Jump to content

Imamology

  • entries
    28
  • comments
    353
  • views
    7,227

Devolution

Qa'im

573 views

devolution__steve_greenberg.jpeg

This is part three in my series on postmodernism. For part two, click here, and you will also find the link to part one there.

Many Muslims begin doubting their religion after surveying the evidence for evolution. Prior to Darwinian evolution, the Muslim civilization was usually not keen on hindering scientific progress, and in fact did what it could to propel it. With modern evolutionary biology however, there appears (at least on the surface) to be a clash between science and scripture. What are the forces at play here? What variables must we consider when dealing with this problem?

The common stem from which these doubts sprout is an epistemology grounded in naturalism. The scientific method obviously has a place in truth-seeking: it draws its conclusions from sensory observation, and gives us indubitable truths about the universe in which we live. I would never abandon the scientific method as a tool in the quest to understand reality, but it is a tool after all. Science is always at the drawing board, revising old research, devising new methods, and challenging old conclusions. The basis of science is reason, which is why an experiment begins with a hypothesis (an educated guess of what we logically expect to take place) and a null hypothesis (what we expect will not take place). This presupposes cause and effect, and the law of noncontradiction; the idea that our universe operates in an orderly way, and that events do not happen at random. In the same way that logic is the foundation of science, it is also the foundation of our kalaami arguments for the existence of God.

The scientific method as a tool will not be able to answer every question on ethics, anthropology, cosmology, purpose, metaphysics, consciousness/life/being, and epistemology - and although these areas are more uncertain and immaterial than the hard sciences, they are ultimately what we live for. So when I see New Atheists dismiss philosophy, or religion, I find it to be quite naive, because philosophy is the incorporeal foundation of science, and religion is the incorporeal foundation of society; with science being a tool with its own scope. New Atheism merely grew out of the carcass of occidental Christianity, and its logical conclusion is postmodernism, which is nihilistic, hedonistic, confused, and suicidal.

So with that in mind, when science, which is sensory observation with inconclusive fluidity, becomes the criterion by which convention is confirmed or denied, there will naturally be clashes. Sometimes, those clashes exist only in the mind, because they are a clash between an interpretation of convention and a perceived reality. Other times, the clash can be based on flawed or incomplete scientific research. I'm not someone who denies evolution, as I think the position of denial becomes more discredited every year. But there are gigantic discoveries that occur periodically, discoveries that challenge previously-held beliefs in evolution and clash with existing hypotheses, discoveries that may have their own flaws that are exposed in the next discovery. This is partly why I find it difficult to answer questions on evolution - it is like the big bang: some are quick to find references to the big bang in the Quran and hadith, but if the big bang theory were ever superseded by science (and alternative hypotheses do exist), then that would throw those interpretations out as well. What I've realized after my third university degree is that these educational institutions have their own faith-based biases, assumptions, and ideologies, which guide their research - this is far more pronounced in the social sciences of course, but isn't limited to them.

Ultimately, we won't achieve 100% scientific certainty in either the present evolutionary conclusions nor in the Adamic story. This then poses a question: is there any conventional value to the Adamic story? Whether or not it physically took place (and I believe that it did, in some way or another), it is an origin story that resonated with billions of people worldwide for thousands of years, with profound psychological truths and practical sociological lessons. Of course, the Islamic version is a bit more in line with naturalistic thinking - with the nasnaas, the thousands of Adams, the earthly setting of the story, the earthly origins of mankind, no mention of timeline/genealogy, and no "original sin" - but one has to go deeper into the story. The Quran avoids historicizing events, and so it lacks many dates, names, and places, and instead, encourages us to reflect on the lessons taught in each story. On one side, the story talks about humanity's vicegerency of God on Earth, humanity's ability to comprehend the aql (Logos), and humanity's eloquent mastery of language; on the other side, it talks about humanity's naivety, humanity's base desires, and humanity's sorrow after its fall. The story highlights the dualistic nature of man: that we are both celestial in one sense and earthly in another sense; spiritual and physical, supernatural and natural, "human" and animal. It is a story about the great natural telos of man, followed by his tragic fall, followed by his humble ascent. On another level, it talks of humanity's common, meek, and worldly origin, so as to avoid tribalism, racism, and chauvinism.

According to the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt, Adam lived in this very same world that you and I share. His "garden" was the state of his faith; he was living in the higher consciousness of the mind and the heart. Eventually, he "fell" into the lower, base desires of man (the stomach and genitals/nakedness), which made him shameful and regretful, because God created man for spiritual ascension and not decline. That regret brought him back to God in a corrective effort. This same story is reflected in mankind both on a microcosmic and macrocosmic level. We all have our own individual falls, where we immaturely decline into heedlessness. But on a civilizational level, we continue to fall vertically, from holistic celestial worldviews to our base desires. Philosophically, we have fallen from religious philosophy (philosophy of the spiritual hierarchy), to rational philosophy, to naturalist philosophy, to contemporary relativism (philosophy of the base human self). The problem with the evolutionary worldview is that it views mankind simply as bonafide tool-making animals. Evolution replaced the perennial notion of man’s fall with a theory of material progress. It gives us the guise of progress. But the reality is that we are falling from the divine to the mundane. The Christian world went from the leadership of prophets, to apostles, to false apostles, to pseudo divine kings, to secular materialist rulers, to the current White House spectacle. They went from traditional Christianity, to Protestantism, to capitalism and socialism, to modern base identities (vegetarians / what one eats, gays / who one has sex with, race / what colour we are born as). Islam went through a similar fall, from prophethood, to imamate and false caliphate, to colonialism, to militant secular states, to chaos. While this time is certainly noted for the rise of its science and technology, I see mankind falling into dogmatism, nihilism, social decadence, frivolity, vanity, impatience, and depression. Jahiliyya was a Fall to the bottom, where from which the Prophet stood his people back up. The hadiths describe the degeneracy of the End Times, but the night is darkest just before the dawn, and as soon as even the dimmest of light appears on the horizon, the very nature of people will pull them towards it - the Mahdi.

In this sense, conventional truths, which is the sifted and sieved amalgamation of human thought and experience, has a meta-historical archetypal nature that is often more authentic than sensory truths. It would be foolish to disregard either one, because one deals with how, and the other deals with why. With a purely evolutionary worldview, man is a toolmaking animal, and our progress as a species is measured in the linear paradigm of scientific and technological advancement. But this says little about our quality of life, purpose of life, why we live, how we should live, where we come from, what it means to be human, the power of thought and conscious experience, and whether we really are "better" or more developed than our ancestors. It gives the illusion of upward ascent, but I see a downward regress during what should be humanity's most enlightened time, and that regress comes from our killing of our father - tradition, convention, religion, and ritual.

The Fall gives meaning to human anxiety, depression, and alienation; and a promise of an ascent through effort, hope, promise, responsibility, and a return to being, vicegerency, sainthood.

"And from the evil of darkness when it overspreads" (113:3)



9 Comments


Recommended Comments

Nice essay brother. I would add that science is limited not only in scope (i.e. it cannot discuss issues of morality, etc that you mentioned) but also depth. We don't know how deep into the "material world" it can penetrate, or what that even means as our definition of the material world keeps changing. It is also cannot into penetrate into the realm of the ghayb, whereas human consciousness, if Allah Wills, can do so to varying degrees. It is for this reason that the saints can see or hear things others cannot, but science cannot grasp such things.

Share this comment


Link to comment

A man asked Imam Ja`far [a] about the Paradise of Adam.    The Imam said, "It was a garden from the gardens of this world. The sun and the moon would rise over it. If it were from the Gardens of Eternity, he would have never left it."    حدثنا محمد بن الحسن رحمه الله قال: حدثنا محمد بن الحسن الصفار عن ابراهيم بن هاشم عن عثمان عن الحسن بن بشار عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: سألته عن جنة آدم فقال: جنة من جنات الدنيا تطلع عليه فيها الشمس والقمر ولو كانت من جنات الخلد ما خرج منها أبدا.    (`Ilal ash-Shara'i`)

Share this comment


Link to comment

I know this isn't 100% related but I thought it would be interesting to mention. Some Biblical scholars believe that when Adam and Eve (I say Eve and not Hawwa because the story in the Bible, Eden/Paradise is on Earth but in Islam Adam and Hawwa lived in Jannah and were kicked out of it to Earth) were kicked out of the Garden is a allegory for when humans stopped being hunter-gatherers and began planting food. It's actually a pretty cool theory.

I know there are many Muslims who say that (macro) evolution is alluted to in the Quran. My older brother gave me a quick summary of the theory but not a lot of detail. I personally believe that micro evolution makes sense with the story of Adam.

And by the way, your article is written very well and is impressive. Good job!

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 10/5/2017 at 11:59 PM, Qa'im said:

A man asked Imam Ja`far [a] about the Paradise of Adam.    The Imam said, "It was a garden from the gardens of this world. The sun and the moon would rise over it. If it were from the Gardens of Eternity, he would have never left it."    حدثنا محمد بن الحسن رحمه الله قال: حدثنا محمد بن الحسن الصفار عن ابراهيم بن هاشم عن عثمان عن الحسن بن بشار عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: سألته عن جنة آدم فقال: جنة من جنات الدنيا تطلع عليه فيها الشمس والقمر ولو كانت من جنات الخلد ما خرج منها أبدا.    (`Ilal ash-Shara'i`)

I'm confused, I was always taught that Adam was kicked out of Heaven to Earth, I thought only Jews and Christians say Eden was on Earth. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 11:25 AM, A Muslim Artist said:

I know there are many Muslims who say that (macro) evolution is alluted to in the Quran.

Ayats 35:1 & 59:24

Both Quran and l3ibIe (not just in Genesis) have "kun fayakun". So in both cases we have "the How" but not "the When".

That writ, the "evolution and belief" problem lies not necessarily with Hezshaytan, but in understanding the preceding decades before the Theory of Evolution and "natural selection"(environmental processing) developed.

Beginning in the 18th Century zoological and botanical information began to be gathered and published at an accelerated rate. Researchers such a Buffon organizing biology with the fossil record, A. von Humboldt organizing biology geographically and J. von Goethe coining the word 'morphology' created more hypotheses, interest and questions. Entering the 19th Century, one question that emerged was postulated as: Man varies animals into different breeds such as dogs, cattle, horses and chickens so is there a natural mechanism that explains variations in wild animals and plants. Darwin followed by Wallace answered that question. A more complete and slightIy varied 'answers' began in the 1980s with rapid and increasingly inexpensive applications of genetic information.

Share this comment


Link to comment
On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎11 at 11:26 AM, A Muslim Artist said:

I'm confused, I was always taught that Adam was kicked out of Heaven to Earth, I thought only Jews and Christians say Eden was on Earth. 

A few reasons why the garden of Adam was not the same as the Jannah of the Hereafter:

1. Once you enter Jannah, you cannot leave, but Adam left.

2. There is no lying in Jannah (Surat Naba'), but Iblees lied about the tree.

3. There is nothing haram in Jannah, but Allah forbade the fruit of that tree.

4. There are no sins or mistakes in Jannah, but Adam disobeyed Allah.

So it's not the same Jannah. Adam's fall does not have to be a physical fall from a high place to the earth, because Jannah is not in the clouds or in space. Rather it was a spiritual fall, and Allah knows best.

Share this comment


Link to comment
11 hours ago, Qa'im said:

A few reasons why the garden of Adam was not the same as the Jannah of the Hereafter:

1. Once you enter Jannah, you cannot leave, but Adam left.

2. There is no lying in Jannah (Surat Naba'), but Iblees lied about the tree.

3. There is nothing haram in Jannah, but Allah forbade the fruit of that tree.

4. There are no sins or mistakes in Jannah, but Adam disobeyed Allah.

So it's not the same Jannah. Adam's fall does not have to be a physical fall from a high place to the earth, because Jannah is not in the clouds or in space. Rather it was a spiritual fall, and Allah knows best.

What you say makes sense, the only thing I can kinda disagree with is point 3. Technically the fruit from the tree was not haram, Allah just told Adam not to eat from it, but other than that I %100 get what you mean.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Blog Statistics

    • Total Blogs
      61
    • Total Entries
      233
  • Latest Blog Entries

  • Latest Blog Comments

    • Ma sha Allah, i cannot read urdu, but i have converted it by translator.
    • Beating oneself in grieve is from shaitan?
    • Another interesting blog entry. I learn so much from you, Sister. Alhamdulillah for all your help. 
    • Peace be upon you O Uthman, the namesake of Uthman the son of Amirul Mumineen [Ali].
    • Wa Alaykum Salam.  What you have quoted from Tafsir al-Safi goes back to Tafsir al-Askari [a Tafsir which claims to originate from the Eleventh Imam]. This is the translation: قال رجل للصادق عليه السلام فإذا كان هؤلاء العوام من اليهود لا يعرفون الكتاب الا بما يسمعونه من علمائهم لا سبيل لهم إلى غيره فكيف ذمّهم بتقليدهم و القبول من علمائهم و هل عوام اليهود الا كعوامنا يقلّدون علمائهم فان لم يجز لأولئك القبول من علمائهم لم يجز لهؤلاء القبول من علمائهم فقال عليه السلام بين عوامنا و علمائنا و بين عوام اليهود و علمائهم فرق من جهة و تسوية من جهة أما من حيث استووا فان اللَّه قد ذمّ عوامنا بتقليدهم علماءهم كما قد ذمّ عوامهم و أمّا من حيث افترقوا فلا، A man said to al-Sadiq عليه السلام: If the common people among the Jews did not have any other way to obtain knowledge of the Book except through what they heard from their scholars - then why did He blame them for their following of the scholars and acceptance from them? Further, is it not the case that the common people among the Jews are like our common people for they [our common people] too follow their scholars, so if it is not permitted for them [the Jews] to accept from their scholars then is it not also impermissible for these [our common people] to accept what their scholars say? He عليه السلام said: Between our common people and our scholars and the laity among the Jews and their scholars there is a difference in one aspect and similarity in another aspect. As far as the similar aspect is concerned then just as Allah censured our common people for the blind following of their scholars He did the same in censuring their common people, but as for the divergent aspect then No [he did not censure it].   قال بيّن لي ذلك يا بن رسول اللَّه قال إنّ عوام اليهود كانوا قد عرفوا علمائهم بالكذب الصريح و بأكل الحرام و الرّشا و بتغيير الأحكام عن واجبها بالشفاعات و العنايات و المصانعات و عرفوهم بالتعصب الشديد الذي يفارقون به أديانهم و إنهم إذا تعصبوا أزالوا حقوق من تعصبوا عليه و اعطوا ما لا يستحقه من تعصبوا له من اموال غيرهم و ظلموهم من أجلهم و عرفوهم يقارفون المحرّمات و اضطروا بمعارف قلوبهم إلى أن من فعل ما يفعلونه فهو فاسق لا يجوز ان يصدق على اللَّه و لا على الوسائط بين الخلق و بين اللَّه فلذلك ذمّهم لما قلّدوا من قد عرفوا و من قد علموا أنّه لا يجوز قبول خبره و لا تصديقه في حكايته و لا العمل بما يؤديه إليهم The Narrator said: Explain it for me O the son of the messenger of Allah. He عليه السلام said: the common people among the Jews knew that their scholars used to lie outright, eat the forbidden wealth, were corrupt, changed the laws from what they should be based on intercession, favours and bribes. They also knew that their scholars were excessively partisan, that they used to split up their religion because of this rivalry and used to trample the rights of those they were against and give those they are partial towards what they do not deserve of the wealth of others, they used to oppress them [the enemies of their allies] to please their biases. They knew them to perpetrate the forbidden. They [the common people] knew it in their hearts [had intrinsic knowledge] that the one who does what they used to do is a Fasiq, and it is not acceptable to consider them truthful in what they attribute to Allah or to the intermediaries between the creation and Allah. That is why He censured them when they followed those they knew for a fact it was forbidden to accept their reports or consider them truthful in what they say, or to act based on what they instruct.   وكذلك عوام امتنا إذا عرفوا من فقهائهم الفسق الظاهر ، والعصبية الشديدة والتكالب على حطام الدنيا وحرامها ، وإهلاك من يتعصبون عليه إن كان لاصلاح أمره مستحقا ، وبالترفق بالبر والاحسان على من تعصبوا له ، وإن كان للاذلال والاهانة مستحقا فمن قلّد من عوامنا مثل هؤلاء الفقهاء، فهم مثل اليهود الذين ذمّهم الله تعالى بالتقليد لفسقة فقهائهم Likewise, the laity of our community, if they recognize signs of clear-cut Fisq from their scholars, extreme partisanship, their turning towards amassing the wealth of this world and its prohibited items, destroying the affair of the one they are biased against even though extending assistance to him is what is appropriate,  showing compassion, good-will and charity to the one they are biased towards even thought humiliating and chastising them is the appropriate response - then the one among our common people who follows such Fuqaha are like the Jews and those who are censured by Allah the Elevated because of their following of corrupt scholars. فأما من كان من الفقهاء صائناً لنفسه، حافظاً لدينه، مخالفاً لهواه، مطيعاً لأمر مولاه، فللعوام أن يقلدوه. وذلك لا يكون إلاّ بعض فقهاء الشيعة، لا جميعهم فان من يركب من القبائح و الفواحش مراكب فسقة فقهاء العامّة فلا تقبلوا منهم عنا شيئاً و لا كرامة لهم. As for the one among the Fuqaha who protects his soul, preserves his religion, opposes his caprice [desires], and obeys the command of his Master then it is upon the laity to follow him. There are only some of the Fuqaha of the Shia who are like this, not all. As for those who perpetrate the despicable and abominable acts the way the `Amma [proto-Sunni] scholars do then do not not accept from them about us anything and they are not to be honoured.
    • The following link will take you to part 2 - http://www.shiachat.com/forum/blogs/entry/315-the-impact-of-cognitive-distortions/
×