Latest
1171 / 1853
15
Roman Emperor Who Almost Became Muslim & Conquest of Jerusalem | Al-Aqsa: Past, Present, and Promise
38
The Blessed Land of Al-Sham: Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan | Al-Aqsa: Past, Present, and Promise
45
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Tamim al-Dari (ra): The Palestinian Sahabi That Met Dajjal | The Firsts
52
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Adi ibn Hatim al-Tai (ra): From Christian King to Companion | The Firsts
68
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Tulayha ibn Khuwaylid (ra): From False Prophet to Shaheed | The Firsts
121
Culture
Israel's Ceasefire Rejection, Nurse Fired for Gaza, and the Law of Sacrifice | Imam Tom Live
240
Culture
Biryani Diplomacy: The Illusion of Political Influence & the "Flour Massacre" | Imam Tom Live
254
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Amr ibn al-As (ra): His Wicked Father and “Better” Brother | The Firsts
260
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Khalid ibn al-Walid (ra): The Legendary Military General | The Firsts
401
Quran
Juz’ 26: Mufti Abdul Rahman Waheed and Dr. Zohair Abdul Rahman | Our Afterlife and Our Purpose
517
Allah
Finding Faith Through the Prophet's ﷺ Conviction: Dr. Omar Suleiman | My Moment of Conviction
631
Social Justice
A Conversation with Afreen Fatima on the Plight of Indian Muslims | Dr. Omar Suleiman
642
Prophets
Why Is Asking "Why Does God Asks Us to Worship Him?" Flawed? (Part 2) | Yaqeen Whiteboard
678
Angels
Ep. 13: The Hadith of Jibreel (as) | Angels in Their Presence | Season 2 | Dr. Omar Suleiman
712
Afterlife
Sincerity Shines and Hypocrisy Blinds | Judgment Day: Deeds that Light the Way Episode 25
869
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Anisa, Al-Numan, and Amir (ra): On A Boat From Abysinnia | The Firsts
876
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Khalid Ibn Sa’id Ibn al-'As (ra): A Dream of the Prophet | The Firsts
892
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Zaynab Bint Khuzayma (ra): The Mother of the Poor | The Firsts Shorts
902
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Shurahbil Ibn Hasana (ra): The Scribe and Commander | The Firsts Shorts
924
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Al-Shifa bint Abdullah (ra): The Healer and Scholar | The Firsts Shorts
977
Life of the Prophet (seerah)
Khawla Bint Hakim & Uthman Ibn Madhun: The Righteous Couple | The Firsts
1093
Islam in the West
Dr. Ahmed Osman: The Martyrdom, Funeral, and Burial of Malcolm X | Yaqeen Presents
1446
Acts of Worship
When the Prophet Sent People Home from the Masajid for Taraweeh | Daily Reminders
1561
Identity
Keeping Masculinity from Trending Toxic - Dr. Jonathan Brown | Reframing the Gender Question
1565
Social Justice
Overcoming Compassion Fatigue, Numbness, and Burnout - Sh. Omar Suleiman | Khutbah
1605
Acts of Worship
Day 24: When the Night Draws its Curtain —The Importance of Tahajjud | Ramadan Strong
1657
Social Justice
Conflict Resolution: The Line Between Justice and Peace - Sh. Omar Suleiman | Lecture
1658
General Psychology
Spiritual Personality - Zohair Abdul-Rahman | 2018 Yaqeen/MAS Academic Conference
1673
Contemporary Ideologies
Conversations at The Carter Center: Harmonizing Religion and Human Rights
1674
Education
How Yaqeen is a Resource for Our Community - Sh. Omar Suleiman | Making Principled Progress
1680
Islamophobia
How Yaqeen Heals Internalized Islamophobia - Dalia Mogahed | Making Principled Progress
1702
Jurisprudence (fiqh)
Appreciating Scholarship: Intro to Islamic Law - Tesneem Alkiek | Yaqeen in NY
1731
Acts of Worship
Episode 6: The Highest Companionship in the Highest Garden | Prayers of the Pious
Is Darwinism Compatible with Islam? A Perspective of Evolution Through an Islamic Lens
Dr. Hatem al-Haj answers the very important question, “Is Darwinism compatible with Islam?” In his explanation of the perspective of evolution from an Islamic lens, he highlights the importance of analyzing what is both definitive and speculative in science and religion. Ultimately, he informs us that denying Adam’s direct creation from soil is contradictory to our principles. Listen to his lecture and learn more about how Muslims should interact with various existing theories regarding evolution.
Transcript
This transcript was auto-generated using AI and may contain misspellings. Alhamdulillah, salallahu alayhi wa sallam, rasulullah, one more time, the question of Darwinism and Islam and if there is a conflict, like an intractable conflict, irresolvable conflict between Darwinism and Islam. What I wanted to say is when a question like this is presented to one of us, it is extremely important that we do not make hasty conclusions and that we try to understand what what the question is about and try to understand what the whole topic or whole discussion is about and that sometimes can take a very long time of investigating and studying to figure out what the question means in the first place. What is Darwinism? And what are the different parts of Darwinism and how they would relate to Islamic teachings because Islamic teachings also are not one undifferentiated category of certain truths. There are certainly certain truths in Islam but there are also interpretations and room for sort of perspectives. Honestly speaking, the different scholars would have different perspectives and as long as they are qualified to make istihad, if the ruler
or arbitrator or judge makes istihad and they are correct, they would have two rewards and if they are incorrect, they will have one reward. As long as the person embarking on istihad is qualified to make istihad, inshallah, they'll be rewarded whether they are right or wrong so long as they have put in the effort necessary to study the matter at hand. So this is the first thing I wanted to say is that don't be hasty and don't basically give like answers that are premature or that are not that have not been sought out by you and others as well because we're talking about a like we're talking about a proposition that many people consider to be a fact. We're talking about a proposition that many people consider to be very preponderant, the very preponderant proposition within a particular science or theory or prevalent or dominant theory in a particular science. So I will give you a summary and before I go into the discussion of what is compatible and what is not compatible because there are parts of evolutionary biology that are compatible with Islam. There are parts that are not compatible with Islam. So
you know, the summary is that Adam, we are all the children of Adam. Ya ayyuha nasaw an-nafalaknakum min zakarin wa unsa, wa ja'alnakum shu'ubahu wa qabaili la ta'arafu We are people who have created you from a single male and a single female. We are the children of Adam. Adam was created from soil and that's another fact. Ithqal rabbil malakati inni khalaqum basharan min teen Behold when your Lord said to the angels, I will create bashar, a man from soil or from mud or from clay. You know the different phases that the soil or the dust, turab, soil, mud, clay, the different phases that the creation of Adam went through have been all mentioned in the Quran. So these are two facts, you know, so we are the children of Adam. Adam was created from dust, soil, mud, clay. And the other fact that is close in certainty to these is that the creation of Adam from clay was direct. There were no phases basically, except the phases of the sort of the dust, mud, clay, and so on. But there were no intermediate creations between the clay and Adam. The clay, Allah breathed into the clay and Adam was. So that is close to, you know, the two prior facts in certainty, although
not exactly there, but very close to them in terms of certainty. The two facts that we mentioned are certain from an Islamic perspective are one, we're all the children of Adam. So we are, we're all one human family. We all came from a single man and a single woman. We all are brothers in humanity because of that ancestry that we share. And the second is that Adam was created from dust, mud, and clay. And then the, now the other thing that we have to say in this initial summary is that there is still room for some people, although I personally don't believe that Darwinism is established enough to start to basically tilt the apparent meanings of the scriptures or the common narrative in our tradition. Apparent meanings of the scriptures or the common narrative, not the definitive, the apparent, there is a huge difference. We never tilt to the definitive meanings of the scriptures because this is, these are basically the ultimate certainty comes from God and we don't tilt to the definitive implications of the scriptures, but there would certainly be room to sort of re- interpret, re-interpret
the apparent implications if they come in conflict with that which is proven definitive through another mode of acquisition of knowledge, whether it is rational or empirical or otherwise. So I personally believe that the Darwinism in a, you know, when it comes to macro, not micro, evolution, when it comes to, you know, a species coming from another species or a species developing into a different species, I don't think that this has been established as a fact to want, you know, for, you know, for Muslim apologists to go out and look for a way to re-interpret the apparent meanings of the scriptures and the common narrative in the tradition about the creation of Adam or other creations, other animals, and so on and so forth. But there is nothing definitive, definitive in terms of, you know, scriptural proofs. There is nothing definitive to say that Adam was the only homo sapien, that there may have not been other homo sapiens before Adam, other than Adam. There is nothing definitive to say that animals did not, or different species of animate life, did not develop from one another. Nothing definitive. Now, this is against the apparent implications of the scriptures and the common narrative in the tradition. There is nothing definitive to say that this is in conflict with
sort of certain knowledge of the scriptures. So these are things now that would go against the apparent implications of the scriptures and the common narrative in the tradition. What are they? There could have been other homo sapiens, you know, before Adam. Those homo sapiens could have developed from other animals, and those animals could have developed from the first cell. That's, you know, evolutionary biology. That's basically what evolutionary biology is about. How life came from that first cell, and then the species continued to develop over sort of billions of years until they reached the form that they have now. So this is the summary. Now, let's go to the discussion. And how did we arrive at this, and why did we separate between certain scriptural indicants and others, and why did we say some are certain and some are not, or definitive and speculative, and so on? And what about Darwinism itself, and why am I saying that we don't need to even reinterpret the apparent meanings, let alone, you know, certainly we never reinterpret the definitive meanings, but I'm saying that we don't even need to reinterpret the apparent meanings, because my macroevolution has not established itself yet for us to go out of our way to reinterpret the apparent meanings of the scriptures.
And let me start by saying that when we talk about reinterpretation, does it not even make sense to reinterpret the apparent meanings of the scriptures because of some proven scientific facts? Yes, it would be. It would be. There are examples where we would go back and re-examine the meaning of the scriptures, to go back and re-examine what has been thought to be the apparent meaning of the scriptures. Like, for instance, the shortest duration of pregnancy. There are multiple consensuses reported by verifying scholars where the shortest duration of pregnancy was said to be six months, based on the implications of two different verses. وَفِصَالُهُ فِي عَمَيْنٍ وَحَمْلُهُ وَفِصَالُهُ سَلَسُنَ شَهْرًا So, one verse says that the weaning happens in two years, within two years the infant will be weaned, and the other verse says that the pregnancy and weaning will take 30 months. So, Ali, or Abdullah ibn Abbas, whichever one of them, is basically traced to both of them, one of them said to Umar or to Uthman, that this means that the shortest duration of pregnancy is six months. And the rest of the Sahaba did not really think that way, and they did not really deduce that from the two verses,
it's just too subtle to be deduced, but forever Ali was praised for making this subtle deduction. It is a good deduction, of course, but then Muslim scholars afterwards continued to add more certainty to it. Consensus after consensus has been reported that the shortest duration of pregnancy is six months, and we know that it is not. Now we can go back and reinterpret, we know that it's not by any far a stretch, the shortest duration of pregnancy could be more than a month earlier than that, and babies do survive much earlier than that. Even people will go and Google this and not pay attention to the fact that gestational age and post-conceptional age are two different things. So when the scholars say six months, they mean post-conceptional age, and when the doctors say 24 weeks, which is not anymore the case, it's 22 and even less, for survival they mean gestational age, and there is a two-week difference between the two. So basically six months would be somewhere around 176 days, and newborns could survive at a much earlier age than this. 150 is not uncommon. Now that's like a 26-day difference, so it's a lot. So we go back and re-examine and say, you know, these consensuses, what do they mean?
Is this, like, what is the value of tacit consensus? That's called the jma'a sikuti, are they definitive or not definitive? What did the scholars actually say? And we find that some of the scholars said that, you know, someone, even if they are born alive, so that's a recognition from some of the scholars, that they can be born alive, they will not continue to live. And certainly that was true in their times because of the lack of medical advances that we have now, alhamdulillah. So to go back and to re-interpret, to re-examine the statements of the scholars and figure out where is the conflict coming from is valid. And it is basically the agreement of Muslim scholars. I have written something about this and I start by talking about the universal law, the universal law that was conceptualized first by Imam al-Ghazali, formulated by Imam al-Razi, critiqued by Imam ibn Taymiyyah, and when it comes to the universal law, I accept the Taymiyyah version of it, which is a modified universal law. Yet all those luminaries have agreed that we will not disregard the definitive conclusions of reason, because our belief in God is grounded and our acceptance of the scriptures and our belief in the scriptures and faith in the scriptures is grounded in reason.
And if we reject the definitive conclusions of reason, in a way, we are compromising what our faith in God is grounded in, which is reason. So they agreed that we will not reject the definitive conclusions of reasons. Now someone may say, and certainly people that are well-versed in philosophy may say that the empirical conclusions, scientific empirical conclusions and the rational conclusions are two different things. But for the purpose of this talk, we will treat the scientific empirical conclusions like the rational conclusions, and we will say that some of those are definitive, like the definitive rational output. There could be definitive output from science, empirical facts that we can discover through science. So now the Taymiyyah version of the universal law or the modified universal law, what would it say? It would say that there is no binary of scriptural and rational evidences or proofs. There is a quaternary division or the consequential binary is between what? Between the definitive and the speculative, not the scriptural and the rational. So if we say that there is scriptural definitive, scriptural speculative, rational definitive, rational speculative,
the quaternary division, the important binary here, the consequential binary here is what? Definitive or speculative. So we will give precedence to that which is definitive, whether or not, whether or not it is the scriptural, over that which is speculative. What Imam al-Razi said is that we will give precedence to reason over the scriptures and reinterpret the scriptures to conform to the output of reason, because our faith in the scriptures is grounded in reason, and rejecting reason means rejection of both, which makes perfect sense, but there are some nuances here that Imam al-Khaymiyyah was able to bring to the table. And by making this quaternary division versus the binary one, and saying that the consequential binary is that between definitive and speculative. So then what we will go by is the modified universal law. If there is a conflict between, and for the purpose of this talk, we will treat the empirical findings of science like the sort of definitive output of reason. The definitive empirical findings of science as the definitive output of reason. And if we do this, then we will say, well, let's figure out what is definitive about Darwinism and what is speculative. Let us figure out what is definitive in our scriptures and what is
speculative, and let's figure out if there is a conflict between what is definitive in the scriptures and definitive in science, or between definitive in the scriptures and speculative in science, definitive in science, speculative in the scriptures. So what are we going to do based on the sort of Taymiyyah version of the universal law? We will give precedence to that which is definitive over that which is speculative. Imam Taymiyyah said there will never be a conflict between definitive and definitive. Because if the scriptures are from God and reason is given to us by God, there will never be a conflict. If the universe is created by God, the laws in the universe are created by God, the scriptures were sent from God, there would never be a conflict between definitive and definitive. The conflict will be between definitive and speculative, and whatever the source, the type of that which is definitive, is it scriptural or rational or empirical, we will accept the definitive over the speculative. And now if you have a conflict between two speculative prepositions or two speculative proofs, you will give precedence to what? The more probative one, the stronger proof. So that basically sets the stage for us to then try to examine the scriptures and try to examine Darwinism. Now Darwinism, to begin with, is a scientific theory accepted as evolutionary biology, or evolution in general, because
it's not really about Darwin per se, it is about all sort of the people that believed in evolution. So evolution is accepted by the vast majority of biologists as a fact. Microevolution, which is development within the same species, and some level of adaptation and, you know, selection and adaptation and so on and so forth, all of this we don't have a problem with. There is nothing in our scriptures that would come in conflict with microevolution, development within the species, adaptation, development of new qualities or sort of improvement of certain qualities within the species. It does not mean that we have to believe this, you know, we believe things that are proven to us, but it just means that there is no conflict, there is no conflict between the scriptures and that concept. Certainly there would be always a conflict between the scriptures and any such concepts if people are saying that these things are happening autonomously, you know, in separation from the divine act or the divine will. But if people are saying that these things are happening in accordance with the divine will, then there is no problem there. But then the other part of Darwinism, the other part of Darwinism is macroevolution, and macroevolution is basically where one
species develops into another. And that is, and then at the end of the day, it means that human beings came from the monkeys or the apes and, you know, we all came from the unicef. And here lies the problem, here lies the problem and here lies the conflict. So if we go back to the scriptures and we say that Allah made it clear to us that all human beings are the children of Adam and Eve, no one can deny this. Oh mankind, indeed we have created you from a single male and a single female. You know, beginning of Surat al-Nisa. No, you know, yeah, no, it's the beginning of Surat al-Nisa. But the part, that part is in both. Yeah, Surah Al-Nisa Oh people, fear Allah who created you from a single soul and created from it its mate and from them created many men and women. And in Surat al-Hujurat, يَا أَيُّهُ الْنَّسُوا إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ مِنْ ذَكْرٍ وَمُنْسَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُومٌ وَقَبَأْرًا إِنَّا أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَفْ مِنْ اللَّهِ عَلِيمٌ كَبِيرٌ So you people, we have created you from a single male and a single female. And the single male and a single female in Surat al-Nisa, it is one nafs from which the other one was
created and then they were made into many, many men and women. Now this is a fact. So this fact cannot be denied by any Muslim. And it has huge consequences to deny this fact on our hermeneutical system and our perception of ourselves and perception of human equality and so many other things. So it is completely anti-Islamic to believe otherwise, but outside of Islam, it's not, you know. But we will find that some of the, like a prominent scholar from al-Azhar, a prominent scholar, professor from al-Azhar like Abd al-Sabur Shaheen, who used to be, you know, like a very well-known Muslim apologist defending Islam, defending the Aqidah, defending the faqhah. He may have his own positions and his own interpretations at times, but no one can suspect his sincerity and also his qualifications. He was a qualified scholar and he was sincere. He was able to basically establish his, like a new interpretation. You know, I think that it was under the pressure of, you know, a misnotion or perception that Darwinism is a fact, that macroevolution is a fact. So he said that, yes, we are all the children of Adam, but whoever said that Adam
was created directly from dust, like from clay, to Adam, no phases in the middle. He says, for instance, Allah says in the Quran, وَقَدْ خَلَقَكُمْ أَطْوَارًا and He created you in stages, and this is in Surat Nuh. So that means that Adam was created from clay in stages. Now those stages could be all, you know, from the unicell to Adam over billions of years. So that was his interpretation and that is the interpretation of, you know, some others. And they cite other verses from the Quran and they say that اِذْ قَلْ رَبُّكَ لِلْمِلَائِكْتِينِ خَلَقُ الْبَشْرَ مِّنْ تِينٍ In Surat Saad, it does not necessarily mean Bashar is the Adam or the human being. It means the Homo sapiens or it means other animals, possibly. But then we have a genre of ayat and hadith that will make this very implausible, this interpretation very implausible. We do recognize that the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah agree on the fact that there is a particular favor for Adam to be created by the hands of God. قَلَٓا يَا إِبْلِيسُ مَنْ مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَيَّ So Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala said to Iblis, O Iblis, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created by my, or with my two hands, with my two hands. And regardless of what the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah believe in the two hands, and certainly from an Asari perspective, we deny any similarity or likeness
between Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and the creation, and we deny that composition of parts, so we deny that God is composed of parts, we deny that the hands would be the flesh and the blood, but we affirm the quality, the description, the attribute, with denying any similarity to any creations. The ontological reality is delegated to God, or consigned to God. But regardless of what people believe about the hands, they agree that there is a special favor for Adam to be created of the two hands of God, or with the two hands of God. Also Allah says, إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَى عَنْدَ اللَّهِ كَمَثْلِ آدَمْ خَلَقَهُمْ مُنْ تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُنْ فَأَكُونَ So the likeness of Isa alayhis-salam before Allah, or with Allah, or to Allah, is like that of Adam. He created him, Adam, he created him from turab, dust, and he then said to him, Be, and he was. So if Adam had ancestors, then that parable does not make much sense. Isa then would have ancestors, but Allah is saying, Isa does not have a father, does not have an ancestor, a paternal ancestor, not a big deal. Adam did not have either, paternal or maternal. He was created from dust. And there are hadiths and so on, but I think I'm running out of time, so I'm going to have to speed up here. So now, basically to deny that Adam was created directly from soil would be very costly to our hermeneutical principles.
Do we need this? No, we don't. Now, the other issue is, do we need to reinterpret or to have at least a non-committal position with regard to the presence of homo sapiens before Adam, animals developing from other animals, evolution aside from Adam, aside from Adam and Adam's progeny, evolution taking place. Is there anything definitive against this? No, there is not, but it is in conflict with what? With the apparent meanings of the scriptures, apparent, not definitive, meanings of the scriptures and the common narrative in the tradition. Now, should we propagate this? I don't think so. Should we propagate the more science-friendly, science in the sense of most of the scientists, biologists in the West accepting evolution, even macroevolution, as some sort of almost a fact? So despite all the difficulties that this theory is fraught with, should we propagate a more science-friendly narrative? I don't think that we need to. Now, we will not go and say that this is in conflict with the definitive meanings of the scriptures because they are not those ones, aside from Adam, like I said. But what we will say is the following. I don't have the urgency, I don't see the necessity to go and reinterpret the apparent meanings of the scriptures or the common narrative in the tradition. Why? Because while microevolution may be a fact that is
supported by some evidence, undeniable evidence, such as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics versus evolution, macroevolution, which is one species becoming another species, there, I don't think that this is an established fact to need to reinterpret the apparent meanings of the scriptures or to make them conform to it. And I mentioned a few reasons why I don't believe that Darwinism is an established fact. I would say it fails to provide an explanation for the beginning of life. It does not attempt to, but it does not provide a complete narrative. They say that first was physics and then chemistry and then biology. So, Darwinism deals with the biological phase, which is the third and the last phase, but it does not provide a complete sort of narrative, a coherent, complete, proven narrative to replace the narrative, the scriptural narrative or the divine narrative. Second, it is based on unreasonable faith in chance. They call it the Hoyle's fallacy, but it is not a fallacy. Fred Hoyle said that, you know, the belief in abiogenesis by chance is like believing in a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the ingredients therein. Too much sort of faith in
chance that is unrealistic. It is almost mythical. And if some faith tried to come to the, sort of, to save the theory of evolution by saying that Allah is all capable, what? You don't need to do this. Let the theory stand on its own feet without invoking the divine power now and then let's discuss it. But you're trying to save the theory by invoking divine power when the theory itself did not attempt, although Darwin at the time of writing the origin of all species, was not an atheist. He became sort of some, not even atheist, but was not particularly committed when his daughter died and the problem of evil caused him a little bit of a crisis, a faith crisis. But Darwinism and the Darwinists and evolutionists are claiming that this is proven by science, so don't try to invoke divine power here. Then it also fails to provide a mechanism by which this evolution takes place and the genetic mutation modified Darwinism, you know, through genetic mutations. Mutations would extremely rarely bring about improvement, usually a regression, deformity, and disease. You know, I have interest in syndromic genetics and I don't know, like, a lot of mutations that cause any improvement. We know mutations in genes that cause a lot of diseases and a lot of syndromes. It also fails to provide reasonable answers to
the lack of intermediaries in the fossil record. That's, paleontologically speaking, it is a known problem. If we have all of those species, where are the links in the fossil record? It fails to provide a reasonable explanation for the Cambrian explosion that they found in the fossil record that, you know, complex animate beings appeared on Earth at a certain time, like, explosion of a lot of complex animate beings at a certain time. Where is the sort of the development over billions of years here? It also assumes that the blind nature has a purpose of producing fitter creations, survival of the fittest, for the survival and advancement. It also assumes that the direction, there is, it is creating a telos here from nothing, that there is a, the direction is advancement, progress. Why should that be? Because we know that, you know, order does not come from chaos. Chaos comes from order. And this is, you know, known. How could order come from chaos? Then also it fails to provide satisfactory explanation for many phenomena such as altruism and objective morality. And if it is survival for the fittest, then we are built, basically, altruism, you know, and if you say that this is for the entire species, altruism is good for the entire species, then it is good for the entire species. Survival of the species versus the individual. But why would the individual sacrifice themselves? The individual survival should be stronger in this case,
and, you know, and should be the basis of the survival of the species. It fails to provide reasonable answer to the contention of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity. So if you look at the vestibular system in the ear, if you look at any system, and you say that this developed over time, this complexity was acquired over time, but if you reverse that development, you will basically not going to be able to have any functional systems. It is not like you could reverse it bit by bit, like little by little, until you go back to the unicell. In the middle of this reversal, you will have completely a functional or dysfunctional systems that would not be conducive to anything or any function or in a living entity. So that is also a problem. Therefore, it is fraught with problems. You know, Darwinists understand that it is fraught with problems. They don't have proper explanations. Therefore, I don't feel the urgency or the pressure to go and reinterpret the common narrative. But what I will do is that if a particular Muslim biologist has this sort of deep conviction or has this faith into parts of Darwinism, I am not going to tell him that each and everything that you're talking about amounts to guff or to rejection of Islam. I will tell him, this is what is certain in Islam. We are the children of Adam,
and Adam was created from dust. And close to that uncertainty is that Adam was created from dust directly by God breathing his soul into the clay and basically by saying be, and he was. I hope that this was sufficient, I guess. I finished after 45 minutes, but I didn't leave time for questions and answers. I apologize about that. Qul qawliyaan astaghfirullahi wa alaikum Subhanakallahu wa humdik Shadr allah wa ala ala al-ansataghfirullah wa alaikum
Welcome back!
Bookmark content
Download resources easily
Manage your donations
Track your spiritual growth
1 items
1 items
1 items
1 items
25 items
50 items
9 items
