Evolution contradicts Islam

[king-zazai]

o and nice thread

they are such fools because they say they dont believe in the unseen but they do in realty hehe

and i just love what abu hanifa said rahim-ullah

Abu Hanifah said before the debate (interpretation the dialogue), "I want to tell you about a story. " They said, "What??" He said, "A ship in dijlah river came to shore with no captain and carried the equipment from the first shore and took it by itself to the other shore days and days away then it took its merchandise off with no captain." They said, "It is impossible, no one can believe this. A ship with no captain cannot do all that. No way." Abu Hanifah said, "If that's impossible in one ship how can u say this about the universe runs without a sustainer - Allah?" They were stunned and the debate ended before it started.

[graveyardofempires]

hmmm do you know your tawheed??? if not check it out because if you did you would understand what he believes in is wrong in the fold if islam

im not his follower in what he believes,i just find his work educative.
Than again i will not be laying in his grave or answer for his deeds

[Alchemist]

Firstly; as far as Islam is concerned, Isa's birth was considered a "mu'ajazah", and thereby doesn't follow the usual sets of natural laws of the universe. The literary depiction of his life/birth would mean the Qur'an is being literal about the event. So what can be said here is "God intervened on the other mechanisms of the universe", according to the Qur'an

Saying something is so absurd, that it's absurd and thus is absurd, is such a vacuous tautology that I can't perceive where its relevance would be.

And you're making another false dichotomy/nonsequitur/no true scotsman, that intellect has to do with simplicity or complexity of words

Microevolutions are changes in the chemical signatures in the DNA, when those signatures change enough over time, and develop a new chromosome to contain the new information, this is a macroevolution and this causes changes in species.

Maybe I should follow Amir Al Ghaznawi's suggestion to DZJ, and give you a pop up book.


leave the macro/micro out of the discussion even though you thanked Mujib, in a post where he word dropped it but lets bring up the Birth of Isa? Strange

Wait a minute we are talking about Man's Origin.

Who was the first Man? Adam.

"In MAthalee ISsa inda Allahi Ka mathali Adam"
The example of ISsa to Allah is like the example of Adam.

So you are saying Allah intervened.

Intervened how?

Creation ex nihilo?

A woman carries the ovum, the male the sperm. So once again, you are engaging in sophistry...because you are saying that Issa is the exception, when Allah says Adam was also the exception. So where does your belief stem from that man evolved from primates?


And once again, the one who is being absurd is you my friend. According to you microevolution goes over time, so mentioning microevolution in respect to Mariam's Mu'jiza is absurd since it does not make sense to say that some microevolution took place in her dna and then that lead to macro evolution.

Also the statement that "changes to dna" brings about a change to a different species is absurd since this has never been observed in nature. Maybe you have been reading too many X-men comic books as a young boy and now believe that 1000s of years from now your progeny will grow wings and fly around in space and shoot laser beam from their eyes. But again, it is fantasy. It is not a universal law.

So, now you have conceded that creation ex nihilo "in the existential" sense has happened, it happened to Isa, and Allah says Isa is like Adam, and thus Adam's own creation is unrelated to other species and not as prescribed by "Evolution". Thus the origin of Man is also a Mu'jizah, and it is also in the literal sense (as is the Mu'jizah of Isa is in the literal sense). So now you have eaten your words, there is no need for you to act haughty and arrogant but accept the fact that evolution has no place in Islam. Thank you for your participation.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Wait a minute we are talking about Man's Origin.

Who was the first Man? Adam.

"In MAthalee ISsa inda Allahi Ka mathali Adam"
The example of ISsa to Allah is like the example of Adam.

So you are saying Allah intervened.

Intervened how?

Creation ex nihilo?

A woman carries the ovum, the male the sperm. So once again, you are engaging in sophistry...because you are saying that Issa is the exception, when Allah says Adam was also the exception. So where does your belief stem from that man evolved from primates?


And once again, the one who is being absurd is you my friend. According to you microevolution goes over time, so mentioning microevolution in respect to Mariam's Mu'jiza is absurd since it does not make sense to say that some microevolution took place in her dna and then that lead to macro evolution.

Also the statement that "changes to dna" brings about a change to a different species is absurd since this has never been observed in nature. Maybe you have been reading too many X-men comic books as a young boy and now believe that 1000s of years from now your progeny will grow wings and fly around in space and shoot laser beam from their eyes. But again, it is fantasy. It is not a universal law.

So, now you have conceded that creation ex nihilo "in the existential" sense has happened, it happened to Isa, and Allah says Isa is like Adam, and thus Adam's own creation is unrelated to other species and not as prescribed by "Evolution". Thus the origin of Man is also a Mu'jizah, and it is also in the literal sense (as is the Mu'jizah) of Isa is in the literal sense. So now you have eaten your words, there is no need for you to act haughty and arrogant but accept the fact that evolution has no place in Islam. Thank you for your participation.

The example of Isa is like the example of Adam? please quote the entire hadith in proper context.

I wasn't mentioning anything about micro or macroevolution in "respects" to Maryam; you're just razzled by having an insufficient argument.

Your snotty quip might make you feel like you have a meritable argument, but DNA changes do happen, and even you creationists babble how "microevolution happens, but NOT MACRO" ignoring the fact that macroevolutions are compounded microevolutions over long periods of time. There's no X-Men or whatever goofy analogy you attempt to align here. This only demonstrates the reading material you're familiar with. Which is pretty sad.

Again you either don't actually take any time to read your opponnents responses, or you're so flustered and emotionally charged that the words get blurred. I don't believe Ex-Nihilo happens in the existential sence. not that I believe it happens in the existential sense. the OPPOSITE of what you think I wrote. "Existence" itself maybe Ex-Nihilo, but what's within existence comes from other components within existence; and we are included.

As for the Adam/Isa reference, this has only demonstrated a vague statement which hasn't been contextualized. but As a Mu'tazili, I see this as merely saying Adam and Isa were both humans and were subject to human vulnerabilities.

In fact I know other Mu'taziliyeen who reject the idea of literality of the verses about Isa' (as)'s birth; and there is some merit to it. I just try to keep an open mind until sufficient and relevant evidence trumps the possibility of a super natural cause. In this event.

[Alchemist]

The example of Isa is like the example of Adam? please quote the entire hadith in proper context.

lol


hadith?


shame on you brother.

Go read the Qur'an.

Please.

You know, you haven't come that far from your days as Shimla or wruyun or whatever....some introspection is warrented at this stage. Since now you are trying to contradict Qur'an. Hard to believe that I quoted you Kalam ul Allah?

You wish to debate with Allah?

Astaghifrallah.

Suphanallah. That he would send such a Sign as ISsa...so that today you would not be mislead by the jew, darwin. Praise your Lord Akhi. Inahu 3ala Koli Shaieen Qadeeer!

[Alchemist]

[3:59] The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.
[3:60] This is the truth from your Lord; do not harbor any doubts.



Qur'an

It seems you harbour doubt.

[Mujib]

Brothers and sisters should know that Bilal Philips' claims against Harun Yahya are baseless. His arguments, and similar arguments against the concepts and Islamic scholars Harun Yahya sometimes refers to, are based upon a complete misunderstanding of those concepts.

[Mujib]

Tafsir Jalalayn also claims the Earth is flat.

Point us to where the Tafsir itself says positively that the earth is flat. As to its noting of the opinion of some scholars of law, it has no bearing on Islamic doctrine or practice. It is clear, however, as all the exegeses are clear, on what pertains to Islamic doctrine. Your claim about the interpretation of the verses in discussion does pertain to Islamic doctrine and has broader implications, as brother Alchemist is pointing out to you and as you yourself are coming to see.

It only verifies the essence behind my argument; that the understandings given by the Islamic Savants of past in regards to the Ontology of the Universe and its contents as well as the genesis of living beings was based on their limited scope of knowledge and their assumptions based on what available data they had.

This is strange. Scholars of the more recent past (fifteenth- and sixteenth-century) were limited by the lack of data, yet the scholars of the more distant past (ninth-century), namely al-Jahiz, were able to discover evolution centuries before Darwin.

This isn't true of other scholars such as Zamakhshari.

Have you read al-Zamakhshari’s Tafsir? Can you provide his exegesis of the verses you cited, the verses I cited, and the verses Alchemist cited? What does he say of Sayyidina `Isa’s (ra) birth and of the verse that compares it to the birth of Sayyidina Adam (ra)?

The Crux of your response suffers from an intrinsic circularlity; Islam denies evolution because the Scholars deny evolution, the Scholars deny evolution because Islam denies it.

I didn’t cite the exegesis of scholars to disprove evolution. I cited them against your interpretation of the verses. Islam denies the theory of evolution because it contradicts revelation, the Qur’an and ahadith.

You are using at best teritiary source material; the opinions of individuals who even by your own admission did not actually simply rely on lexical understanding; but just other assumptions.

You are misreading, brother. The comment about linguistic exegesis was in response to your claim that exegesis can only be done linguistically. What was implicit in it was the fact that exegesis requires many sciences. Revelation itself (other verses and ahadith) interprets revelation. So the criterion for what is literal and what is not literal is not simply analogy traced to Arabic idioms.

It is clear you have not had a reading or any familiarity of Al-Jahith

The quote you cited is all over the internet. It is cited without a reference. When it is cited with a reference the reference is secondary (someone else citing al-Jahiz). Since you have read and are familiar with al-Jahiz, please cite the quote with book name, page number, and edition. And since the translation is not yours, provide the name of the translator.

Also, please tell us what conclusions al-Jahiz draws from his observation of the influence of environment on animals. His observations are not much different from Darwin. Any intelligent mind would trace the process he observed back to an origin and essentially arrive at the theory Darwin arrived at. Did al-Jahiz do so? If yes, show us what he said about the origins of life and the origins of man. If not, he is obviously not referring to the evolution proposed in the theory of evolution.

a term although valid, not used envogue in Scientific Circles, as all macroevolution is, is an aggregate result of microevolutions.

That it is not “envogue” in scientific circles is very telling. Microevolution is observable and its links traced. Macroevolution is not observable and its links are missing. Evolutionists’ theories connecting one with the other are the point of argument.

[Mujib]

It seems some of our comments are getting emotional and personal. Our aim should not be to put someone down or ridicule them.

Brother Scimitar, I sincerely advise against some of the ideas you are holding to. I know brothers whose "devolution" took them from reading Imam al-Ghazali (ra), to reading philosophers, to claiming they were Mu`tazilis, to eventually leaving Islam. May Allah protect us.

As Baygham's comments have indicated to you, these ideas are leaving you stuck between complete acceptance and complete denial.

I am amazed that someone as opposed to Western hegemony as you are can blindly accept everything Scientism (the belief system, which is what it is, not science) proposes.

Ask yourself, where do Angels and Jinns fit into the theory of evolution? The resurrection and the afterlife? Alchemist's questions are valid arguments. Who was Adam (as) in evolutionist terms? The Qur'anic verse compares the creation of Sayyidina `Isa (as) to the creation of Sayyidina Adam (as); they were both fatherless. Should those verses be explained away? The Qur'an tells us that Adam (as) was the father of man. How does the fatherhood and motherhood of Sayyidina Adam (as) and Bibi Hawwa (as) fit into the theory of evolution?

Even if one were to disregard the lack of evidence for the theory and its incoherence, one must consider its larger implications. Let us leave the perversion of revelation to the Christian and Jews, who have no problem blindly accepting these theories.

[Mujib]

And by the way, what ever happened to Ghanzarya?

[ScimitarXEdge]

lol


hadith?


shame on you brother.

Go read the Qur'an.

Please.

You know, you haven't come that far from your days as Shimla or wruyun or whatever....some introspection is warrented at this stage. Since now you are trying to contradict Qur'an. Hard to believe that I quoted you Kalam ul Allah?

You wish to debate with Allah?

Astaghifrallah.

Suphanallah. That he would send such a Sign as ISsa...so that today you would not be mislead by the jew, darwin. Praise your Lord Akhi. Inahu 3ala Koli Shaieen Qadeeer!

Please save your theatrics; they're not refutations and if I called it a hadith or an ayah, is inconsequential in so much as this discussion is concerned.

so the verse says inna mathala 3isa 3aynda Allahi ka mathali Adama"

which means " Surely Isa's analogy of God's sight/eye is such as the analogy of Adam."

that's the first part. These are two separate sentences.

second part being

khalaqahu min turab thumma qala lahu kun fa yakun (he created him from dust and thus said be and so he becomes)

If we read the verse the way YOU are reading it, it would mean that Isa, was also made of dust the same way Adam was, but this would contradict

both your claim Allah(swt) created man ex-nihilo, since dust is a substance that exists (if we take the literalist view) and your claim that Isa (as) was born from the Maryam(as).

Now if we now understand the two sentences, separately, it's saying Isa is a man like Adam, a human being with human limitations, and they were made from earthly matter , Turab, and God's power to make things exist , made them exist.

So quite to the contrary of making a "smoking gun" with this; you have posted merely a shallow rendering of the verse based on your Slant or rather the Slant of the people you inherited from.

This verse only verifies, even the use of the word "mathala" shows that this is all merely an analogy.

[ScimitarXEdge]

It seems some of our comments are getting emotional and personal. Our aim should not be to put someone down or ridicule them.

Brother Scimitar, I sincerely advise against some of the ideas you are holding to. I know brothers whose "devolution" took them from reading Imam al-Ghazali (ra), to reading philosophers, to claiming they were Mu`tazilis, to eventually leaving Islam. May Allah protect us.

As Baygham's comments have indicated to you, these ideas are leaving you stuck between complete acceptance and complete denial.

I am amazed that someone as opposed to Western hegemony as you are can blindly accept everything Scientism (the belief system, which is what it is, not science) proposes.

Ask yourself, where do Angels and Jinns fit into the theory of evolution? The resurrection and the afterlife? Alchemist's questions are valid arguments. Who was Adam (as) in evolutionist terms? The Qur'anic verse compares the creation of Sayyidina `Isa (as) to the creation of Sayyidina Adam (as); they were both fatherless. Should those verses be explained away? The Qur'an tells us that Adam (as) was the father of man. How does the fatherhood and motherhood of Sayyidina Adam (as) and Bibi Hawwa (as) fit into the theory of evolution?

Even if one were to disregard the lack of evidence for the theory and its incoherence, one must consider its larger implications. Let us leave the perversion of revelation to the Christian and Jews, who have no problem blindly accepting these theories.

There is a great deal of smear campagns against the Mu'taziliyeen during those days by individuals who out of enmity did opposed them. These same individuals burnt/slanted books of the Mu'taziliyeen, made claims which were not corroborated except by sources that they themselves favor.

I respect Al-Ghazzali, but it would be absurd to say he spoke without prejudice.

As for evolution; Angels aren't organismal beings neither are Jinn, hence the question itself is a Red Herring. Perhaps we can theorize they're forms of "energy beings"; but that's more a reverie than something confirmable.

Organismal beings, like Humans , animals show clear evidence of cellular compositional make up and thus are evidentially connection on biological scales. Isa/Hawwa (as) are being described of in the Qur'an in an archtypal sense and then the Earthly sense, in which they represent the manifestation of homosapiens as a species. The "formation" was merely a blue print or model, it was the Model of Isa which Allah(swt) made first and then the earthly last. The Isa/Hawaa (as) relationship is that the first humans were a pair, and this is evident by Y Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA.

What Baygham says is more out of emotion, than rationale; for both you and Baygham suffer from the same thinking. That is Shallow understanding of the positions you endorse.

So for me I'm not teetering on any line, I'm completely inline consistent with my understanding. I have a background in science and reasonable lay familiarity with Islamic Theology, at least in so much as Mu'tazilism is concerned. As long as I approach things logically I am at ease.

What lack of evidence> what incoherence?" There is volumes of biochemistry journals that demonstrate how evolution occurs. It's not a matter of whether evolution has happened, it's a matter of whether we can make a laboratory verification on the scale of Geologic Time; that's the only reason

The irony of how you abjure Lay to speak on matters of religion; when you appearingly have no formal training in any science, and yet speak of incoherence?

What would you measure or gage that incoherence by? Tafsir Jalalayn? You would need to understand the chemical and biological principles which deal with how evolution works before you can gage incoherence. If you were willing to submit to a basic chemistry quiz, I could understand if you have any competency. And please do not regurgitate the comparison of Islam to being a Doctor; such nonsense is so logically incongruent that the tactic demonstrates intellectual dishonesty.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Point us to where the Tafsir itself says positively that the earth is flat. As to its noting of the opinion of some scholars of law, it has no bearing on Islamic doctrine or practice. It is clear, however, as all the exegeses are clear, on what pertains to Islamic doctrine. Your claim about the interpretation of the verses in discussion does pertain to Islamic doctrine and has broader implications, as brother Alchemist is pointing out to you and as you yourself are coming to see.

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?...0&LanguageId=2


read for yourself:

And the earth, how it was laid out flat?, and thus infer from this the power of God, exalted be He, and His Oneness? The commencing with the [mention of] camels is because they are closer in contact with it [the earth] than any other [animal]. As for His words sutihat, ‘laid out flat’, this on a literal reading suggests that the earth is flat, which is the opinion of most of the scholars of the [revealed] Law, and not a sphere as astronomers (ahl al-hay’a) have it, even if this [latter] does not contradict any of the pillars of the Law.

he's not merely talking about the leveling of the Earth's surface for it to be walkable; he's talking about the whole body of the Earth being flat as opposed to a SPHERE.

This is strange. Scholars of the more recent past (fifteenth- and sixteenth-century) were limited by the lack of data, yet the scholars of the more distant past (ninth-century), namely al-Jahiz, were able to discover evolution centuries before Darwin.

Remember Muslims went through Scientific Decline; so I don't see why this is not feasible? Much of the works were obscured until they were unearthed ore recirculated from libraries which were thought to be lost. Furthermore is Jalalayn's Tafsir is a clue; there seems to have been a trend to shun scientific evidence and limit only to whatever circular stream they felt were legit.

And it's Al-Jahith, not Jahiz.

Have you read al-Zamakhshari’s Tafsir? Can you provide his exegesis of the verses you cited, the verses I cited, and the verses Alchemist cited? What does he say of Sayyidina `Isa’s (ra) birth and of the verse that compares it to the birth of Sayyidina Adam (ra)?

It would probably take me awhile, since it's at a Mosque some distance from me; but I remember there was a discussion and we read the tafsir of this.

I don't know what he said about the specific verse; but I do know we went over how the verses which describe Adam as clay and then as dust; the clay is a "model Adam" created in some type of Archtypal state. the dust is the matter of the Earth, so it's insinuating Adam(as) as physical human being of flesh is an Earthly being. Born through natural processes.

I didn’t cite the exegesis of scholars to disprove evolution. I cited them against your interpretation of the verses. Islam denies the theory of evolution because it contradicts revelation, the Qur’an and ahadith.

I grasp that, and it seems this merely due to the mentalities of Savants rather than actually definitive expounded in Islam's fundamental source material.

You are misreading, brother. The comment about linguistic exegesis was in response to your claim that exegesis can only be done linguistically. What was implicit in it was the fact that exegesis requires many sciences. Revelation itself (other verses and ahadith) interprets revelation. So the criterion for what is literal and what is not literal is not simply analogy traced to Arabic idioms.

False Straw Man, I never ever made such a claim. I only emphasized it's significance.

The quote you cited is all over the internet. It is cited without a reference. When it is cited with a reference the reference is secondary (someone else citing al-Jahiz). Since you have read and are familiar with al-Jahiz, please cite the quote with book name, page number, and edition. And since the translation is not yours, provide the name of the translator.

Here's the book which translates the quote, order it from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Chance-Creatio.../dp/1859640672

Also, please tell us what conclusions al-Jahiz draws from his observation of the influence of environment on animals. His observations are not much different from Darwin. Any intelligent mind would trace the process he observed back to an origin and essentially arrive at the theory Darwin arrived at. Did al-Jahiz do so? If yes, show us what he said about the origins of life and the origins of man. If not, he is obviously not referring to the evolution proposed in the theory of evolution.

the conclusion is that Environmental effects create changes in animals and thus changes their genes over time and thus they become New Species.

That it is not “envogue” in scientific circles is very telling. Microevolution is observable and its links traced. Macroevolution is not observable and its links are missing. Evolutionists’ theories connecting one with the other are the point of argument.

actually we have examples of both micro and macro evolution.

here's a good list of them
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...-evidence.html

[Alchemist]

Well it seems like you are another mountain goat.

And like the half naked boy in your avatar you think you know better than EVERYONE else.



Commenting on this verse, ibn Katheer stated:

“Allaah the Elevated says: {Indeed the likeness of ‘Eesaa (Jesus) before Allaah} In relation to Allaah’s ability as he created him without a father {is as the likeness of Adam.} For Allaah the Glorified created him without a father or mother {He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" – and he was. The truth is from your Lord}. Therefore the One who created Adam without a father is able to create ‘Eesaa in a simpler fashion. So if it can be claimed that ‘Eesaa is the son of Allaah because he was created without a father, then it can also be claimed that Adam is the son of Allaah for the same reason and more, and it is known with consensus that this is falsehood, so claiming that ‘Eesaa is the son of Allaah for this reason is therefore a greater and more apparent falsehood. But the Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, wished to show His ability to His creation when he created Adam without a male or female, Hawaa with a male without a female, ‘Eesaa with a female but without a male and the rest of mankind from both male and female.”



So you obviously deny this. Since you believe in the evolutionary theory, and thus ascribe to it's narrative of human history. You believe that mythical evolutionary story that the first female human is traced back to Africa, 50,000 years ago because of mitochondrial DNA markers, where as the first Adam dates back, by Y chromosome "markers" to 200,000 years. You are fallaciously taking these speculations in their literal sense, and believing them to describe Adam and Eve's DNA.

It is a real shame that some one of your caliber gives a greater preference to the "scientificism" and tries to re-write the meaning of the Qur'an to fit in line with the "theory" of evolution. If you want to argue the scientific groundwork of evolution, please do so in the thread "Evolution, why us?". Just as you were ignorant of the verse of Qur'an that I quoted for you, likewise, you are ignorant of much of what the theory of evolution espouses.

[ScimitarXEdge]

the half naked boy is satire; to a person who's a bit of an Afghan Internet Celebrity for the wrong reasons; but I understand your need to "grasp" right now.

As for quotion Tafsir Ibn Kathir, same deal as what I said with Jalalayn.

The ignorance of Savants of old is merely the sign of their cultural dynamics.