Why doesn't the Qur'an and Authentic Sunnah explain science in detail?

Why doesn't the Qur'an and Authentic Sunnah explain science in detail?


The answer's simple: The Qur'an and Sunnah are a source of guidance for mankind, they don't have to explain all that we see around us in detail since the main objective of the Qur'an and Sunnah is to explain to us our beliefs and what is required for us to be successful in this life and the next.

Science is what we see in the creation of Allah, we can see it - therefore we can use our 5 senses (seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touch) to see the world and universe around us. We can use the Qur'an and Sunnah as a basis for what we find, and by reflecting on the creation of Allah - we will increase in faith (instead of believing that everything occurs merely by chance) because we see the products of the amazing design which Allah has originated and formed.

A Muslim Discussion on Atheism

Those who disbelieve in the Lord of the Worlds in this day and age do so mainly because this is promoted to the fullest extent. anyone who believes in a religion is termed as backward and is accused of having blind faith which has no proofs.


What we have come to realise is that it is those who reject the Lord of the Worlds who have more blind faith than any other. They have figured out that the universe began from one location, then expanding (Big Bang) causing matter and what we see to come into existence. Yet this does not contradict our faith in any way. It is discussed in the Qur'an, over 1400 years ago:

The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole universe, in a ‘smoke’ material. God has said in the Quran:

Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... (Quran, 41:11)

Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same ‘smoke,’ we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity. Then out of this homogeneous ‘smoke,’ they formed and separated from each other. God has said in the Quran:

Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?... (Quran, 21:30)

The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition).¹




Ask them - What did occur before this Big Bang? wasn't it the All Powerful who formed this universe and all matter through this expansion? No, rather they will try to deny any possibility of the Originator of the heavens and the earth - they will argue that this matter and these expansions have been occurring forever, and once a universe has collapsed into its own self - it will expand once again after a while. They believe that this universe we live in today has supported life only after billions of collapses and expansions, and that this planet we live in is located in the exact position to sustain life, again just by chance. Doesn't it become clear that all these chances are based on doubt and not any solid proof which they claim to follow? Yes, these events are based on calculation and precision - but is nature so knowledgeable as to know where to form a planet which will sustain life for millions of years based on its calculations? Why don't they then replace this word nature with the word God, and they will come to realise that what they say now makes sense and is logical.

Indeed the more complex a design, the more it is in need of control, support and sustenance. The existence, order and sustenance of the earth and the whole universe for millions or even billions of years explains His control and authority.

But they will deny God, because they cannot see Him. So ask them, were you present before the Big Bang of this universe? Has any scientist ever been able to prove anything occurred before the Big Bang of this universe? You will find them believing this, although they were not present, nor did they see it occur. Yet they deny the Lord of the Worlds merely because they do not see Him.

Ask them who created this matter which has been collapsing and expanding forever. Did it create itself? They will be amazed, unable to answer – but they will challenge you.

If you deny that the universe has been existent through these collapses and expansions for eternity, what makes you believe a God could be existent forever? Who would create this God? If He was created by another – then who created Him? Or did He create Himself, and from what?

So tell them – the Lord of the Worlds is eternal, and flawless in every way. He is not finite (nor is He limited), if He was any of these – we would not take Him as a God. If He was created by another existence – then He Himself would be a created being. We are forbidden from taking any other false god beside Him because they themselves are created. If there was more than One, they would differ on their creation, causing chaos and destruction, yet the earth and universe are sustained for so long without this major destruction.

His Uniqueness is His Perfection – how can one be perfect if they have an equal who is competing with them? One is only Supreme when they have no competitor, when they have no one equal to them in any way.

So Say: He is the Lord of the Worlds, the First, the Last, and there is none like Him. He is the Hearer, the Seer, the Knowing, the Wise.

Those who were before us would argue that the universe was forever existent without a beginning, but those who claim to have scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe have refuted them. And now they have even more blind faith than their predecessors!

Is it possible that a living being came into existence from something dead without any life? Did the dead give life to itself, or is coincidence just another excuse? If man is incapable of creating life with control, resources and decades of research – then isn’t it logical that a perfect God who has formed the entire universe and all matter, that He be able to give life to the dead?

It is He who gives life to the dead earth by sending down rain, and from it foods of different colours and tastes for us and our different lifestyles? Natural selection is a clear and obvious pattern we see in the creatures of God and believing in it only strengthens belief, since we see that the animals and livestock who survive benefit us more, these are all amazing signs which enhance us and our living. Little thanks it is that you give.

We have one life in this world; having faith in something which makes more sense is much more logical and believable. If you are in need of the truth - and you are in need of the truth – have a firm and sincere mindset, ask Him to take you to it, the One, the Irresistible, who is aware of all that you reveal, and all you conceal. He who knows what is in the depth of the hearts, and the caller when he cries out in times of distress.

But this is not the end… indeed every soul shall taste death.

On that Day, mankind will be gathered like moths in the court of the Almighty, the Just. No soul will bear the deeds of another, and every one will be responsible for their own deeds. Did you think you would never be responsible for all that you did in this world? If you denied God because you felt there was no justice in this life, know that this is the Day of Recompense. Indeed the successful are those who believe and do righteous deeds and enter the Gardens of Bliss, and surely the losers are those who went astray, and lost themselves and their loved ones on the Day of which there is no doubt.

To Him is your return, when He will inform you of all that you used to do. On that day, those who belied His signs and disbelieved, then you will not be punished except for your own rebelliousness - if you were given a life of eternity - would you not disbelieve in Him forever? But if you had believed in Him and His promise, then indeed you would dwell in His Mercy and Reward forever. On this day, the truthful will benefit from their truth – in gardens of delight, living in the pleasure of their Lord. He is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him – indeed it is those who are the successful.

homosexuality, is it right?

homosexuality, is it right?


Those who claim that homosexuality is right, their reasoning is that these people should have the freedom to have a relationship which they desire without anyone restricting their rights.


Now, if people use that as the basis of argument - then they need to question whether it is okay for a brother and sister to commit incest? If they love each other? Why is it still illegal in many parts of the US whereas homosexuality isn't?

If they still agree with that, then they should know that this is immoral, not just because they are having sex with their own family members, but because their children are likely to be affected a great deal by this, since having sex within closer relatives poses more of a threat of genetic diseases.


If the person still believes that they should be allowed to do that, then is it also moral to have sex with ones mother or father? If they both are mature and fit for it, willing to do it?

If someone says that this is moral, then who will their children be? Will they be sons/daughters? What will their child be to them? It can't be a son/daughter, nor can it be a brother/sister - so who is this child to them?


Is this really moral?



How about having sex with an animal, is this moral? Some may argue that animals cannot consent for sex, but what if an animal makes the first move and approaches the person sexually, is it moral then to have sex with that animal?




If the person is still going to play along and think that this is moral, is it moral to have sex with ones partner, and after having intercourse with them - you kill them and then eat them. Is this moral, if both parties had consented to it?

Since people like comparing themselves to animals so much, i'd love to hear a response to this - especially the last one (since fishing spiders * eat their mates after mating.)


*http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18625005.800-female-spiders-try-eating-mate-even-before-sex.html





Some people argue that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children, this isn't fair and it is immoral. The main reason is because it causes Psychological issues for the child - a person without a father is more likely to have psychological difficulties, aswell as a person lacking a mother. This is why homosexuals adopting children will not ease the child's situation. Rather, a child requires a mother and a father to have a good balance, the caring treatment of a mother, and a role model figure as a father. If this is lacking - the child may have psychological difficulties;

Homosexuals should be allowed to Adopt?


Some people argue that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children, this isn't fair and it is immoral. The main reason is because it causes Psychological issues for the child - a person without a father is more likely to have psychological difficulties, aswell as a person lacking a mother. This is why homosexuals adopting children will not ease the child's situation. Rather, a child requires a mother and a father to have a good balance, the caring treatment of a mother, and a role model figure as a father. If this is lacking - the child may have psychological difficulties

Drug And Alcohol Abuse: The absence of the father from the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in greater use of alcohol and marijuana.

Source: Deane Scott Berman, "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse," Adolescence 30 (1995): 201-206



Fatherless children are five times more likely to live in poverty, compared to children living with both parents.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.



Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.



In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.

Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)



Kids who live with both biological parents at age 14 are significantly more likely to graduate from high school than those kids who live with a single parent, a parent and step-parent, or neither parent.

Source: G.D. Sandefur (et al.), "The Effects of Parental Marital Status..." Social Forces, September 1992.


43 percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -

39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers - and an additional 14 percent lived in households without either biological parent. Another 14 percent had spent at last part of their childhood in a foster home, agency or other juvenile institution.

Source: US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Prison Inmates. 1991


Much more continued here:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1157307969275&pagename=Z one-English-Family%2FFYELayout

http://www.manslife.com/family/fatherfacts/


The potential of psychological harm to children arising from homosexual adoption was highlighted by Spanish doctors in their report on the subject, "It's Not the Same: Report on Child Development with Same Sex Couples," published in 2005 (see original in Spanish at http://www.narth.com/docs/noesigual3.pdf).

In the report the authors lament the lack of rigorous studies on the issue, but observe that existing studies indicate that children adopted by same-sex couples "more frequently suffer from psychological problems, in particular: low self esteem, stress, insecurity regarding their future life in relationships and having children," and "sexual identity disruption" among other effects.

Spanish Judge Put on Trial for "Obstructing" Homosexual Adoption

If one was to respond that it is better for a child to be adopted by a homosexual couple instead of remaining in an orphanage, then the response to this is that another harm should not be caused because of a previous harm.

Rather, it should be encouraged for a couple (husband and wife) to foster children whose parents may be unknown. However, it should not be done through a harmful method.


Children need a caring mother figure, and a role model father to look upto. That's the perfect healthy design and balance which Allah has made us in. It should remain that way to help society as a whole become a better place.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1157307969275&pagename=Zone-English-Family%2FFYELayout


If one was to respond that it is better for a child to be adopted by a homosexual couple instead of remaining in an orphanage, then the response to this is that another harm should not be caused because of a previous harm.

Rather, it should be encouraged for a couple (husband and wife) to foster children whose parents may be unknown. However, it should not be done through a harmful method.


http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/anti-islamic-refutations/homosexuality-592/



Abdul Fattah;

In psychology there's a big debate one nature vs. nurture. Nature says that certain characteristics like homosexuality are genetic, whereas nurture says that it is thought from the subjects environment. Most psychologists though, suspect that in reality it's a combination. Certain people might have a genetic tendency. That means they are more inclined towards something, or they have a higher possibility of being inclined towards. However that doesn't mean it's their inescapable nature, and that they aren't themselves if they deny this! Second of all that doesn't justify it either. The nurture vs. nature also concerns other human traits such as aggressiveness. Obviously aggressive nature does not justify hitting people. And btw, in the science department, this question is still unanswered last I checked so the genetic destiny argument doesn't fly.

Oh also note, in debates about rights, it's very likely to encounter circular reasoning like I showed in another thread: "I have a right to say what I want, therefore you shouldn’t try to silence me” or in this case: "People have the right to choose their own sexuality, therefor you shouldn't tell them homosexuality is wrong" It's important to point out that this isn't an argument, but instead an opinion.

Hell is too Cruel?

Hell is too Cruel?

Question:


How should I reply to someone who says that hell is too cruel, and that Allah is evil for creating it, i.e. he is referring to people being burned and tortured there for eternity, and saying that even though people should be punished for their evildoings, hell is too unjust - e.g. If someone kills my mother, off course I will be angry and whim to be punished for that, but I would not want him to die and burn over and over again in the hellfire forever, and burn his brain and torture him eternally with all those other horrible punishments, etc, since that is just inhumane - has anybody got any good replies?




Answer:

You are comparing apples with oranges here. For Allah is not like your mother. Your mother is a limited and finite human being. Justice demands that the punishment must fit the crime. The punishment committed against your mother is that of finite magnitude, thus calling for a finite punishment.

However, Allah is infinite and beyond limitations. Thus, one who rejects the infinite God for no valid reason (e.g. he wasn't insane, he wasn't in a coma, he received the correct message, etc.), has committed a crime that is of infinite magnitude. Thus, since the punishment must fit the crime and the crime is that of infinite magnitude, objective logic demands that the punishment must also be infinite and that is burning in hell forever.

Objective logic states that a crime commited against the infinite God should draw in an infinite punishment. But it is our emotions and personal subjective opinions that say other wise.

Also, we tend to look at the magnitude of the crime (e.g. simply rejecting a religion) but we do not tend to try and imagine the magnitude of whom the crime is being committed against.

Also, simply not liking, understanding or agreeing with something is not evidence against that thing. For example, in China you have people who commit tax evasion being executed. Now, I don't agree, understand or like that law, but that does not change the fact that the law is a reality in China.

Similarly, not liking, understanding or agreeing with people being burnt in hell forever, is not evidence against its reality. Us Muslims submit to the truth rather we like it or not. We don't care about what people like, agree or understand, we care about the truth. If the truth is something that we don't like, well then as the saying goes 'Truth hurts'.

Allah knows best.



http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=1250



Also, another argument to put forward is this; ask the person -

Now that you've been informed of the clear and simple message, would you still reject it? {if they reject it, tell them] And if you were given a life of eternity, would you still deny the favours of your Lord for that life of eternity?


If you remained ungrateful to Him and disbelieved in Him, then you would be punished for eternity, similarly you would be rewarded for eternity if you were to be grateful and obedient to Him.

He has made this life temporary for us, and He has created death for each one of us - then, soon we will die and return to Him and He will inform us of all that we did. No-one will be dealt with unjustly on that day.


Those who were grateful and did good to please their Creator and Sustainer - they will be rewarded eternally for believing in His Promise and pleasing Him in this temporary journey, but those who were ungrateful in this small, short lasting life and were disobedient to Him - then they will be punished for their own evil.


So this life is temporary, but the consequences of it will be for eternity. Choose the path which is better for you, before death comes - when it will be too late to turn back, and regret will be of no help.

The Quran on the Origin of the Universe & a refutation to the atheism thought

The Quran on the Origin of the Universe: http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-c.htm

The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition).1 This is one of the undisputed principles of standard modern cosmology. Scientists now can observe new stars forming out of the remnants of that ‘smoke’ (see figures 10 and 11).

Figure 10: A new star forming out of a cloud of gas and dust (nebula), which is one of the remnants of the ‘smoke’ that was the origin of the whole universe. (The Space Atlas, Heather and Henbest, p. 50.)

Figure 11: The Lagoon nebula is a cloud of gas and dust, about 60 light years in diameter. It is excited by the ultraviolet radiation of the hot stars that have recently formed within its bulk. (Horizons, Exploring the Universe, Seeds, plate 9, from Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole universe, in that ‘smoke’ material. God has said in the Quran:

Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... (Quran, 41:11)

Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same ‘smoke,’ we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity. Then out of this homogeneous ‘smoke,’ they formed and separated from each other. God has said in the Quran:

Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?... (Quran, 21:30)

Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world’s renowned geologists. He is Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.”²

Also he said: “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.”³

Footnotes:

(1) The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Weinberg, pp. 94-105.

(2) The reference for this saying is This is the Truth (videotape). For a copy of this videotape, please visit this page.

(3) This is the Truth (videotape).




To those who say that the Big Bang happened by chance with the control of no Creator, this is the argument:

In order to deal with mathematical (lack of) probability of this whole process, those who hold the same opinion as yourself have written that perhaps the reason it all works out is because everything that needed to be formed didn't just happen once - the right bang of everything, starting with the big bang down to the first cell kept randomly trying to happen over and over again billions upon billions upon billions of times until finally from nothing came something sustainable Now, that is what I call a leap of faith.

For myself, as reductionist as this may sound, I see that very simple systems created by man ALWAYS requires design. The poorer the design, the more likely the failure of such a system. And necessarily, the more complex the system, the more intricate, the more delicate it is, then the more the need for a design and then implementation. In other words, the more the need for a designer who places everything just so according to well-thought out plans.

So in the end, either you believe in that the designer always existed, or you don't. If you don't, then you believe either that matter always existed (and that is essentially what is being said is an impossible property for the Creator), or you believe that from nothingness, which has no conscious thought or care, came something painstakingly complex. The chances of such are statistically impossible, and so for myself, the choice is obvious.

http://www.islamicboard.com/873574-post14.html

A Refutation of the Naturalists

A Refutation of the Naturalists

By Imam Ibn ul Qayyim al Jawziyyah

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/34894-refutation-naturalists.html

Men & The Universe - Reflections of Ibn Al-Qayyem

Who was it who managed all that, perfected it, directed it and controlled it in the best way?

Someone might, if he were one of the depraved, say: "it is the work of nature; there are wonderful things in nature." To such a debater we say: if Allah had let your heart, you would yourself have refuted such a statement by replying: "Tell me about this nature, is it self-sustained, having knowledge, and having the ability to contrive those wonders? Or is it not? Is it not rather just an abstract quality and a display of the visible things around?" If the answer occurs to you: It is an independent entity with full knowledge, ability, will and wisdom," say: What you describe is the Creator, the Author and Shaper, so why do you call Him nature? Forget about what he naturalists dictate and turn to what Allah has taught humans to call Him in the words of His messengers, and if you do you will be one of the happy and wise folk. Why attribute to nature the attributes that belong to Allah?

If, on the other hand, the adversary says: "Nature is an abstract quality, a display in need of an agent, and all that we witness of its accomplishments s brought about without nature having knowledge, will, ability, or even the mere consciousness of what it is producing. All that we see is evidence of nature's achievements;" then the reply should be that no sane person would accept this reasoning. Do you really believe that the amazing actions and subtle contrivances that we see in this world, that no mind can fathom o fully appreciate, are made by an agent that itself has no thinking, ability, wisdom or feeling? Would anyone believe such reasoning but a madman or an animal?

You may further add: "If what you claim were true, I would be clear that such an abstract quality cannot have created itself or originated itself, so who is its Lord, Maker and Originator? Who enabled it to do all that? This logic is a most decisive piece of evidence in favor of believing in the Originator and Maker of nature, in the infinity of His ability, knowledge and wisdom. Indeed, this group has gained nothing by denying the Lord and His Attributes and Actions. They merely abolish the intellect and innate intuition. Nature itself would discredit such logic: it in fact contradicts mind, innate intuition, nature and even humanity, and it has caused the most ignorant and deluded attitudes that one can cause. If one does concede what the mind dictates and admits that it is not possible to have wise effects without the agency of a wise, able and knowing entity; that it is not possible to have well-controlled effects without here being a maker who is able, autonomous, in control of things, aware of what he is doing, not frustrated or overwhelmed by what he is doing - if one concedes that much then the right answer to such a person would be: What is the matter with you? When you accept the necessity of a great Creator beside whom no other god exists, and no other lord, stop calling Him nature or the 'self-active mind' or such appellations. Say instead: What I describe is Allah, the Creator, the Originator, the Shaper, Lord of the Worlds, Sustainer of the heavens and the earth, Lord of the east and the west, He who made excellent all that He created, and perfected what He crafted. Do not deny His Names and Attributes and Self and attribute His making to another and His creation to someone else. You have to concede His existence, and attribute to Him authorship, creation, lordship and control. There is no other way, praised is Allah, Lord of the Worlds.

The Meaning of Nature

By reconsidering the word 'nature' in this context, you will be led directly to the Creator, the Originator, as the common mind understands the word. That is because this word 'nature' (Arabic: tabee`ah) means that something was made by someone to behave according to a preset plan, and there is no other meaning at all. He word 'nature' is of the same class of words as 'instinct', 'disposition', 'temperament', 'an animal's or a human's nature', and the like. An animal has been made to react to stimuli, a reaction which is ingrained in it. It is self-evident that a 'nature' without a 'nature-maker' is impossibility: The very word, then, points to the Maker, the Almighty, just as its meaning indicates. Muslims believe that nature is one of Allah's creations, that it is under control, tamed and that this is part of His law operative among His creations; that He manages it the way He wills, and when He wills, so that He may deny it any aspect of its power when He wills, and reverse any of its effects when He wills, so that His servants may see that He alone is the Creator, the Originator, the Shaper, and that He creates whatever He wills, and in the way He wills. This is the meaning of the following verse from the Qur'an:

"But His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says unto it: Be! and it is." (36:82)

Nature, which his the utmost that those short-sighted lot can perceive, is no more than a creature of the Lord, equal in that to any of His creations. Considering this, how would a human, with the least bit of humanity or thinking, be blind to its being made to behave as it behaves, and how would he attribute to it making and originating! Time and again Allah halts its power, alters it and reverses it, so that it does the opposite of what it originally did, all to illustrate to His servants that it is His creation and making, that it is controlled by Him. That much can be supported by this verse from the Qur'an:

"His verily is all creation and commandment; blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds" (7:54)

Basically, he’s saying that these attributes which people give to nature i.e. being a former, shaper, sustainer etc. if given to a Creator makes perfect sense. Nature does not have a mind, and it isn’t logical that it can control the entire universe. So if all these attributes which naturalists/atheists give to nature were given to a Creator, you would be talking about Allah (God) Almighty, which makes perfect sense and is logical.

One may ask who created God who is Perfect and flawless? The simple answer is that we take Allah/God as a God simply because He is perfect. If God was created, then we would not take him as a God because something perfect cannot be created.

Finally, it is much more logical that someone controlling and sustaining the universe (or anything else) is much more logical than it not being controlled by anyone at all.

Some notes in regard to evolution theory - Regarding animals being related to humans because they have a similar immune system

http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=792

Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective| Prepared by the Research Committee of IslamToday.net under the supervision of Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî|

Many Muslims wonder about the theory of biological evolution – the theory that living species on Earth today are descended from others in the past, and that the present diversity of living species we see is a result of descent with modification over the course of numerous generations.

Muslims also wonder about one of the main processes that evolutionary theory proposes to explain how evolution takes place – the process of natural selection. This is the idea that the individuals within a populations of living organism vary in their individual traits – they are not exactly alike – and that the organisms which are most successful at leaving descendants will pass on their unique traits to the next generation at the expense of the traits possessed by less successful organisms in the population, thereby contributing to a long-term gradual change in the suite of traits found within the population.

To start with, it is not our intention in this article to discuss the scientific implications of evolutionary theory. We wish to explore the issue from the perspective of Islamic teachings.

We as Muslims must ask:

Does the theory of evolution – and likewise the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution – conform to Islamic teachings or conflict with them?

Is a Muslim allowed to believe in evolution as a scientific theory as long as he or she accepts that Allah is behind it?

Is a Muslim allowed to believe in human evolution? If not, how can we explain the fossils of upright, bipedal, tool-using apes with large brains that have been discovered?

We wish to re-emphasize that our concern here is not with examining the scientific merits of the theory of evolution. What we want to know is what Islamic teachings have to say about the idea. Whether evolution is true or false scientifically is another matter altogether.

When we look at the sources of Islam – the Qur’ân and Sunnah – we see that, with respect to human beings living on the Earth today, they are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

Allah also says: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing.” [Sûrah al-Hujûrât:13]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) identified the "male" mentioned in this verse as being Adam. He said: “Human beings are the children of Adam and Adam was created from Earth. Allah says: ‘O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing’.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî (3270)]

We also see that Allah created Adam directly without the agency of parents.

Allah says: “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was.” [Sûrah Âl `Imrân: 59]

We also know that Eve was created from Adam without the agency of parents.

In the Qur’ân, Allah states clearly: “O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 1]

Therefore, the Qur’ân tells us that Adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the Earth today. We know about this by way of direct revelation from Allah.

The direct creation of Adam (peace be upon him) can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. This is because the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) was a unique and singular historical event. It is a matter of the Unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny. As a matter of the Unseen, we believe it because Allah informs us about it. We say the same for the miracles mentioned in the Qur’ân. Miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.

What about other living things, besides the human beings living on the Earth today? What about plants, animals, fungi, and the like?

When we turn our attention to this question, we find that the Qur’ân and Sunnah do not tell us much about the flora and fauna that was present on the Earth before or at the time of Adam and Eve’s arrived upon it. The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts.

The only thing that the Qur’ân and Sunnah require us to believe about the living things on Earth today is that Allah created them in whatever manner He decided to create them.

Allah says: “Allah is the Creator of all things and over all things He has authority.” [Sûrah al-Zumar: 62]

Indeed, Allah states specifically that He created all life forms: “And We made from water all living things.” [Sûrah al-Anbiyâ’: 30]

We know that “Allah does what He pleases.” Allah can create His creatures in any manner that He chooses.

Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

The role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that Allah places in His creation. If scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. It is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of Allah. A Muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in Allah’s creation.

As for the fossil remains of bipedal apes and the tools and artifacts associated with those remains, their existence poses no problem for Islamic teachings. There is nothing in the Qur’ân and Sunnah that either affirms or denies that upright, brainy, tool using apes ever existed or evolved from other apelike ancestors. Such animals may very well have existed on Earth before Adam’s arrival upon it. All we can draw from the Qur’ân and Sunnah is that even if those animals once existed, they were not the forefathers of Adam (peace be upon him).

And Allah knows best.

Regarding animals being related to humans because they have a similar immune system


Yeah there are some interesting things to say there. For example, humans are more vulnerable to pig diseases as opposed to monkey diseases, so are we closer to pigs than to monkeys on the alleged tree of evolution or is their a flaw in their argument?

Also immune system is only partially DNA-Dependant, part of the immune grows as we develop based on our environment. So any similarities could just as well be environment-based as opposed to DNA based. This shows again you cannot really debate evolution unless you're looking at DNA. Problem is though, we still haven't figured out DNA, we might have already decoded it, but there's so many genes we don't know the function of, so many things we haven't figured out. The science is way to immature to have this debate.