Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Evolution, Adam & Eve

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That is when the Quran and ahadith were revealed. That was the primary audience. A possible answer to this was already discussed above. We are born to fully human beings (body and fully human soul).

  • Advanced Member

The Qur'an is clear in stating that Prophet Adam (as) (therefore mankind) was made directly from dirt.

In regards to Eve, we see in the Qur'an she too was created from the same nature as Nabi Adam (as)

The way I reconcile religion and evolution is:

-It's conceivable that our common ancestor with the primates may also have been made from dirt.

-A distinction can be drawn between the soul and the body. We may, through our bodies, have a common ancestor with primates, but our souls may be a different story. I kind of imagine evolution to be like this: bodies underwent evolution through Allah's guidance, and then, when evolution arrived at the human body, Allah implanted souls, giving us Adam and Eve.

Edited by BabyBeaverIsAKit
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Bismillah,

We don't have to reconcile that humans came from primates. That is just a theory, with nothing making it a conclusive fact or even close to fact.

The Qur'an makes it clear the body of Adam (as) was made directly from dirt and molded, and then Eve was created from the same nature.

Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi (who runs the Imam Khomeini Institution, which is meant to teach the Ulema sciences that aren't covered in the hawza in order to challenge claims such as evolution) also makes this point, that the Qur'an conclusively states that Adam (as) was made directly from dirt and this isn't referring to his soul of course since that was given to him after his body was created. The mufassireen also state that he was a unique creation.

We don't have to reconcile with Evolution, we don't say none of it can be correct, but humans coming from primates seems to be against the teachings of Islam.

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Bismillah,

We don't have to reconcile that humans came from primates. That is just a theory, with nothing making it a conclusive fact or even close to fact.

The Qur'an makes it clear the body of Adam (as) was made directly from dirt and molded, and then Eve was created from the same nature.

Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi (who runs the Imam Khomeini Institution, which is meant to teach the Ulema sciences that aren't covered in the hawza in order to challenge claims such as evolution) also makes this point, that the Qur'an conclusively states that Adam (as) was made directly from dirt and this isn't referring to his soul of course since that was given to him after his body was created. The mufassireen also state that he was a unique creation.

We don't have to reconcile with Evolution, we don't say none of it can be correct, but humans coming from primates seems to be against the teachings of Islam.

You're right that evolution is just a theory, but there is so much evidence that suggests it strongly. Otherwise, how do you explain all the scientific findings? We do need to reconcile evolution and the existence of God, because we know that God controls everything, including science and evolution, so whatever fossil forms that we find mean something-- God put them there for a reason. We know that God created the laws of science.

Yes, the Quran states one thing, but we have to think, how would science fit in with all of this? There has to be a way, because God set down the rules of science. What people don't seem to understand is that God could have set up evolution, and then at the appropriate time point, sent in Adam and Eve. Allah makes each of us from dirt, but he sends each of us at the appropriate time points-- and by doing so, Allah does not contradict the laws of science of fetal development and birth. His work in creating us is very much congruent with fetal development. Could he not have done the same thing with Adam and Eve?

What are primates and other animals created from, if not dirt?

What kind of credentials/background in the sciences does Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Wasn't there a hadith that says Allah (swt) made Adams and Eves 2 million years ago? And the Quran hints that human-like creatures lived on Earth before he created humans:

Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." [2:30]

Edited by Jay
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The theory of evolution tells us that every single thing started from one cell.

Just wanted to correct the above statement by saying that evolution does not assert this nor any scientist can conclusively say that everything started from exactly one cell. There are many hypothesis on the actual start of life but researchers are not sure exactly how life came about (i.e the exact mechanism). Evolution simply states that a species must change in order to survive the in their environment (i.e a change in alleles must occur for a population to survive). No Biologist will say that humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) are descended from chimpanzees but rather they both have a common ancestor (which was a different species that had some mutations that are common in both humans and chimps) and this common ancestor is supposed to live approx 9 million years ago (though I'm not sure that they have actually found the fossil).

Now what is the purpose of telling the creation of Adam and Eve and at the same time telling us that we came via an egg and sperm is something that I can only speculate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(salam)

Do you always find these links using the search feature or do you have them all saved? Just wondering, cuz lol you always seem to have a link whenever someone asks a question.

If I have interest in something, I usually remember the discussion. All I need to do is re-call these topics by remembering some keywords and sometimes the original poster. It is easier to search if you remember something about the topics.

Sometimes, I stumble across topics accidentally when I am searching something.

And I remember my posts. ☺ All I am doing is making a search on my own posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Nonsense - The quran also says Jesus as was made out of dust. You and I likewise. Which one of you here was made out of dust?

Evolution to me is as controversial as mother giving birth, a natural process that is ultimately governed by the laws that God has placed in this universe.

Edited by Fink
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

No one who knows anything about the subject has any doubt about the essential idea that man in his physical form evolved from lower life forms. Evidence is overwhelming.

Muslims who don't want to blindly shut themselves off from empirical reality are basically forced to interpret the relevant Quran verses in the light of this reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

By the way , sura 3:59 is thrown around a lot by those who oppose evolution. I ask some serious questions:

What does this verse have to do with adam being created in heaven?

What is the similiarity between adam and jesus ?

Assuming jesus had a mother , does that mean adam had one too?

Is this verse correct? Jesus is made out of dust?

The dust part is where most get confused , the way I understand it the quran supports evolution.

Note the usage of kun fa yakoon in 3:59 , this is a BIG for evolution in my perspective. Jesus was born into this world thru a process, from his mothers womb. Kun fa yakoon here has no time limit , the same applies to adam.

Edited by Fink
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

At this point, it is as much a "fact" as any number of other inferred "facts" that we take for granted as part of our understood reality. The simple matter of it is that the evidence in favor for the basic outline of the concept is so plentiful, and mutually reinforcing from so many different disciplinary directions (paleontology, archaeology, genetics, nuclear physics, geology, complex systems science, computer simulations, statistics, population biology, ecology, etc) that it becomes in effect, to use the Islamic terminology, a mutawatir report.

For one to doubt the basic details of evolution in an intellectually consistent methodological fashion, one would be obliged to doubt almost everything that we take as reality. For example, (blind faith aside) the theory of evolution is at least as certain (and arguably more certain), from a purely empirical evidentiary perspective, as the notion that the Qu'ran was revealed in the 7th century in Arabia to a man named Muhammad and has been transmitted down to us today without error or distortion.

In short, there is a difference in science between a fact and a theory, but the more evidence we have, the smaller that difference becomes. At a certain point, you reach a level of certainty that further doubt becomes stubborn and pedantic.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Wasn't there a hadith that says Allah (swt) made Adams and Eves 2 million years ago? And the Quran hints that human-like creatures lived on Earth before he created humans:

Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." [2:30]

Wa Salaam

There is such a hadith, from Imam Jafar As-Sadiq (as):

"Perhaps you think God has not created a humanity other than you. No! I swear to God that He has created thousands upon thousands of mankinds and you are the last among them."

"Like this world there are 70,000 other planets with each of their peoples believing they are alone in the universe."

"I cannot say that there are human beings in other worlds, but I can say that there are living beings, whom we cannot see because of the great distance between us."

-Bihar al Anwar, vol 14, p 79

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^I was referring to this:

Once a Jewish Rabbi from Khyber came to the Holy Prophet and asked him about Earth before Adam and Eve.

He asked "Who was on Earth before Adam and Eve"

Holy Prophet said "Before Adam and Eve, Earth was populated by Races of Jinn for 6000 years"

Then the Rabbi asked him again "Who was on Earth before Jinn?"

Holy Prophet(pbuh.gif&hf) said "Before Jinn, Earth was populated by Angels(malaika) for 7000 years"

The Rabbi asked again” Who was on Earth before Angels(malaika)?"

The Holy Prophet(pbuh.gif&hf) said "Before angels, Earth was populated by Adams and Eves for 2 million years"

Edited by Jay
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I don't think anyone is denying all aspects of evolution. However, the specific discussion is in regards to Adam and Eve's creation.

It's all the same. The evidence that the human form evolved from other life forms is overwhelming.

If Adam and Eve were the first "humans" then their bodies were shaped or molded by the process of evolution.

Again, the question remains unanswered as to why the description of the creation and the sending of Adam to Earth is starkly different than the description for our creation process and our entrance to Earth. If Adam originated from another being similar to how we do, why is the opposite mentioned in the Qur'an?

You only read it as opposite because you choose to interpret it that way. If you don't make this conscious decision to interpret it such, the problem disappears completely.

The most likely explanation of the key difference between our creation and that of these first two is that while we are created from the pairing of two fully human creatures with human body and human soul, Adam and Eve were born to parents that, while biologically homo sapiens, were not fully ensouled and awakened as humans were after that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Whether the early texts addressed to a pre-scientific, 7th-9th century audience are detailed on these points is immaterial.

The evidence based science tells us conclusively that the human body came about by evolution. Slam dunk.

Don't try to weasle on this quasi-literate distinction between "theory" and "fact." Especially not after I already laid it out earlier. Theory in science is not a random idea that someone pulled out of the air. It is a hypothesis well-supported by evidence to the point that it becomes accepted. Human evolution is a theory whose evidential support is such that it moves into the collumn of those theories we accept, for all intents and purposes, as facts, along with the existence of atoms and the theories of relativity.

If the stories of Adam and Eve are to be taken as semi-literal stories about actual individual first "true complete humans" (rather than some sort of poetic archetypes as some might suggest), then we have no choice but to conclude that their bodies appeared as a result of this process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Are you being serious here? The Qur'an first off isn't meant only for the 7th and 9th century.

That is when the Quran and ahadith were revealed. That was the primary audience.

So the question still remains, why are the facts surrounding Adam 's birth in the Qur'an completely different to the facts presented in the Qur'an in regards to the birth of the later humans?

A possible answer to this was already discussed above.

We are born to fully human beings (body and fully human soul).

Adam and Eve were born to hominids that though human in material form, lacked the fully human soul that was first breathed into Adam.

Really? Can you show me this evidence that is conclusive?

This is not the time or place to recount this evidence. There are any number of university courses and books out there that will explain it in much more depth and competence than I can muster. I refer you to this body of knowledge.

Many feel the same way about the string-theory, and theories surrounding quantum mechanics which indicate there is no God. Are you also ready to accept this?

There are no theories of QM that say anything, plus or minus, about God.

There is no comparison between any string theory and evolution in terms of degree of evidentiary support.

General and special relativity are much better analogies.

Again I ask you, if science evolves and new discoveries are made that indicate humans didn't come from subhuman life forms, what are you going to do? You are just going to flip flop your aqeeda with science? This becomes a joke.

Practically, this is not a possibility. The precise details of the evolutionary process will be unearthed, and the hypotheses of today about the more minor points will shift accordingly. Researchers of evolutionary theory will readily admit what parts of the theory are solidly established, and which are still awaiting further research. These minor points are not essential to the question of reconciling religious and scientific accounts of human origins. What is important are the major thrusts of the theory, and these are solid and stable, with increasing solidity and stability as time goes by.

We do not bounce our beliefs about as the wind blows, but we need to make a sincere effort to maintain a coherent, consistent worldview based on the best information available. If you have solid information about the characteristics of reality, you need to take this into account when understanding your religion. If you don't, you result in either an incoherent mental structure in which you believe in mutually contradictory things depending on the situation, or you give up one or the other.

Our ability to understand reality through scientific study is God given and God encouraged. we pride ourselves, in opposition to Christians, that our faith is pro-science.

If decades of careful research shows us that man's physical form came from evolution, then so be it. We need to take this as part of our background understanding of reality we bring to the reading, just like the theory of gravity, electromagnetics, etc.

Otherwise, to be consistent, we either need to abandon all scientific knowledge, or conclude that the Quranic account of Adam and Eve is just a fairy tale.

Those who wish to abandon neither scientific knowledge or the Quran are forced to something like my point of view.

As a principle we always act on yaqeen, and no scientists can truly say they have yaqeen that humans came from subhuman forms, so how are you doing this?

False.

For all meaningful intents and purposes, scientists will unanimously (aside from the occasional crank) state their certainty in this concept. It's that well established. An ivory tower philosopher of science academic who has never done any real science might lose sleep over this theoretical .00000001% possibility, but in the real world, this is not how we go about our lives on virtually any other subject. A reasonable and benevolent God does not expect us to suspend judgment in the face of 99.9999999% certainty, because there are few things in life 100% certain and we need to get on with our lives.

What are you trying to imply here exactly? Who are these "some" that suggest Adam and Eve didn't literally exist?

I'm not implying anything. It's an aside, an observation. There are people out there who read these verses in such a fashion. It's one of the ways modern readers have suggested for reconciling religious texts and evolutionary science. It's not my preference, but it's out there. Look it up.

Since we don't agree on the Islamic perspective of basic things such as the definite literal existence of Adam and Eve, this specific discussion will not go anywhere and it is better we both don't waste each others time.

Who said we don't agree on the literal existence of Adam? You are leaping to conclusions. Stick to what is actually said without inserting your own assumptions.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Do you have by any chance a reference for the hadith? The thread you linked to doesn't really provide one. I would like to take it to some scholars and get their opinion on the authenticity of it and the meaning, with that we can further evaluate its impact on the Islamic idea of evolution.

Sorry bro, it was copy+paste from different thread. Ask Sis. Zareen, since she posted it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
If that is your reasoning as to why certain scientific facts in regards to the creation of Adam were not only omitted but told in a completely different way, what are your reasons for in the inclusions of other intricate scientific facts?

I'm not convinced that the Quran brought any "intricate scientific facts" beyond what was already known in the day. I've become rather disillusioned with the "Quranic science" writings. It's all rather speculative.

That isn't a possible reason. The birthing process itself completely different. Why is that so? Surely the Arabs of that time would be able to understand the birthing process of Adam if it was similar to their birthing process.

Are you joking? A sizeable proportion of the people today, with access to no shortage of modern scientific information on the internet, has brain meltdowns when presented with the idea of man coming from animal. This would have been beyond comprehension in the time of the Quran.

Do you believe that Isa was fatherless? If so, where does this fit into evolution and science? If not, why don't you believe this? I would like an answer to this.

I think it's rather immaterial, but I have no objection to the traditional view of Jesus' conception.

I am sorry but there is NOTHING conclusive that says this. No matter how many times you want to slam dunk, there isn't conclusive evidence that humans came from subhuman life.

And he is a crank because he disagrees? Why is there always some undertone of superiority in your posts?

Your willing ignorance of the science does not magically make it disappear. One perspective has the weight of evidence behind it, the other does not. They are not equal.

Well that isn't true at all. We actually many a times cannot act on something until we reach the point of yaqeen.

99.9999% IS yaqeen in this life. You would be hard pressed to name more than a handful of things you know 100%.

Again, if you don't believe in something, it holds no value in this conversation because there is no one to reply to questions and arguments for/against that specific belief.

Lets stick to what we believe, not random facts about other peoples' beliefs.

1. No one made you god here.

2. It was a relevant aside, in that given what we know about evolution and man's origins, we are forced to one of two conclusions:

1. The Quranic account speaks of an actual historical figure Adam, with some details figurative, and referencing evolution in figurative terms

2. The Quranic account is a parable of archetypal truths of the human soul in its struggles with sin, temptation, failing, and redemption through atonement.

The second needs tangential mention for completeness.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Sorry bro, it was copy+paste from different thread. Ask Sis. Zareen, since she posted it.

I don’t have the exact source for it unfortunately. The hadith is from a Shia book. I was reading it and found it interesting, so I typed it out for folks on ShiaChat. Back in the old days (circa 2002, 2003), there wasn’t a strict requirement to post the author’s or book name and the pages/chapter. Sadly, I don’t even remember which book I got the hadith from. I understand how frustrating this can be for you guys because it is also frustrating for me.

I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the hadeth because like I said, I’d probably didn’t put much effort in looking at the narrators. However, let me stress again that I am not a fabricator.

The amazing thing I found from the hadith is the explanation of why we can only trace the history of man (like us from Adam in the Quran) as far back as 10000 years while other human beings (Neanderthal Man and others) have populated the earth for about 3 millions years, and this is based on the recent findings of the skeletons and remains of human ancestors that used to populate earth a long, long time ago.

Just one more thing that you guys should know. They are some scientists who are doing a genetic study/research about interbreeding between our modern human (homo sapiens) with Neanderthal man/woman. I am not sure how far the research has progress or if the result is promising. One thing to keep in mind is that the theory about children of Adam married to ancient humans can be found in hadeeths (please see post #12)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
So are you right now saying that the Qur'anic verses do talk about Adam coming from a subhuman being but in a more indirect way and it has to interpreted OR are you saying Allah (swt) just doesn't mention that at all and instead tells the Arabs, Adam was directly created by Him (swt) and sent to Earth, so the Arabs just don't ask more about Adam's creation which would lead to them having a "meltdown'?

A bit of both, mostly the first.

No. 100% is.

Can you name me some things that you know with 100% certainty?

Anyways, this part of the discussion for this topic is only important if we were to establish they married subhumans, but again we don't seem to have Islamic evidence for this.

One thing needs to be understood clearly here. When I said that an interpretation of the Quran in line with an evolutionary perspective and taking Adam as an actual historical being would mean Adam came from parents that were not fully human ---- this refers to fully human in the sense of human as more than a physical body, but also with a full, self aware, fully conscious human soul joined to this physical body.

Physically, in terms of mere body, Adam would have been of the same type as his mother and father, because evolution doesn't move so much from one generation to another. His mother and father would likely have been identified in modern terms as biological homo sapiens. They were physically human. But they were not ensouled, not "awake" in the same way that Adam was eventually "awakened."

As well, Adam's mother and father, if they participated in his raising, would have done so merely in an initial biological, animal sense. As homo sapiens in biological form only, they did not have a human culture to transmit. At best they could have fed him, nurtured him, taught him some very basic physical skills, as animals teach their children.

The additional tutelage to complete him as the first full human however would have to have come after his ensouling and awakening and given by God Himself (through a clear inner voice, perhaps) and His servants (jinns, angels). It would have been in this sense that Adam did not have a human mother and father. He was not raised in a pre-existing human culture by a fully human mother and father, that taught him through language. It is this sense that he did not have a mother or father in the fully human sense.

Most likely it is this matter of self-awareness, full self-consciousness, ensoulment, with freedom of will and language (knowing the "names" of things) that was the dividing point between Adam and his immediate biological forebears.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
God is one. Muhammad (saw) is his messenger, there are 12 Imams after him. 1 is alive. The Qur'an is a book sent directly from Allah (swt). Certain things (too much to list) are haraam, certain are halal. These things amongst many others are things I have 100% certainty with. You can challenge me on whether I do or not, but lets leave that for another thread. You can create it if you'd like.

I can guarantee you that you don't know any of these things with 100% certainty. Aside from the matter of whether you ever feel any doubt in these propositions (I could plausibly believe that you don't feel doubt), epistemologically, you don't know these things with 100% certainty. You have enough logical and empirical elements pushing toward these beliefs that you feel no choice but to assent to them, but this is not 100% certainty. It is sufficient probability. This is the same sort of high probability on which scientists base assent to the idea of evolution. This is why I say that if you set such a high standard for evolution, you need to abandon knowledge claims to almost everything else and simply believe what you believe on blind faith.

If you don't see this self-evidently, go through the exercise of asking "how" you "know" these things, "why" you believe them. And then ask why and how for your whys and hows, and keep going back.

Ok, this is getting a bit tedious isn't it? Can you please provide some, even a little, Islamic evidence to support your stance. If you quote a Quranic verse, please provide your understanding of it.

If this is just something that you are thinking based on your scientific knowledge and not your Islamic knowledge, then please mention that as well.

First, scientific knowledge IS Islamic knowledge.

Second, I explained this in enough detail. Evolution is convincingly, overwhelmingly true. The physical human form came about in this way. If we are to believe, in addition to this, that the Quranic account is true, then the two accounts need to be consistent. If we require consistency and an actual historical Adam, then something like what I said is the necessary reconciliation. The details at the most precise level are speculation, but in the broad strokes, that is the story that is required.

I don't have the time or interest to systematically rederive this interpretation from base sources, and I don't feel it's necessary. It's to you to read the description I wrote, and compare systematically to what the Quran says as a whole.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
If you study aqaed, even if it is just amozeshe aqaid which is one of the first books you learn on aqaed, those questions aren't difficult at all. In either case, this is not for this thread, if you'd like you can start a new one for this specific topic.

No, no new topics. I'm not interested in expending that much extra effort to prove the point.

I am aware of kalam works and arguments. That's why I challenge you.

Belief in God, and a God that is One, with certain attributes, you can reach something approaching very close full certainty from a pure a priori logic perspective. Same for the need for prophethood and imamate and perhaps the need for a day of judgment to ensure full justice. These are simpler matters, though.

I was lax to not distinguish those sorts of things when I challenged your claim to certainty.

However, you don't reach belief that a man named Muhammad in 7th century Arabia was a prophet and that he received the Quran through revelation from the angel Gabriel over a period of 23 years and that there were 12 imams from his family after him from pure a priori logic though. You know these things from received texts and received information about these texts. This is not a matter of logic, but is a matter of logic, combined with empirical evidence. And sorry, none of us have 100% certainty on this. We have, to varying degrees from individual to individual, a level of satisfaction about these claims being true, with this level of certainty in the best of us reaching a state of high lack of doubt. we can reach a state about such things that dount never enters our minds. But if we are honest, from a purely empirical perspective, we can never be 100% certain.

Your whole idea is at the end of the day speculation. You may claim to have as much scientific support as you'd like, but you have ZERO Islamic support and on top of that you have Islam contradicting your belief. Your only answer to that is that Islam was revealed to 7-9th century Arabs, and that is why your stance wasn't told to them.

No. You're missing the point somewhere.

My evidence IS the Quranic account.

I am not saying my stance is not in the Quran. I am saying that my stance is what the Quranic account actually describes, in a simplified, 7th century language fashion, that is understandable on the surface in a simplistic fashion that was "good enough" for what they needed to know or could understand at that time, but with the real story encoded beneath the surface figuratively.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

In the light of the overwhelming evidence of the current theory of evolution & the content of the hadiths given, there are some interesting points to be discussed:

- There's similarity between Adam & Isa's creation (3:59), i.e. they were both miraculous creation. But, to further assert the similarity, do we have strong narrations that reject that Adam was EXACTLY like Isa, i.e. they were both have mothers, but not fathers?

- Can't the creation of Adam from dust indicated his physical form which could be formed via evolution while his descent from heaven to earth indicated his soul?

Edited by rotten_coconut
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

We have Newtons LAWS of motions

We have Archimedes PRINCIPLE of floatation

but we only have THEORY of evolution

Leave aside religious factors, Why should we even pay so much attention to a theory that has not passed scientific scrutiny to be a law or principle?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

We have Newtons LAWS of motions

We have Archimedes PRINCIPLE of floatation

but we only have THEORY of evolution

Leave aside religious factors, Why should we even pay so much attention to a theory that has not passed scientific scrutiny to be a law or principle?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

We have Newtons LAWS of motions

We have Archimedes PRINCIPLE of floatation

but we only have THEORY of evolution

Leave aside religious factors, Why should we even pay so much attention to a theory that has not passed scientific scrutiny to be a law or principle?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Hmm, from what you wrote it doesn't seem like you are familiar with much of anything related to aqaed and philosophy. Kalam doesn't even enter the picture until many of the basic beliefs are first established.

You don't have 100% certainty, but one can only speak for himself. Anyways, this is a completely whole new topic that cannot be discussed too briefly here.

I don't know why you act on anything less than 100% in regards to your aqeeda. I don't.

Not sure what you understand by kalam, but commonly understood, it's rational, philosophical theology. Proving existence of God from first philosophic principles, proving attributes, etc. This sort of philosophy is HOW the fundamental beliefs are established in the typical hawza presentation. You can't even bring in textual evidences from scripture in fact until the existence of God, God's goodness, God's need to communicate with people, prophethood, and scriptures are justified from a purely logical perspective.

I think you are still not getting my point about doubt and certainty.

I make a distinction between two states:

1. Lack of personal doubt

2. Logical-empirical certainty

My point is that you can personally lack doubt in something, but at the same time acknowledge that you don't know it with 100% certainty from the standpoint of rigorous empirical evidence and logic.

We don't either of us doubt the prophethood of Muhammad or the authenticity of the Quran.

But at the same time neither of us have 100% scientific certainty that this is true.

Why is it so hard for you to quote the verses and give your interpretation?

It's not hard at all. I'm simply not going to write a 10 page essay on command. It's a ridiculously unreasonable request on your part. I have a job and family and have been far too generous with my time as it is. I don't profess to have all the answers of the specific details of the story anyway. And it's not particularly important to this discussion anyway. The focus here is that the fact of evolution requires us to reconcile the account of Adam with what evolution reveals to us.

To give a brief sense, though, my focus centers on the verses about Adam being shaped from "dark clay," God's "breathing of the spirit" into him making him human, and the emphasis on Adam being "taught the names of things." The temptation of Adam in the garden and his "fall" resulting from his actions could have different interpretations; one possible reading is that it represented his final fixed placement as an embodied physically mortal yet spiritual being on the earth once his initial training in the garden/paradise was finished.

One of these days I'm going to write an article about this in full detail; I'll remind myself to cc you a copy when I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Shiatullah - where exactly does it say in the Quran Adam had no mother or father? This whole arguement is built on assumptions that have no real basis in the Quran. Tafseer is subjective thus could be flawed and incomplete. The Quran uses a lot of figurative speech, this to date has caused (imo) many misunderstandings.

The fact that the Quran says you and I are made out of dust should makes us look closer into similiar statements about Adam and his creation in heaven.

For all we know , its quite possible that the angels never bowed down to Adam physically nor does Satan go around convincing people to commit sin. Many of these events are symbolic imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Bismillah,

No bro that isn't what kalam is in the hawza.

No, that is exactly what kalam is.

It is good not to get involved in a discussion if you can't properly defend your position with textual evidence due to time constraints. It ruins the fun.

Ha. Nice try. But no. I've been very generous with my time. I've explained myself in sufficient depth for this forum. Thus is a discussion forum, not an internet journal for posting 3000 word essays.

The only fact of evolution is that it isn't a fact.

If you want to take that stance, so be it. Just know that to be consistent, you have to throw out belief in most scientific knowledge.

I expect you to stop using the internet and computers. After all, semi- conductor physics is "just a theory." Hate for you to spend time on something that you aren't 100% certain of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Dear friends, salaam, you may find the following link helpful because it is about bigger picture of islam in forms of principles and rules for understanding the quran.

1)Knowledge is discovered as we go along learning things.

2)Ulema know only those things they have learned not anything else.

3)No one fully understands the quran because it is divided as regard knowledge in to what we know and what we still need to learn. MUKAMAAT & MUTASHABIHAAT.

4)Things we know for sure are no mystry for us therefore when the quran or anyone else talks about them we understand them exactly but things that we do not know only can imagine them as different possibilities remain a mystery till we come to know them.

When we were children, did we know all things? No. All was a big mystery. However as we grew with time and learned things or became aware of some of those things they are no longer a mystery. Likewise what the quran talks about is either clear to us for sure or that it still need to be found out so when we find it out the mystery will be solved. This is why the quran calls its verses MUKAMAAT and MUTASHABIHAAT 3/7.

5)Case of adam is also a mystery but what we can do is collect all the verses about creation of things and then try and put them together according to best understanding we have about creation of things. I am saying this because to understand the quran you need to understand the world as well as as to how how it works. The quran and the world are like user manual of a machine and the machine. You need to know both to understand them both properly.

You will be making a big mistake by interpreting the quran in isolation and then trying to fit the world in it. It will be like you are trying to make a dress for some one but you know nothing about the person. So after you make the dress it may not be of any use to the person.

6)The quran answers the creation question ie Allah cresated the world and it also answers how he did it and for that you need to know the quran and the world both.

For better understanding of islam my thread linked above may be of help.

wasalaam..

Edited by Mughal1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...