Is human evolution compatible with the quran?

[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.