, Inform me (when the funeral is ready) so that I may offer the funeral prayer. So, he informed him and when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم intended to offer the funeral prayer, 'Umar رضى الله عنه took hold of his hand and said, Has Allâh not forbidden you to offer the funeral prayer for the hypocrites? The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, I have been given the choice, for Allâh تعالى says: 'Whether you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ) ask forgiveness for them (hypocrites), or ask not forgiveness for them ...., (and even) if you ask seventy times for their forgiveness .... Allâh will not forgive them.' (V.9:80) So the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم offered the funeral prayer and on that the revelation came: And never (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ) pray (funeral prayer) for any of them (i.e. hypocrites) who dies. (V.9:84). (2:359O.B.)

Shaykh Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq translated this hadeeth and then elaborated further upon the literal translated.

Who was Abdullah ibn Ubay Salul?

He was one of the famous persons from the tribe of Khazraj and his full name was Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul. Salul was the name of his grandmother which is unusual as normally male names are used by Arabs when described as ‘son of…’. He was the leader of Khazraj and was about to be crowned the king of Madinah before the arrival of the Muslims. However, many of the people of the tribe embraced Islam when Rasul (صلى الله عليه وسلم) arrived and he was no longer suitable to rule over the kingdom of Madinah. He was extremely eloquent and very articulate and forceful. He was a very imposing personality and considered to be very handsome. He was tall and broadly built. He was also charming, captivating and of a sweet tongue. He was a natural leader. When the Muslims arrived in Madinah he felt he was robbed of his position, throne and crown. He held great enmity against Rasul (صلى الله عليه وسلم) but because many of his tribe had embraced Islam he felt that the best option would be to embrace Islam and go with the flow. However, he continued to oppose Rasul (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and undermine his authority.

He never missed any opportunity to try and harm Rasul (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and the Muslims. However, when anyone would confront him, he would switch on his charm and say ‘I’m a Muslim’. He would pray salah in the Masjid and sit in the gatherings of Rasul (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Thus, everyone treated him as a Muslim. He became a natural leader and spearhead of the new movement of hypocrisy. There were four different groups in Madinah; Muslims, a number of Arabs who were still non-believers (but they made their disbelief clear), a large Jewish community and fourthly the hypocrites. There is an extensive mention of the hypocrites in the Madani Surats of the Qur’an.

The hypocrites were a lethal group and we can understand this by looking at the beginning of Surah Baqarah for example where Allah praises the believers in 2-3 verses, then mentions the disbelievers in a couple of verses and then there is a large section where Allah mentions the hypocrites. The simple reason for this is because the believers are honest in their belief and the disbelievers are honest in their disbelief. In contrast, the hypocrites are extremely dangerous and deluded. Allah says that they attempt to deceive Allah and the believers but they are not deceiving anyone but themselves. In their delusion, they think they are getting away with everything by fooling the people and even think that they are deceiving Allah.

The Muslims had innumerable problems with the hypocrites. For example, during the battle of Uhud, Rasul (صلى الله عليه وسلم) had instructed everyone to march towards the outskirts of Madinah on a plain under Mount Uhud. The Muslims were going to battle against an army of 3000.

A thousand people travelled from Madinah, from the centre of the city towards the outskirts, towards Uhud in the morning. Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul was in charge of a large contingent; a very large group. At the very last minute he turned away, just before Uhud, and came back and returned to Madinah with 300 of men. So, the Muslims who had originally set off with a 1000 men to fight a well-prepared enemy of 3000 were now left with just 700 men. This was due to the betrayal of Abdullah ibn Ubay who convinced 300 of the army to turn back and return to Madinah. And after the battle of Uhud, the hypocrites made excuse after excuse. Despite this, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) tolerated them and humoured them but they left no stone unturned.

http://www.bukhariblog.com/2008/02/a...ng-of.html?m=1

[Abz2000]

Interesting to see that some people rely on attempted hit'n'run pieces rather than intellectual discussion or debate, but disappear as soon as rational questions are asked in sincerity....

Anyways, hopefully, since there appear to be no expert scientists or Arabic scholars to post instead of all the "internet scientists and scholars" that constitute the majority of internet forums, we may aswell get back to topic (although the little meander was highly enlightening).

They think that Darwin's theory had missing points but just like every scientific theory this doesnt neccesarily mean the theory was wrong at all. There is evolution theory and Darwin's contribution to it was a milestone. Today we have "modern" evolution theory which is heavily supported by modern genetics and micro-biology which was not the case 150 years ago. However, Darwin's opinions are still influencing the biologists. You can't find any respected biologist in any respected university to deny the ToE as a whole.

So yes, we come from something else which were not human beings once upon a time..And I believe this does not contradict with Islam.

It's the best answer that fits the data, so I can say with certainty that every living being on earth evolved from liquid.
And I can say with certainty that there is no god but God - He has no partners or parents or offspring, and that Muhammad :saws: is God's slave and messenger.

قَالَ قَائِلٌ مِّنْهُمْ إِنِّي كَانَ لِي قَرِينٌ {51
One of them will start the talk and say: "I had an intimate companion (on the earth),

يَقُولُ أَئِنَّكَ لَمِنْ الْمُصَدِّقِينَ {52
"Who used to say, 'are you really from amongst those who bear witness/confirm?

أَئِذَا مِتْنَا وَكُنَّا تُرَابًا وَعِظَامًا أَئِنَّا لَمَدِينُونَ {53
"(That) when we die and become dust and bones, shall we indeed (be raised up) to receive reward or punishment (according to our deeds)?"

قَالَ هَلْ أَنتُم مُّطَّلِعُونَ {54
(It will be) said: "Would yous look down?"

فَاطَّلَعَ فَرَآهُ فِي سَوَاء الْجَحِيمِ {55
So they looked down and saw him in the midst of hellfire.

قَالَ تَاللَّهِ إِنْ كِدتَّ لَتُرْدِينِ {56
He/she said: "By Allah! You nearly ruined me.

وَلَوْلَا نِعْمَةُ رَبِّي لَكُنتُ مِنَ الْمُحْضَرِينَ {57
"Had it not been for the Grace of my Lord, I would certainly have been among those brought forth (to Hell)."

أَفَمَا نَحْنُ بِمَيِّتِينَ {58
So aren't we going to die?

إِلَّا مَوْتَتَنَا الْأُولَى وَمَا نَحْنُ بِمُعَذَّبِينَ {59
"Except our first death, and we shall not be punished?

إِنَّ هَذَا لَهُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ {60
Truly, this is the supreme success!

لِمِثْلِ هَذَا فَلْيَعْمَلْ الْعَامِلُونَ {61
For the like of this let the workers work.

From Quran, Chapter 37

Yes but the problem arises when we confuse science with "religion" or ideology or philosophy etc. It is true that ET was used as a means to promote the white supremacy by many people including Darwin's himself. He said that the European white race is more evolved so superior to other races. He was even an anti-Turkist and supported the idea that Turks as a sub evolved people must be eliminated from Europe. Of course this was because of his political views. Nazis used a similar agenda for their Germanic supremacy. But we cant deny the reality just because people confuse scientific theories with other things, even though they are the ones who invented the theory.

It is wrong to discriminate and commit injustice based on racism, Allah :swt: tells us that the best from amongst humankind in Allah's sight are those who have the most taqwa of Allah.


And yeah I would be foolish and wrong to reject pythagoras theorem by putting it down to kufr (denial) since it is denial to categorize truth as denial out of 'asabiyyah and kibr, so I confidently announce that pythagoras theorem is correct.

[Zeal]

You may be surprised at how far some creatures have come in learning:

looooool monkeys are clever

[DanEdge]

I think liquid chromatography is relevant here in at least one sense: it could be used to test for ego-enhancing drugs in the brains of some discussion participants. Let's not get too full of ourselves here. We're all here to think and learn and ponder and express ourselves. IB is full of intelligent, honest folks, and all benefit. This discussion has degenerated to a very low point, and I hate to see it on IB.

Thanks,

--Dan Edge

[DanEdge]

In the spirit of refocusing this topic on friendly debate, I'd like to raise a few issues.

1) To those opposing evolutionary theory, how do you account for the existence of progressively more man-like hominids in recent history? It is often said that man cannot be descended from ape, but this is a claim evolutionsists do not make. Rather, there is a long, documented progression of mammels becoming more and more man-like. For example, the Australopithecus species from about 5 million years ago looks significantly more like man than ape. Homo Habilis, from about 3 million years ago, was the first stone tool user. Homo Erectus, about a million years ago, stood upright and used fire. Neanderthals are genetically proven to be among human ancestry. These are striking facts that must be accounted for in any affirmation or denial of evolutionary theory.

2) Schimi and others have evoked Kant's analytic/synthetic dichotomy in relation to evolution, and I think this is a very interesting point worthy of greater focus. Darwinian evolution, more specifically the theory that natural selection is the primary driver of species adaptation, seems to many to be a scientific theory. But hang on. As others have noted, it's difficult to devise an experiment to prove or disprove this theory. I challenge pro-evolutionists to resolve this conflict according to Karl Popper's standard of Falsifiability. In other words, what experiment could one conduct that would prove Darwinian evolution to be false? In Darwin's time, there were many objections to his theory, one of which (as indicated by Abz) was the complexity of the eye organ. How could natural selection produce such a wonder? Darwin had no scientific answer, only philosophical explanations, and those are still the only answers available for this question. Darwin had to explain away many, many objections which are still unanswered by evidence.

So, I propose challenges to both sides of the debate. Any takers? :D

--Dan Edge

[STN]

I agree with ZeeshanParvez in that you need some knowledge before you go on discussing matters which you don't know completely.

Like that ignorant atheist and what is with these atheists yelling and screaming like "monkeys" (pun intended) like every other video i see of a supposed "discussion" or argument is one-sided with the atheist acting like a rude, asshole who just yells and not give the other opportunity to even make his point.

I don't need to even answer his ignorance, anyone who goes and study the verses he referenced, he will find the context provided you bother to study just one verse before and after the verse that ignorant loves to reference. I hate Donald Trump, because he is a vagina grabbing racist who is spreading hate against Muslims <- Guess what an atheist, islamophobe ignorant would quote in my that statement? (Hint: it would be something like i hate <fill in his country name>) This is the level of intelligence and decency you find in these Kafirs.

Goes for this thread, supposed "intellectuals" discussing things they barely know. Similarity doesn't mean proving it, pigs and humans are more similar - they're even transplanting pigs organs to humans so how did a human not come from a pig?

If evolution is such the truth, why haven't they found a single species changing into another. I have already told you guys of the fast rate of mutations/evolution of micro-organisms, in one year they can go through so many mutations that they can be considered equivalent to a man's million if not billions of years of generations. So why isn't the E.Coli mutating to another organism.

Never any concrete proof, it's the same story with the big bang - so how did big bang happen and where did all those materials come from ? or from 0 because logic went to poop that day.

Abz2000 Humans lived longer and were bigger, do you NOT know about Adam (A.S) ?

[STN]

In the spirit of refocusing this topic on friendly debate, I'd like to raise a few issues.

1) To those opposing evolutionary theory, how do you account for the existence of progressively more man-like hominids in recent history? It is often said that man cannot be descended from ape, but this is a claim evolutionsists do not make. Rather, there is a long, documented progression of mammels becoming more and more man-like. For example, the Australopithecus species from about 5 million years ago looks significantly more like man than ape. Homo Habilis, from about 3 million years ago, was the first stone tool user. Homo Erectus, about a million years ago, stood upright and used fire. Neanderthals are genetically proven to be among human ancestry. These are striking facts that must be accounted for in any affirmation or denial of evolutionary theory.

2) Schimi and others have evoked Kant's analytic/synthetic dichotomy in relation to evolution, and I think this is a very interesting point worthy of greater focus. Darwinian evolution, more specifically the theory that natural selection is the primary driver of species adaptation, seems to many to be a scientific theory. But hang on. As others have noted, it's difficult to devise an experiment to prove or disprove this theory. I challenge pro-evolutionists to resolve this conflict according to Karl Popper's standard of Falsifiability. In other words, what experiment could one conduct that would prove Darwinian evolution to be false? In Darwin's time, there were many objections to his theory, one of which (as indicated by Abz) was the complexity of the eye organ. How could natural selection produce such a wonder? Darwin had no scientific answer, only philosophical explanations, and those are still the only answers available for this question. Darwin had to explain away many, many objections which are still unanswered by evidence.

So, I propose challenges to both sides of the debate. Any takers? :D

--Dan Edge

1. Here is something you probably never knew. Allah (SWT) created other creatures who walked the earth before man such as Jinn, Hinn, Binn, we don't know how they looked like.

And here is something else...some people were disfigured to monkeys and pigs for their disobedience. As science and human knowledge is slowly increasing, we are learning and discovering things that undeniably proof the truth of Holy Quran.
https://islamqa.info/en/14085

Like the story of Haman who the orientalists in their ignorance to lead people astray from Islam said Prophet Muhammad(SAWW) wrote the Qur'an in the light of the Torah and the Gospel (Nauzbillah) also put forth the sophistry that he copied some of the subjects in the Qur'an wrongly but the ridiculousness of this claim became obvious 200 years ago when the Egyptian hieroglyphs were deciphered and the name "Haman" was discovered.

So if anything, it proves the Holy Quran is complete truth.

And there's no doubt that humans change based on their environment, look at the features of Koreans, Chinese (not being a racist, just making a point). Maybe the living conditions in the past were a bit different so they looked different and we certainly know that Adam(A.S) the first man was extremely tall and lived very long. We also don't know how jinns, binns and hinns look(ed) like.

I don't believe in a species jump to be scientifically possible. If it was possible, the micro-organisms with smallest genomes such as 3.2 kb could have evolved to another species. Multi-cellular organism have even a bigger challenge, all the organs need to work in harmony and need an intricate balance, you're telling me that the complex neural network of brain with so much balance was evolved by pure luck and chance ? I can "suppose for argument sake" any other organ could evolve but if you're telling me that the human brain evolved to the intelligence it has now - yeah i can't even imagine it.

I can believe a bacteria evolving to another bacteria though it's very unlikely but that's not what the evolutionist want you to believe. They want you to believe that chemicals became organisms on their own....pretty bold conjecture based on nothing.

Allah(SWT) says

And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay.
- Holy Quran 23:12

That's what i believe.

I find it interesting people blindly believe in evolution without questioning it and realizing it is not proven but when it comes to the extremely important matter of belief in Allah (SWT) even though they can't find a single contradiction in His book Holy Quran, they won't believe.

[Hamza Asadullah]

If the discussion in this thread continues to descend into arguing and name calling then it will have to be closed. So please discuss matters in a respectable manner. We must learn to apply the Islamic etiquette of discussion. We do not have to agree on all matters so let us be tolerant to differences of opinion and view and if we feel such a discussion is more harm than good then it s better to refrain partaking in such discussion and threads. Jzk

[Abz2000]

@STN please try to avoid mockery and ridicule with the attempted aim of "trump"-ing the argument and provoking egotistic debate unless doing so in response to someone who is practicing such an intellectually bankrupt tactic. Critical readers see through it. It is more constructive and respectable if you state your own honest opinions in line with logic and rationality, this continues the thought process and it is less likely that a person will identify you as a troll bent upon crashing and dispersing a sound intellectual discussion, and will either accept, or reject your opinions based on merit.
Most old timers here know that I too am able to descend into the depths in order to wrestle trolls where necessary and it can get ugly sometimes (though it's almost always entertaining :) )

Regarding @DanEdge 's reference to my previous thoughts on the eye.
I used to find the possibility of the eye evolving into it's current form too far fetched due to it's complexity, and my observations and thinking were partly restricted by groupthink just as many thinkers in other fields -including the scientific field are often restricted in scope by political groupthink, (many of us know how easily a scientist's credibility is put at risk in the anti-God political climate where religious secularism is extreme, and how the chances of getting one's findings and observations published in an internationally recognized magazine, newspaper, or peer review journal are limited as soon as they mention the concept of a creator - the "G-word" ridicule and egg throwing starts and a genuine intellectual finds it difficult to continue at such low standards of debate unless they're politically savvy and thick skinned, and prepared to sacrifice personal benefits for the sake of truth).
I recognize how the generalizations made with edited biblical vatican type thinking can steer emotions and also how such vast generalizations can create reluctance to think critically from outside the sandbox and/or to speak up, and also (as can be observed from certain comments above) a similar trend exists also in the "opposite" "camp", the method if inducing groupthink is a powerful tool used by certain people with vested interests or egos.

However, I later became more open-minded in my critical thinking process as I read more and more and studied and pondered over the reactions of peoples to their own prophets when the facts contradicted long established ideas within groups, and realized that Islam transcends groupthink when truth is at risk of becoming a victim, actually, nothing has value if it is in opposition to truth (except in genuine rhetorical debate for the sake of argument).
The way I see it, I don't accept the existence of Allah because I think it's a lie which my tribe or group uses as a tool, I accept it because I believe it to be the truth, and if it is the ultimate truth, then there is no logic in shying away from critical thinking and from the acceptance of obvious facts out of fear of losing face, since denial of just truth is the essence of "kufr".
Prophets were ridiculed, mocked, had clods thrown at them, murdered, and tortured - simply because of their adherence to truth - and not because of their adherence to groupthink. Sometimes it was a "me against the world" scenario (although it wasn't really against - but for).

Anyways, back to the eye:
The eye is a sensory organ, and many creatures (including plants) in existence still have sensory organs that combine multiple sensory devices, the more combined they are, the less specialized they usually are.
Taking this observation into account, it is easy to visualize the logical steps involved in compartmentalizing the functions after each had developed to a stage where having two functions in one was detrimental to the health of an essential organ, or when one function was confused or bullied by other functions when it comes to processing in the processing organ now known as the brain. Separating these parts into a team where conflicts of interest threatened to trump over each other illogically through brute capacity is resolved by relegating a separate organ as judge (da brain).
If I can accept that I was once an impure, wiggling, slithering nasty in my dad, then logically, I should be able to accept the possibility that I was fast replaying a long record that took place through the ages.
And when we realize that the survival chances of a single sperm are very, very small, and that of an early stage fetus, and that these chances of failiure slowly descrease throughout progression of the fetus, it is also easy to visualise the hypothesis that the human being is a survivor from amongst many that were similar to it.
And God knows best.

أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاء كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ {30
021:030 Khan
:
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?


وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَ كُلَّ دَابَّةٍ مِن مَّاء فَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى بَطْنِهِ وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى رِجْلَيْنِ وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى أَرْبَعٍ يَخْلُقُ اللَّهُ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ {45
024:045 Khan
:
Allah has created every moving (living) creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Verily! Allah is Able to do all things.


Scroll to 7 min, 35 sec in the video below to understand the beginning:






According to the Holy companion Ibn Abbas. The Holy Prophet , when migrated to Madinah, found that the Jews of Madinah used to fast on the 10th day of Muharram. They said that it was the day on which the Holy Prophet Musa (Moses) and his followers crossed the Red Sea miraculously and the Pharaoh was drowned in its water.

On hearing this from the Jews, the Holy Prophet said, “We are more closely related to Musa than you” and directed the Muslims to fast on the day of Ashurah. (Abu Dawood)

It is also reported in a number of authentic traditions that in the beginning, fasting on the day of Ashurah was obligatory for the Muslims.

It was later that the fasts of Ramadan were made obligatory and the fast on the day of ”Ashurah was made optional. Sayyidah Aishah has said:

“When the Holy Prophet came to Madinah, he fasted on the day of Ashurahh and directed the people to fast it. But when the fasts of Ramadan were made obligatory, the obligation of fasting was confined to Ramadan and the obligatory nature of the fast of Ashurah was abandoned. One can fast on this day, if he so wills, or can avoid fasting, if he so wills.”

However, the Holy Prophet used to fast on the day of Ashurah even after the fasting in Ramadan was made obligatory.


https://www.sia.org.za/quran/31

The way I see it, the sword of truth is more powerful and potent in the hands of those who are truthful - even if a liar discovered how it's made, so don't expect me to drop it through emotional ridicule and mockery, I am able to see past it.

[ZeeshanParvez]

@STN please try to avoid mockery and ridicule with the attempted aim of "trump"-ing the argument and provoking egotistic debate unless doing so in response to someone who is practicing such an intellectually bankrupt tactic. Critical readers see through it. It is more constructive and respectable if you state your own honest opinions in line with logic and rationality, this continues the thought process and it is less likely that a person will identify you as a troll bent upon crashing and dispersing a sound intellectual discussion, and will either accept, or reject your opinions based on merit.
Most old timers here know that I too am able to descend into the depths in order to wrestle trolls where necessary and it can get ugly sometimes (though it's almost always entertaining :) )

Last time I checked this was an Islamic forum. If not then the mods can remind me as I have no time to spend on a Non-Islamic forum. Until they do so I will consider it an Islamic forum.

And if this is an Islamic forum rationality and logic - human flawed logic - have no place. Had our Diin been based on logic we would have wiped under the leather socks and not over them.

You "wrestle" trolls? Really, what are you an online, virtual gangster? Let me give you a psychological analysis of who you are. Your posts show that you are a man who thinks very highly of himself. You have taken the follow the truth even if it means you are against the world mentality and combined it with the I know it all to pose yourself as someone intelligent.

The fact is that when presented by the foundations of this Diin you find yourself on shaky grounds. You choose to talk about a theory propagated by an ex-Monk who refused to believe in God after his daughter died because he did not believe that a Merciful God could take the life of his child. The theory is a farce. It has no basis in the Qur'aan or the Sunnah. You will not find a single Verse or a Hadith which supports this joke you seem to think is the truth. The theory was discussed by Aristotle and his Jaahil disgusting Greeks. The classical scholars were well aware of the writing of the Greeks but gave it no credence because they knew it was a way of the kaafir to explain his existence without having to believe in Allaah.

What you are guilty of by trying to justify this disgusting theory and claiming that this is possible and that is possible which is lying upon Allaah. The moment you attribute things to Allaah without solid proofs you are working on conjecture and lying upon Him. You need to stop.

Allaah says in the Qur'aan:

And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie or denies His verses? Indeed, the wrongdoers will not succeed.

[Qur'aan 6:21]

If you are a Muslim you do not interject your personal opinions into Diin or say Allaah did this or that unless explicit proof. Your failure to abide by this principle shows you have no clue of the sanctity of Islaam. You will not find a single classical scholar who accepted this barbaric theory of atheists. The scholars of ahl al-Sunnah are agreed that it is a theory of the kufr which has no place in Islaam. The only one causing discord among the unity of Muslims are the kaafirs and those who support their materialistic ideologies like you and try to say Allaah might have done this or might have done that. Islam is not about conjectures. It is about explicit evidence. Evolution is a farce and so are those who support it.

Do yourself, and those who you will influence by your misguided views, a favor. Learn Diin first. Then speak. That is the way of any intelligent being. You learn first. Then you discuss.

- - - Updated - - -

For those sincere Muslims who follow the Qur'aan, Sunnah, Salaf, and classical scholars please do not get deluded by the nonsense of those who support this kufr ideology. Read.

Is Yasir Qadhi’s view of evolution valid according to scholars:Here is a summary of what he said: Qadhi, on the other hand, accepted all of evolution except where it applies to humans. However, he conceded that the “maximum we can go” from an Islamic theological perspective is to say that God inserted Adam in the natural order. To explain his position, he used the example of dominos. He asserted that Adam was the last domino placed directly by God. From his perspective, believers would see this last domino as a miracle of God, whereas non-believers would see a causal connection from all the other dominos. This way, the miracle of Adam is preserved theologically. I read that close analysis of the quran shows that is this view is not compatible, what are thoughts on this?



A: His research is just speculation and guesswork, and perhaps he is suffering from a type of inferiority complex. We do not have to believe in his fabricated theory and leave out the Qur’aan and hadeeth. There were many people before him who also tried to have an apologetic approach with western scholars and secularists. Perhaps he has considered these secular materialists to be his standard and he is striving to be with them. May Allah Ta`ala save us and the ummat from this type of mulhideen and corrupt people.
And Allah Ta’ala (الله تعالى) knows best.

Answered by:
Mufti Ebrahim Salejee

Source

http://islamqa.org/hanafi/darululoom...y-of-evolution


Additional reading

http://islamqa.org/hanafi/darululoom...y-of-evolution

[Abz2000]

I will ignore your condescending remarks which show a high level of weakness and a low level of yaqeen - not because I am unable to respond with like, but because I don't want to make it easy for trolls to get beneficial threads shut down simply by starting a b#tching contest whenever the truth of Islam begins to prevail over taqleed of ancestors, and a sifting, divergence, and distinction process begins from the people of the book, and the best way I will be able to avoid such a scenario is by arguing points based on merit.
As to what follows...

...Islam, the religion of Ibraheem :saws: is based on rationality and logic, it is not simply a religion of the forefathers regardless of truth. It is not my deen because it was my father's deen, it is my deen because i accept it as the truth, and i accept it as the truth because i use rationality and logic, so it is not the case that I will now carve and cut truth like an idol to fit in the pockets of my father, I don't worship Islam, i worship Allah :swt: , and that is because I come via logic and rational thinking that Allah is the truth, and that He is supreme over donald trump and all the other scholars that one can ever name.
That is how a person arrives at yaqeen.

Next I will come to the scholars, I will not disrespect them just in order to argue a point since I believe most of them were sincere, but I will throw your own earlier argument back at you when I say that the scholars of the tenth century were not experts in biology or chromatography and didn't have access to the information small children now have, and therefore hadn't the credentials or the authority to deny such a statement just as the scientusts and scholars of banee israeel 3, 000 years ago didn't have the authority to deny that the earth is a globe, although I don't blame them for being defensive of what they mistakenly interpreted Allah :swt: as having implied, I do blame them for what they wrote falsely into the book of Allah with the aim of getting the book of Allah to confirm their misconceptions.
But then, I don't worship scholars either and neither did any of the Prophets.
I worship Allah who gave me a brain, and I accept Muhamnad :saws: as Allah's messenger not because my dad told told me or because a scholar told me, but because my rationality and reason point me to a position where I am unable to deny them,.
If I followed the deen of my forefathers, then I would have called uzair the son of Allah and Jesus the son of Allah (and also his own father :facepalm: ) if I had been born into a christian family and had christian scholars.

Kitaab At-Tawheed, Chapter: 36

Whoever Obeys a Scholar or a Ruler by Prohibiting What Allah Has Permitted or Permitting What Allah Has Prohibited Has Taken Them as Partners Beside Allah
Ibn `Abbas (ra) said: "Stones are about to rain down upon you from the sky: I say to you: "Allah's Messenger said..." and you reply: "But Abu Bakr and `Umar said...?" 1
Because obedience is a form of worship, it is not allowed to obey anyone - be he man or jinn - unless it conforms with obedience to Allah and His Messenger . This is why Ibn `Abbas (ra) repudiated those who, when they were informed that the Prophet had pronounced upon a matter, objected that Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq and `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them both) 2 had said something different, thus, in effect, preferring the opinions of these two pious Companions over the Revelation of Allah . This incident allegedly occurred during a discussion about Hajj in which Ibn `Abbas (ra) mentioned something which he had heard from Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah . Ibn `Abbas (ra) warned them of Allah's approaching punishment and His Anger for those who preferred the opinions of Abu Bakr and `Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) to the guidance of Allah's Messenger . - In view of this, what may be said of those who prefer the opinions of lesser men over the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet . 3
Benefits Derived From This Narration

1. Evidence of the virtue of Ibn `Abbas and his excellent understanding of religious matters.
2. That no opinion which contradicts the Qur'an and Sunnah is to be given heed, no matter from whom it emanated.
3. The obligation to be angry for Allah and His Messenger's sake.
Relevance of This Narration to the Subject of the Chapter and to the Subject of Tawheed
That the narration proves that Ibn `Abbas (ra) held that it is forbidden to prefer the opinion of any of Allah's creatures over the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah and this is because to do so is an act of Shirk since it constitutes obedience to other than Allah .
..ooOOoo..

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: "I am amazed at those people who know that a sanad is authentic and yet, in spite of this, they follow the opinion of Sufyan, for Allah (ra), says:
" Let those who oppose his [the Messenger's] commandment beware, lest some fitnah befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them" (Qur'an 24:63)

So I accept my chain of comnand through rationality and logic to be Allah first, Muhammad as his most authoritative Messenger, and any other piece of information that logically fits together into a matrix of truth in my God-given brain. If I accepted flawed scientific statements from scholars despite the irrationality, I would be condemned as having a God-damned brain.

On the authority of `Adi Ibn Hatim (ra), it is reported that he heard the Messenger of Allah reciting this Qur'anic verse:
" They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords beside Allah and [they take as a lord] Al-Maseeh, `Eesaa, the son of Maryam, yet they were not commanded but to worship One God: None has the right to be worshipped but He - Praise and Glory to Him: [Far is He] from having the partners they associate [withHim]" (Qur'an 9:31)
"...and I said to him : "We don't worship them." He said: "Do they not forbid what Allah has permitted and do you not then forbid it (to yourselves), and do they not make permissible for you what Allah has forbidden, and do you not then make it permissible (to yourselves)?" I replied: "Certainly!" He said: "That is worshipping them." (Narrated by At-Tirmizi, who graded it as Hasan)
`Adi Ibn Hatim informs us in this Hadith, that when he heard the Prophet reciting Allah's Words:
" They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords beside Allah. And [they take as their lord] Al-Maseeh, `Eesaa, the son of Maryam" (Qur'an 9:31)
He contradicted the Prophet , saying that they do not worship them; for to his mind, what was meant by worship was bowing, prostration, supplication, sacrifice etc. But the Prophet informed him that their obedience to the rabbbis and monks in forbidding the permissible and permitting the forbidden was a form of worship, because they have thus made their rabbis and monks partners to Allah in obedience and in ordaining the Law.

130. And who turns away from the religion of Abraham but such as debase their souls with folly? Him We chose and rendered pure in this world: And he will be in the Hereafter in the ranks of the Righteous.
131. Behold! his Lord said to him: "Bow (thy will to Me):" He said: "I bow (my will) to the Lord and Cherisher of the Universe."
132. And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam."
133. Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy Allah and the Allah of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma'il and Isaac,- the one (True) Allah. To Him we bow (in Islam)."
134. That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case!
135. They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah."
136. Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
137. So if they believe as ye believe, they are indeed on the right path; but if they turn back, it is they who are in schism; but Allah will suffice thee as against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.
138. (Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah. And who can baptize better than Allah. And it is He Whom we worship.
139. Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that We are sincere (in our faith) in Him?
140. Or do ye say that Abraham, Isma'il Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than Allah. Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah. but Allah is not unmindful of what ye do!
141. That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case:
142. The fools among the people will say: "What hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?" Say: To Allah belong both east and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight.
143. Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful.

From Quran, Chapter

https://i.imgur.com/b8VBzCE.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/C7fJJk1.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/xbVfhHs.jpg


One must let go of their irrational ego to find the truth, Islam is not limited by scholars because it is the magnificent and vast fountain of truth from Allah :swt: Himself. And Allah is NOT false.

The previous posts have been cohesive and well responded to despite the differences so they can be left for readers to think about themselves, some situations require a person's credibility to be questioned - especially in positions of trust. Since this is not a case of trust but of opinion for each person to ponder over, there is no requirement for personal attacks and attempts to put one down in order to discredit their opinion or statement, therefore I will ask brother hamza to look into the merits of any future posts without replying to them myself if there are any personal attacks made by insecure people, and humbly request that he avoids closing beneficial threads and thereby gives anybody the excuse to get a thread they don't like closed just by beginning a b#tching contest.

Think for yourselves.

[DanEdge]

But E. coli has been shown to evolve. Researches have studied 66,000+ generations and are directly observing the evolution.

--Dan Edge

[Abz2000]

But E. coli has been shown to evolve. Researches have studied 66,000+ generations and are directly observing the evolution.

--Dan Edge

That's apparently too scientific for me, so I'll let the comatogrophic scholars or whatever comment ;)
although I do know that tigons and ligers exist, now those are distinct species of cat, and even they can have liligers.

Species less distinct and more in between shouldn't have much of an issue going at it like cats but not dogs, although wolves and certain dogs apparently bred into wolves are called wolf dogs.

No wonder a shiver goes down my spine when I see eels.

The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y).

According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[18]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[19]


A wolfdog (also called a wolf–dog hybrid or wolf hybrid) is a canid hybrid resulting from the hybridization of a domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) to one of four other Canis sub-species, the gray (Canis lupus), eastern timber (Canis lycaon), red (Canis rufus), and Ethiopian wolves (Canis simensis).

[noraina]

Assalamu alaykum,

Just my two pennies here,

We all know that the Prophet Adam :as: was 60 cubits tall, that is around 27 metres subhanAllah. Since that time, our bone structure and stature has changed an enormous amount, we're not even 2 metres tall now. A modern human looks very different from how humans looked at the times of the ancient Prophets such as Adam :as:.

I don't believe in the theory of evolution. The Prophet Adam :as: was the first man, and he was created from clay by Allah swt and then sent to earth. Khalas. There isn't anything more to it. However, it is true that as humans we have changed, or 'adapted' I suppose you could say. And many living organisms have changed and adapted significantly over a period of time. But evolving from one species to another? No.

The fossil record of 'primitive humanoids' is 'incomplete' - or so that's what scientists who are proponents of ToE believe. The theory of evolution has numerous holes in it, and one is that as of yet no fossil as ever been discovered of the 'missing link' between a humanoid-like creature to a contemporary human. There is simply no evidence of these transitional forms that should have come about if one species developed into another, anything found has been relatively well-defined and even if they are somewhat similar, they have still been very much separate. The fossil record itself, cited as the ToE's most reliable evidence, actually goes some way in refuting this theory. They may think it's complete, but maybe that's all there is. Maybe searching for this missing link is just a wold goose chase.

It seems to me that proponents of ToE try to fit the evidence to the theory rather than the other way around. Putting all assumptions side, the fossil records of not just humanoids but other creatures indicate that these life forms came kind of spontaneously, rather than gradually.

And as for an explanation of these humanoid-like creatures themselves, I remember I was once told that it may have been before mankind was on the earth, it was inhabited by these creatures (who weren't human), just as it had been inhabited by dinosaurs a long time ago, and it is there fossils that we find today and assume it signifies a 'connection'. We simply do not know decisively what we inherited the earth from....I don't know if this is supported by Islamic sources but it is something to consider.

And Allah swt knows best.

[ZeeshanParvez]

I will ignore your condescending remarks which show a high level of weakness and a low level of yaqeen - not because I am unable to respond with like, but because I don't want to make it easy for trolls to get beneficial threads shut down simply by starting a b#tching contest whenever the truth of Islam begins to prevail over taqleed of ancestors, and a sifting, divergence, and distinction process begins from the people of the book, and the best way I will be able to avoid such a scenario is by arguing points based on merit.
As to what follows...

...Islam, the religion of Ibraheem :saws: is based on rationality and logic, it is not simply a religion of the forefathers regardless of truth. It is not my deen because it was my father's deen, it is my deen because i accept it as the truth, and i accept it as the truth because i use rationality and logic, so it is not the case that I will now carve and cut truth like an idol to fit in the pockets of my father, I don't worship Islam, i worship Allah :swt: , and that is because I come via logic and rational thinking that Allah is the truth, and that He is supreme over donald trump and all the other scholars that one can ever name.
That is how a person arrives at yaqeen.

The hallmark of a narcissist is he loves himself and uses the word I all the time. Given how many times you use that pronoun and are deluded to think you have a truth which escaped all the classical scholars - despite the fact that you cannot even understand the Primary Texts in the language they were revealed in - makes you fit the description perfectly.

You haven't arrived at any truth. All that has happened is that you have adopted a kufr ideology and the devil has made your deeds seem good to you. I assume you have read the Qur'aan with translation enough to remember those Verses.

And it is not that you don't want to respond, it is that you cannot because the ahl al-Sunnah agrees that evolution is a farce. This Ummah is not united upon error.

A single man can be on error. A select few can.

I guess we know the "truth" you believe - mutations which are bad by nature led to a beautiful creation as we see it - is nothing more than the devil deceiving you and interjecting into the Word of Allaah that which is not true.

Next I will come to the scholars, I will not disrespect them just in order to argue a point since I believe most of them were sincere, but I will throw your own earlier argument back at you when I say that the scholars of the tenth century were not experts in biology or chromatography and didn't have access to the information small children now have, and therefore hadn't the credentials or the authority to deny such a statement just as the scientusts and scholars of banee israeel 3, 000 years ago didn't have the authority to deny that the earth is a globe, although I don't blame them for being defensive of what they mistakenly interpreted Allah :swt: as having implied, I do blame them for what they wrote falsely into the book of Allah with the aim of getting the book of Allah to confirm their misconceptions.
But then, I don't worship scholars either and neither did any of the Prophets.

Well, you are not expert in the Qur'aan or the Sunnah. Hence, for you to claim this farce of a theory has any basis in either of the two or is compatible with them is rejected on the same grounds. You lack the knowledge and are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

But E. coli has been shown to evolve. Researches have studied 66,000+ generations and are directly observing the evolution.

--Dan Edge

You are an agnostic. I never reply to Non-Muslims. However, you have brought up a point which may be used by Muslims to argue their position. So, I will respond to that and not you because as I said what you believe and choose to live with with does not make me lose any sleep.

The Dajjaal will come. He will have the fire in one hand and water in another. He will claim to be the Lord and will show you "proofs" that he is. Then it will be a test for the believers to not look at what is apparent and base their decisions on faith that he is a liar as has been told.

The world is a deception. What appears to be is not always what it is. Given the flawed nature of human "logic" and "rationality" things you see and think to be something are not always trusted.

What is trusted is the Qur'aan and the Sunnah.

There is no evidence of evolution in either. We Muslims do not attribute to Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) mere conjecture.

For all those who have such faith in evolution and the mutations that led to it, how about I give all of you a du'a that you have mutated offspring as we might all be set up for future flash and supermen! :D

[Abz2000]

- - - Updated - - -





Salman Hameed

A high-quality debate of a sensitive topic did not disappoint, as all panellists bar one accepted the scientific consensus

Friday 11 January 2013 09.59 GMT First published on Friday 11 January 2013 09.59 GMT

An imam of an east London mosque, Usama Hasan, received a death threat for arguing in support of human evolution two years ago. On Saturday, London played host to a riveting intrafaith dialogue on Islam's stance on the theory of evolution. The east London imam was one of the speakers – but this time there were others who shared his viewpoint.

The event, organised by the Deen Institute, was titled Have Muslims Misunderstood Evolution? The speakers included an evolutionary biologist, a biological anthropologist, two theologians and a bona fide creationist.

It lasted seven hours, yet almost everyone stayed till the end. There were more than 850 people in the audience and even though the topic was sensitive and controversial, there was no heckling or disruption. At least from my limited interactions, it seemed that the audience was comprised mostly of young professionals. Most had no strong opinion, but their interest was evident as they were willing to spend their entire Saturday hearing about Muslim positions on evolution.

They were not disappointed.

Conversations at events such as these are often derailed by the unscientific rhetoric and common misconceptions of creationists. The success of this event related to the fact that all panellists, with the exception of a creationist, more or less accepted the scientific consensus on evolution. This allowed the discussion to centre on the question: can Muslims reconcile human evolution with their faith?

I think it is important for Muslims (and non-Muslims) to know that there are Muslim scientists who not only understand evolution, but have also thought about its implications for their own personal religious beliefs. Ehab Abouheif is an evolutionary biologist who holds the Canada research chair at McGill University and works on ant evolution. He laid out the scientific case for biological evolution and spoke about the need for Muslims to understand this bedrock principle of modern biology. He used the example of his own personal faith to counter the misconception that one cannot reconcile evolution with Islam.

Fatimah Jackson, an African American convert to Islam, is professor of biological anthropology at the University of North Carolina. Her research focuses on anthropological genetics and human biological and biocultural variability. She knew and taught evolution before her conversion to Islam in the 1970s and has never considered the two to be in conflict. She took the position that science only tells us "how" things happen, and not "why".

Both Abouheif and Jackson are outstanding researchers who accept the mainstream scientific view on evolution. They are excited about their work and unwavering in defence of their faith. They are role models for any budding Muslim scientist.

The London event also featured a theological debate between Usama Hasan and Shaykh Yasir Qadhi. Hasan is a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and is the imam who was threatened two years ago for his support for human evolution. He reiterated his position and argued that there was indeed room in Islamic theology to accommodate human evolution.

Qadhi, on the other hand, accepted all of evolution except where it applies to humans. However, he conceded that the "maximum we can go" from an Islamic theological perspective is to say that God inserted Adam in the natural order. To explain his position, he used the example of dominos. He asserted that Adam was the last domino placed directly by God. From his perspective, believers would see this last domino as a miracle of God, whereas non-believers would see a causal connection from all the other dominos. This way, the miracle of Adam is preserved theologically.

The high quality of scientific and theological discussion exposed the shallowness of Islamic creationists, such as Harun Yahya. One of his acolytes, Oktar Babuna, presented his arguments from Istanbul, via the internet. He kept on pointing to fossils as evidence that species have never changed in history. He also discounted any historical changes in the DNA. Babuna's arguments were countered earlier on by both Abouheif and Jackson. But he unintentionally served as a comic relief, when the audience realised that after several hours of discussion, almost all of his responses included the mention of "fossils", irrespective of the topic of discussion.

Babuna aside, this was a serious debate on an important topic. The rejection of evolution in the face of scientific consensus stands as a Galileo moment for Islam. However, the tone of the debate and the quality of intellectual exchange at the London event is encouraging and it shows modern Muslims have the maturity to address a perceived challenge from a scientific idea.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...olution-debate

- - - Updated - - -

I hope the mods discipline the uncivilized imbecile on this thread before I am forced to respond.

[STN]

@STN please try to avoid mockery and ridicule with the attempted aim of "trump"-ing the argument and provoking egotistic debate unless doing so in response to someone who is practicing such an intellectually bankrupt tactic. Critical readers see through it. It is more constructive and respectable if you state your own honest opinions in line with logic and rationality, this continues the thought process and it is less likely that a person will identify you as a troll bent upon crashing and dispersing a sound intellectual discussion, and will either accept, or reject your opinions based on merit.
Most old timers here know that I too am able to descend into the depths in order to wrestle trolls where necessary and it can get ugly sometimes (though it's almost always entertaining :) )

My post was in response to the two videos you posted about a "radical" muslim being owned by a british man(atheist) who was calling Islam bad names out of ignorance fed by the media and anti-Islamic sites. Why would i go on a rage about members here who have been nothing but normal in this thread and i also don't see any trolls here so not sure who you're referring to.
As far as Donald Trump is concerned, you can google and find what i used as a rather bad example is actually true.

But E. coli has been shown to evolve. Researches have studied 66,000+ generations and are directly observing the evolution.

--Dan Edge

66,000+ generations? Dan, you can see "evolution" or more accurately mutations in two to three generations and sexual conjugation in very few generations (i don't have an exact figure) when "interesting" genes are present and a viable F- (recipient) bacterium is available for horizontal gene transfer to confer advantage to a population. When conditions are harsh and the bacteria are met with a challenge, they mutate...they mutate like their life depends on it and this is the reason antibiotic resistance exists.

This isn't something new or unknown? What's your point. I said evolve to another species, not a sub-species...a new species, a different species. I told you the evolutionists aren't saying monkeys evolved to sub-species...no they're saying they made the jump to a human...a monkey like human but a human nonetheless.

The experiment is also isolated and not in a natural environment. There is no competition from other micro and macro-organisms, there is no natural famine/deprivation of resources. The conditions are ideal for mutation but bacteria aren't that lucky, they go into hardened spore form naturally and become dormant. There are so many factors they're ignoring which will make evolution to another species if it ever happened unable to survive the harsh competition and environment.

But 66,000+ generations and no sub-species, the amount of mutations bacteria go through safely in that much generations...humans can't and do NOT because we get cancer or tumors and disgusting genetic disorders. We can't evolve to confer resistance against Malaria which has been a genetic burden on us for centuries.

I'll repeat it again - mutation and evolution to a new species are different things. But i'll suppose for sake of argument that bacteria can evolve to another species but no way that a multi-cellular complex organism can evolve to another species without any disastrous effects. Do you know how cancer happens?

@Abz2000

Hybrid animals isn't evolution and look at the fate of hybrid animals. Sterility. Look at mules...the best known hybrid animal. You know why this happens ? Chromosomes and their pairing.

but what is your point? Humans are hybrid of monkeys and what ?

- - - Updated - - -

@Abz2000

@ZeeshanParvez Come on brothers, Shaytaan must be happy seeing you two fight.

I know i get in rage mode but you guys are taking this too far. Go and ask Allah for forgiveness and remove this bitterness.

You both seem intelligent, smart people so what the hell! =) Let's go back to discussing and arguing our points without calling each other names. And to think i was rude in my first post

[Aisha]

Thread under review.