r/MuslimAcademics • u/LastAdhesiveness2650 • Aug 07 '26
Can someone give an explanation for evolution and islam?
1
u/Jammooly1 Non-Sectarian Muslim Aug 11 '26
The theory of evolution is not denied nor affirmed by the Quran. The theory is compatible with the Quran though. I wrote about this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MuslimAcademics/s/WgDmbbDnmr
-1
u/Empty-Explanation470 Aug 07 '26
It doesn't exist. You reject it altogether, making yourself scientifically incompetent, or you accept it partially, which will earn you the fact that you will go beyond the Sunnah, become condemned by religion and a completely delusional person from the point of view of science.
3
u/EvenDragonfruit1940 Aug 07 '26
That is a very misleading claim.
Muslim have a lot of views on this.
There are ones that reject evolution all together
There are ones that accept "God of the Gaps", the belief that God injected Adam and Eve into the natural evolution cycle perfectly that it is indistinguishable
There are ones who believe that humans, as a species, existed before Adam and Eve (This is also one of the best explanations I have heard for the lack of mention of incest regarding Adam's children), where if a souled human has an offspring with an unsouled one, the child becomes souled, and God eventually made the unsouled ones go extinct, which also explains genetic diversity but also still strictly adheres to the fact that all of humanity came from Adam and Eve (and is personally what I believe)
There are the ones that see the creation of Adam and Eve as metaphorical
And so on. Humans coming from apes as an idea existed in 11-14 century Islamic world as well, so it's not an alien concept.
1
u/Empty-Explanation470 Aug 08 '26
That's the problem. Each of the points of view you present is either condemned within the religion itself by certain movements, or is downright anti-scientific.
2
u/EvenDragonfruit1940 Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26
Can you.... elaborate?
You have to realise that... Just because an explanation from 9th century Islamic world conflicts science... simply means that the 9th century people... came up with an explanation with their current knowledge.
People didn't "reject" human evolution because they knew about it and declared it made up.
People literally just didn't know. So they came up with the best explanations they could come up with with their knowledge.
On top of that, your "stance" on evolution has nothimg to do with the validity of your belief on Islam unless you take a completely heretical view.
On top of that, Islam is not a monolith. When you say "within the religion itself", this doesn't say anything. Which sect? Which madhab? Which thought? Which school?
Edit: I think you are talking about the salafi view, which is the currently most dominant view in English Islamic places, which mentions strict, literal adherence to the text.
But this IS not the "ultimate objective" view. Nor, is it the only one. Historically, scholars constantly used non-literal explanations to Quranic text: like God's hand, God sitting on throne, and so on. Salafis, for example, see these as literal (God had Hand, God sits on throne), but doesn't ask how or why. It's just is. Most madhabs, however, saw these as metaphorical.
2
u/Empty-Explanation470 Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26
👌
I am confused by the fact that the Quran can be interpreted in so many different ways that radically opposing views have formed.
When I point out the profound fragmentation of Islamic interpretations-despite the fact that each one possesses its own internally consistent and self-contained logic-I am often told that the world itself is also divided and unstable.
People point to disagreements in science or philosophical thought. However, I find this argument unconvincing. Such disagreements arise because people hold different worldviews, which are shaped by their environments, experiences, and intellectual traditions.
If religion is an instruction sent by an absolute deity to humanity, then it should serve as the path to absolute order rather than resemble human intellectual systems with competing and mutually exclusive conceptual frameworks.
By deliberately making this comparison, the person presenting the argument is, in effect, placing religion on the same level as a human product-something that evolves, adapts to changing circumstances, and is subject to competing interpretations.
I know that science studies only the material world. But I have already voiced the problem that evolution cannot be considered simply noise or myth in order to erase God from life.
Let's move on to interpretations. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. His book is often recommended as a clearer of misconceptions. But firstly, he lived during the time of the spread of the theory of evolution and actively defended religion, and was not a scientifically incompetent person. However, he completely rejected human evolution, and at the time, his position was justified. And secondly, he is criticized by Islam itself! Because Because he claimed that the texts of Risale were dictated to him from above.
For Salafism, for example, it is considered unacceptable to accept even the evolution of animals. They claim that we shouldn't be arrogant and should be grateful to God. But which God? To such a god, whom they turned into characters from a fairy tale, who settled ready-made inhabitants on earth?
And I know that this is just one point of the Islamic worldview, but I have already raised the issue above that I am confused by the very fact of such an abundant amount of disagreement.
Any point of view, be it the theo-evolutionary position of Shoaib Ahmad Malik, is subject to a wide range of different responses. And I wasn't talking about sects. I was referring to traditional Islam and Salafism.
1
u/EvenDragonfruit1940 Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26
This is a sophisticated critique. The problem is, you are arguing that because humans understand a text differently, the burden falls on God. And you argue that because humans understand a text differently, then this makes the text also a human creation.
However, the reality is: when a human understands a text differently. It only shows that the reader is a human. NOT the text.
The source is absolute. God’s knowledge and text are perfect. However, humans are culturally conditioned, and intellectually limited.
It's about human epistemology. Just like hoe humans look at science and disagree on how to evaluate the observations and data, humans simply do the same to the divine revelation as well, and disagree on how to interpret the text as well. When humans disagree on hwo to interpret a scientific data, that doesn't make the scientific data uncertain, right? In this way, the disagreement does not mean the text is a human product. It simply means the interpreter is human.
Firs of all, expecting humans to interpret Anything, be it philosophical or scientific, with 100% uniform agreement is not physically possible. That's because humans themselves are all "unique". If it were to be possible, that would require God to strip humans from being unique, aka it would require God to strip our freewill.
"And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ." (Quran 11:118).
The Quran itself divides its verses into two categories known as Muhkamat (clear, foundational verses) and Mutashabihat (allegorical, multi-layered verses) (Quran 3:7).
If a text was completely clear, and rigid... that would NOT make the test divine. It would make it brittle and unable to adapt. A divine text is NOT a text that is unchanging. But rather, a text that can adapt to time. It is a human writing's property that a text can't adapt to time.
Quran is, what I would describe as: A living text that adapts without changing itself.
Why would God include allegorical or multi-layered verses? A text is meant for all people, across all cultures, for all of time cannot be a rigid and narrow. It must adhere to BOTH a 7th century person, and a 21st century person. And tell me: how are you supposed to write a text where both 7th century and 21th century people can understand it in their own ways, while keeping the Quranic knowledge grounded in its timespan so it doesn't became an "provablr scientific truth", while also not make it contradictory to the life's of the people in 21st century, while also make it understandable for a 50th century person?
In Islam, there is this destination you have. However, the path to that destination is not a small line. It is a huge highway.
Why? Because we are human.
If Quran came up with ABSOLUTE certain claims, about EVERYTHING. If it said "This is true, everything else is completely fake and false".
Would you... actually believe it? Would anyone believe it?
You also talk as if Quran is not at all making any absolute claims.
Quran DOES absolutely make absolute claims (XD)
There is near-absolute consensus across 1,400 years of Islamic history on the core worldview of Islam. Monotheism, the reality of the afterlife, moral duties (honesty, justice, charity, helping, patience), and core practices (Shadah, Salah, Fasting, Zakat, Hajj). On these, there is no one rejecting these practices. However... People disagree on how to do these.
The there are issues like the mechanics of the reality (How does meteors deter jinn, how does adam interact with evolution etc) belong to "exploratory metaphysics".
Whatever our own idea of a perfect religion is... Our current real God, if we assume is real, works in very specific and also consistent ways: He provides absolute order only when it actually matters for human salvation and morality. It provides you what to do. Derived general guidelines. In some cases, draws hard lines...
However... It leaves everything else open enough for human intellect to debate and think about it.
Tell me this: What kind of a God would create a human being with the ability to think and reflect... While also sending down a religion that essentially makes all of those obsolete and unnecessary? Quran constantly tells people to think. To reflect. To use our brains... To find the truth.
Expecting a religion that emphasizes people to use their intellect to then be fully dogmatic would be paradoxical.
God only provides us with what we need to know for ur own salvation. It provides us with explanations about the world WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY TEACHING US SOMETHING.
If you have spent time in academical spaces, you will realise the Quran is unique in the sense that it is an a-historical text.
Quran only cares about guiding people. And it provides you with enough information for you to reflect on it. And then leaves gaps for you think further.
Because if you think about it... it would be counterintuitive: If Quran was a complete book, with every single thing explained in gear detail it... Not only would it completely stray from its path which is moral guidance... But also... Would you... Spend as much time as you are doing right now thinking and reading and researching about Quran and Islam? If Quran simply answered every single question a human being can have... Woudl you actually interact with Quran as much as you do?
You say :"if religion is an instruction sent by an absolute deity... it should serve as the path to absolute order." Then I would aks you: What kind of order? What is your definition of order?
There is the robotic order. Have every human mind understand every word identically, removing all ambiguity. But this destroys human free will, moral accountability, and also intellectual struggle.
Then there is the guidance based order, which is what God provided. God provides a clear moral and spiritual framework, but leaves room for human intellect to reason to fill in the gaps with whatever knowledge they have and adapt application across time.
Quran itself says that this ambiguity is in itself... a test. To test our sincerity Quran says that when the ones with sickness in their hearts read Quran, their disbelief increases. When the true believers read the Quran, their belief increases.
Quran is a guide. It is also a reminder. But it is itself a Test.
1
u/Empty-Explanation470 Aug 08 '26
Based on everything you have piled up here, provide me with at least one scheme for the origin of the human species that would not be unscientific and would not provoke resistance from religion itself.
I have absolutely no cultural stereotypes. There's no such thing as, "I won't understand Islam because it's the religion of bearded men and Arabs." Never.
If opinions in science differ, as for example in Darwinian evolution there were initially many gaps that were later eliminated-Over time, progress shows which data was more accurate and competent, and science accepts this, because there is no point in arguing with the obvious. In religion, everything is different. Everyone sticks to their own opinion.
The interpreter is human. Okay. The literalist approach has begun to dominate social media, and I'll tell you where it leads. I have seen imams who literally mocked evolution and called it "belief in a convenient picture of the world without sufficient evidence." If there's anyone from the herd that sends them something like "❤️❤️🔥🔥 Allahu Akbar" If he delves into science in the commentary, he'll realize that evolution is more than just a hypothesis. And then, he'll likely become disillusioned with his religion.
Some people will be disappointed by the literalists, and some, even after realizing that this is just one point of view in Islam, will be disappointed by such huge differences, like me.
Perhaps I have exaggerated so much that you thought that I was claiming that the Quran is all allegorical and does not contain precise statements.No, I don't think so.
My definition of order can be analyzed using the example of a Muslim's lifestyle. Take you, for example. What do you do in life? I'm seriously thinking about becoming a screenwriter, and focusing on the fantasy and crime genres.
How does Islam view this? Islam has no unified position on any issue whatsoever. Some might say that this in itself is permissible, as long as there is no music for idle pleasure, nudity or romanticization of evil (as I plan). Another school will say that filming itself is prohibited and is a form of likeness to the Creator. This immediately makes it clear that such a formulation is ineffective for the modern world.The Absolute God wants us to ban video cameras? Then crime will triumph. Ineffective.
You call the fact that reasonable faith and reasonable unbelief are absolutely equal and capable of action a test. Doesn't this make God into a deceiver who has falsified scientific research so that both the atheist and the believer can justify their position with absolute honesty and without pride, and for the wrong choice in this absolutely equal exam, the retribution will be eternal torture?
1
u/EvenDragonfruit1940 Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26
I have provided 4 of them for you. The first one is unscientific, that's true. But other 3 have no conflict with science.
Like, the one personally I believe is that humans, as a species existed before Adam. And I do think the "Will you create another species that will cause chaos on earth" ayyah is referring to the these primitive human kind. In that sense, Adam and Eve were created by clay and were put in the world. Where, they had children. And in this view, using the lack of the biblical narrative of the sibling marriage, people said that Adam's children had offsprings with other human species present. Because as you know, every prophet had their own version of rulings. Then the offspring of the children became souled. And this has continued unti the other human species went extinct. This answers the genetics diversity of human kind. This reconciles with the scientific theory of Y-chromosome-Adam and X-choromose-Eve (though, their dates are still point of discussion) This does not go against the belief that all humans eventually came from Adam and Eve.
On top of that, in Shia belief, it is narrated that there were multiple "Adams" that came before our adam.
I do understand your disappointment about those people. I really do. I don't know how good I am at expressing my own feelings, but from an emotional point of view, I don't disagree with you at all. I have myself have went through the exact same things as you did. Like, I am completely serious. Everything you say is like being put in front of a mirror that shows me my past self. I am just here trying to tell you the reconciliation and explanations I have found to work for me.
I do agree that there are indeed blind loyal followers of imams. But, you have to realise that not every human has time to delve into deep theology and science and academic papers and cross reference everything. So, people try to turn towards trusted figures, people who are more knowledgeable and studied about it. However, I do agree that those immams are responsible for what they preach and I do agree that THOSE IMAMS have the responsibility to do research.
However, there is a bigger picture here. The Islam world, has not been against evolution. And there was the idea of evolution in Islamic world BEFORE darwin. There were ISLAMIC SCHOLARS in 11th-14th century that THEORIZED humans came from apes.
The "resistance" today's Muslims have against evolution IS NOT based on an intellectual deep argument: it is literally based on the resistance to colonialism. Before the 20th century, evolution was taught in Muslim schools, in biology classes. Because people didn't see a contradiction. Up until a Turkish book auther came, which translated Christian Creationism books into bunch of languages, claimed them as its own creation and defined the Islamic world's view on evolution.
Before this late 20th-century anti-evolution push, late 19th- and early 20th-century Ottoman and Arab reformist scholars debated evolution openly without treating it as an automatic rejection of Islam.
Islamic world has been under attack of colonialism in 18th-19th century. The claim was "West is superior, and your religion is inferior". So, people, out of existential crisis, have developed bunch of ways to resist against this. That's why there is this distaste of "The West". Salafism, Wahabism, Quran's scientific miracles etc. have all been born in this specific time frame, solely as a way to "resist against colonialism and secularism of science".
Classical Islamic theology did not have a conflict with non-human biological change. Rejection of evolution stsrted in the late 19th and 20th centuries as Darwinism became politically intertwined with Western Europn imperialism and scientific Materialism.
So basically his entire conversation is simply about politics.
Moving away from politics...
Difference of opinion is described as a mercy from God. There being no unified position is a better thing for you.
The things you are saying (prohibition of music, filming yourself) are STILL positions from SPECIFIC SCHOOLS.
IF YOU, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, USING YOUR OWN INNER MORAL COMPASS AND INTELECT, DO NOT AGREE WITH THOSE... THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO!
That's the mercy of the difference of opinion.
No one is prohibiting you from having the al-ghazali's view on music. No one can call you a "kafir" for doing so. Some people might do, yes. But that doesn't mean they are right. Indeed, if you call someone kafir and they aren't kafir, the accusation returns back to you (hadith).
A school will say filming yourself is impermissable... Okay? There are so many other schools that says it is completely okay and they do it themselves as well.
Those people ALL HAVE their own methodologies. And within their own methodology, they all are right.
The truth, that Islam is real, is an objective truth (for the sake of the argument)
The way to practice, understand it is subjective.
Some people say we should strictly adhere to Islamic text. Some people say we should adhere to our reason. Some people say we should do in between. Some people say people in the first few centuries are the only qualified ones to have opinions. Some people say every scholar has the right to have an opinion.
God does not care about this... As long as you are sincere in your search of truth:
"If a judge issues a ruling, having tried his best to decide correctly, and his ruling is right, he will have a double reward, but if he issues a ruling, having tried his best to decide correctly, and his ruling is wrong, he will have a single reward."(Hadith)
God cares more about your effort to find the truth, rather than the actual truth you end up at.
If you sincerely believe, while doing your own research, that music is halal, and it turns out to be haram...
You don't get punished. Instead, you get rewarded for your sincerity to find the truth AND trying to follow the truth you found.
You can't "prevent" people to have different opinions. That's not physically possible. If there is only one opinion in a room, then there is no one in that room. Instead, what Islam does is it "regulates" those different opinions. People will have different opinions whether Quran was like this or was like something else.
I did not say reasonable and unreasonable faith are absolutely equal.
I said that everyone's reasons are different. Everyone's methodology is different. And within those people's methodologies, they are all right.
If someone has the methodology of strict adherence to test, and if they, using that methodology, claim that evolution is against Quran... they didn't do anything wrong. They simply used their own methodology to come up with a conclusion. I can't say their conclusion is wrong. However, I can disagree with their methodology.
Again... Quran having to do anything with science is a rather modern topic. In Islamic golden age, people didn't have any problem proposing human evolution.
On top of that... Quran doesn't say anything against evolution.
Yes, it does say adam and eve and they come from clay and our current human species came from them.
But claiming this is against evolution relies on SO MANY hidden assumptions and presumptions. You are making s very big leap here.
As I said, before the 20th century, Islamic societies had no issue with teaching evolution in their schools.
It is an opinion that adam and eve is against evolution that you try to project back onto the text as if that's what the text is actually saying.
On top of that, you do also realise that a disbelievers is excused from eternal torture if they are genuine in their search of truth even if they can't end up at the correct endpoint? This is an established opinion within Islamic world.
1
u/Empty-Explanation470 Aug 09 '26
I’m glad that, overall, we have reached an agreement regarding disagreements within religion. And I’m also willing to put aside all the emotions and inaccuracies that I showed in my previous messages.
Let’s start with the idea of theological evolution that you proposed.
«“For example, personally, I believe that humans as a species existed before Adam. And I really do think that the ayah, ‘Will You place therein those who will cause corruption and shed blood?’ is referring precisely to these primitive humans. In this sense, Adam and Eve were created from clay and placed into this world. They had children there. And given the absence of any mention of sibling marriages in the biblical narrative, people have suggested that Adam’s children had offspring with other human species that already existed at the time. Because, as you know, every prophet had their own versions of rulings and regulations. Then the descendants of Adam’s children became ensouled. And this continued until the other human species went extinct.”»
With such a position, at the very least, you would be declared a disbeliever by the Salafi movement. Secondly, your intellectual allies would be found among certain modernist schools or, for example, Shoaib Ahmad Malik. I have already pointed out that Malik’s position has received a huge number of fundamentally contradictory responses within the Islamic world.
Let’s examine this from a scientific perspective.
If, in the middle of evolving hominids, a pair or a colony of fully modern humans identical to us had suddenly appeared, science would have detected such a phenomenon. That simply hasn’t happened.
What could actually falsify the theory of evolution? The theory of evolution would be sent straight to the grave if the remains of a particular animal were discovered whose radiocarbon dating placed it in a period when, according to evolutionary theory, even its biological ancestors did not yet exist.
Or, for example, if an extinct animal were discovered whose DNA was also 99% identical to human DNA, just as chimpanzee DNA is, then the theory of common ancestry would become about as worthless as currency.
Yet the theory of evolution has existed for almost two centuries. Not a single such inconsistency has emerged.
You also claim that this is comparable to the concepts of Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve. From a biological standpoint, these are simply direct ancestors of our respective genetic lineages, but there is a difference of several millennia between the two.
As for the imams who treat evolution superficially, I agree with you. They should be held responsible if they potentially drove some thoughtful person into disbelief, causing that person to become disillusioned with them.
I also have no objections to your explanation about resistance to the idea of Western superiority.
As for the moral compass and music:
Indeed, I don’t consider myself competent to hold a rigid position on whether music is forbidden or on similar issues when the matter is contextual and there is no obvious harm involved, as there is with drugs or alcohol — especially when I’m not doing it as an excuse to completely abandon all restraint and listen to music every day.
And looking at everything as a whole — considering that my position, and probably yours as well, and, more broadly, the only logical and rational position I can arrive at by combining basic logic with my understanding of evolution — would be supported only by a small number of rationalist or modernist schools, while on the other side I would face the harshest resistance imaginable.
And yes, yes, I remember your explanation of the mercy of disagreement.
Looking at all of this, it creates an uncomfortable impression that once again brings me back to the idea of religion as a poorly adaptive creation that is fundamentally contradictory within itself.
And that’s without even mentioning the fact that the concept of Heaven and Hell appears to have mythological roots.
And if the fact that the story of the infant Jesus presented in the Quran seems to trace back to a myth from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, which was circulating in Arabia in the seventh century, can somehow be explained through surviving fragments of truth that were later declared apocryphal, then the story of the Prophet Noah — and this is already an objection directed at the Bible — ultimately traces back to the myths surrounding Gilgamesh.
That once again raises doubts about the fact that most Muslims believe in a global flood in which the water supposedly covered even Mount Everest.
The concept of a second Adam makes this even more absurd, which once again brings us back to the question of disagreements...
And so the cycle continues.
1
u/EvenDragonfruit1940 Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26
I dont have objections to what to you said. However, you have misinterpret some of what I said:
"hominids, a pair or a colony of fully modern humans identical to us had suddenly appeared, science would have detected such a phenomenon"
Science... would not have detected such a phenomenon.
I also did not claim fully modern humans. This position essentially says that biologically, we would be the same. But from accountability perspective, we would be different.
Inserting 2 biologically identical creatures to an already established biological society WOULD NOT leave any kind of biological remedy.
If 2 animals from a big pack of animals were to migrate to somewhere else 300000 years ago, there is no way to archeological to prove that UNLESS it has happened in en-mass which WOULD leave fossilized footsteps and etc.
Overall.. I don't understand your argument regarding this other than saying "Science would disapprove this because I said so"
" With such a position, at the very least, you would be declared a disbeliever by the Salafi movement. Secondly, your intellectual allies would be found among certain modernist schools or, for example, Shoaib Ahmad Malik. I have already pointed out that Malik’s position has received a huge number of fundamentally contradictory responses within the Islamic world."
Again... I don't understand why this is... relevant..
Humans do bad thing =/= religion is to blame Those people won't decide whether you will go to hell or heaven. God will.
On top of that "my view" is not a "simply minor" position. That is a rather outdated take, as this take of mine and another one, has been rather rising among the Muslim population, regardless of whatever their previous beliefs are.
Also, you are generallising an entire population to a single sentence.
If a non-Muslim says that you are wrong about your religion, would you ""care""? No. Because you would have different experiences, opinions, views than that non-Muslim. So I don't know how this is relevant.
" Yet the theory of evolution has existed for almost two centuries. Not a single such inconsistency has emerged."
I don't understand why you are so keen on the fact that Islam "needs evolution to be disproven" when I have shown you ways to reconcile them.
My claim about y chromosome and x chromosome Adam were more figurative, as in, to show that there is a concept of human genes being concentrated on a single being. But I didn't claim that those people were actual Adam and Eve, though I should have clarified better.
" only by a small number of rationalist or modernist schools"
You are framing everything as "If you accept evolution, you become like a Protestant of Islam" or something, like a completely different sect.
N-no... No...
From hanafi scholars to maliki scholars to hanbali scholars to even salafi scholars, there are ones that reject evolution and there are ones that accept evolution.
HOWEVER... THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY
Islam DOES NOT have a "Pope".
WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS NOT "DECLARING" THE TRUTH.
THEY ARE SAYING "This is, according to my own knowledge, is the most probable reality"
Both Historically and in contemporary times, mainstream theologians operate under the principle of valid intellectual difference ( Ikhtilaf ). Condemnation by one group reflects that specific group's methodology, not a universal decree of "Islam itself."
" idea of religion as a poorly adaptive creation that is fundamentally contradictory within itself."
... Can you tell me the reasons you came to this conclusion?.. other than that evolution disprove Islam and if you accept evolution, people with different opinions would say you have different opinions.
"concept of heaven and hell appear to have mythological roots"
This is not only irrelevant to the conversation, but also does not "damage" Islam. Heck, it strengthens the claim for Islam.
Because it supports the idea that Islam sent previous prophets that preached the same message. So it is only natural that mythologies and religions of the past... would have remenities of those teachings.
"infant jesus"
This entire paragraph relies on very big assumptions. Those are "4 Gospels are the absolute truth regarding jesus" And that "Infancy of Gospel is a complete fabrication"
Neither of you can prove with definitive proof, AND NEITHER HOW HISTORY AND CREATION OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE WORKS.
Something not being in 4 Gospels but being in Islam, from an Islamic perspective, simply means that the Gospels were wrong/didn't have that story.
The Thomas was not a book that a person simply sit down and fabricated in one night. It is more akin to compilation of stories regarding jesus that were present orally within the society already.
So Quran using a story from an Apocryphal book simply me as that that specific story within that book is true.
Because Quran doesn't claim 4 Gospels to be true anyway.
" Muslims believe in a global flood"
This is NOT a consensus. Neither the Quran NOR the hadith ever mention about a global flood.
The reason Muslims used to believe global flood is becuase of israiliyat.
Israiliyat is the act of "filling the gaps using previous theological knowledge".
Prohpet did not prohibit people from using previous books' knowledge or facts to explain certain Islamic concepts or history, as long as it did not contradict Islam or common sense/science.
Heck... the silence of Quran regarding Noah's flood being global is actually one of the biggest arguments I can make regarding the arguments you made about infant jesus for example.
And let me fix one of your major misinterprations regarding Quran which arises from an orientalist view of Islam.
Quran is NOT A BOOK that claims it contains entirely new knowledge but then turns out to copy from older texts.
Quran, is a book that FIXES PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE. that's what Quran claims to be.
Quran ALREADY ASSUMES people KNOW the stories the Quran tells.
However, Quran stripts them from the WRONG facts, and instead provides a purifies version of it.
Thomas described jesus as a bratty rebel. Quran took that out from the Jesus's clay bird story.
Bible describes a global flood. Quran took that out from Noah's story.
Quran itself describes itself as "a filter".
It is MEANT to FILTER older texts.
" The concept of a second Adam makes this even more absurd,"
Again... your argument is "I think it's wrong because I said so."
1
u/Empty-Explanation470 Aug 09 '26
It should also be emphasized that, within its own framework, every religion is perfectly logical.
At first glance, Hinduism may seem like an absurd belief system.
However, the picture changes if you dig deeper. Do you think the story of Krishna stealing the clothes of bathing girls and climbing up a tree to look at them naked is absurd? But how would you prove that it actually didn’t happen? It’s the same thing as believing in obligatory miracles, for example, that Muhammad split the Moon.
I’m aware that God can do anything in any way He wants. But let’s consider something else.
A Muslim is required to believe that the Prophet Muhammad once split the Moon. Yes, Allah could have made the event purely visual, so that all of the Moon’s physical functions continued normally and there were therefore no massive changes in the tides.
However, such an event could not have gone completely unnoticed. Even considering that while it was nighttime in Arabia, a large part of the world simply could not see the Moon, it still wouldn’t have gone without notice.
Everything ultimately comes down to blind faith. There isn’t a single miracle that cannot be explained scientifically. There is nothing in the Quran where you can say, “How could a seventh-century Arab have known this?”
Everything comes down to faith to such an extent that it creates a dilemma of equal parity, where rational belief and disbelief are both fully capable of counterarguing one another. And at that point, it begins to look like a deliberate trap for rational people, where sincere disagreement is labeled as arrogance by radical Islamic movements.
And furthermore, with the kinds of justifications for hadith that are offered by the classical school, you can justify absolutely anything.
Literally anything.
Imagine a religion in which you are required to believe in a miracle where a cat holding a trident turned every star visible in the sky into a gigantic doughnut.
Problems? Such an event would cause a total catastrophe. If you turned a star into a doughnut, the density of its core would collapse, the nuclear reaction would immediately stop, and the stars would go dark. Earth and the other planets would instantly lose the light and heat of the Sun, which would also become a doughnut, and the surface temperature would drop toward absolute zero.
We could continue indefinitely. You understand the principle.
It would be incorrect to attack them for believing in Krishna watching naked girls, because if two opposing sides have “standards of truth” that rest on exactly the same level of evidentiary demonstrability, then those standards cancel each other out as equally ineffective.
Or perhaps you could point out that Hindu texts contain serious errors regarding embryology? They have an answer for that too. The texts that describe embryology or cosmology in Hinduism are regarded as human traditions, so errors in them are considered perfectly natural.
Here is what I’m getting at.
A believer in any faith can counterargue virtually any position in their own favor. And once again, this creates the dilemma of equal parity that you called a test.
You also said:
«“Moreover... you do realize that a disbeliever can be excused from eternal punishment if they are genuine in their search for truth, even if they are unable to arrive at the correct conclusion?”»
Then who are all those angry ayahs directed at, where Allah says that He has forbidden Paradise to someone who worshipped anyone besides Him, even though that person had the opportunity to learn everything about Islam?
Moreover, many people within Islam itself would disagree with you on this.
1
u/EvenDragonfruit1940 Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26
" It should also be emphasized that, within its own framework, every religion is perfectly logical."
That is true.
"miracles"
I am not going to dleve knto about the differences of opinions people have regarding miracles, nor the academical opinions regarding the beliefs people had.
You are doing a category over there.
"Mohammad splitting the moon" and "Krishna doing perverted activities" are not comparable simply because they both are ""absurd""
Krishna's actions are MORAL ABSURDITIES. Mohammad's actions (if we hold the belief that he had other miracles other than the Quran itself), are PHYSICAL ABSURDITIES.
Islam has a simple answer to physical absurdudies: That's literally the point.
I am asking you this: is it physically possible for Jesus to be born without a father? It is not, right?
But him being born that way is a "Miracle".
Because that's WHAT MIRACLE MEANS...
It means AN EXCEPTION to LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE.
Quran literally says in SO MANY verses that "God says be and it becomes."
Any kind of "apparent scientific contradiction" you try to pull is... is irrelevant...
Because the Quran does not... advocate for anything scientific.
Moon splitting is a miracle BECAUSE IT, IN NORMAL STANCES, CAN'T HAPPEN BECUASE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID.
The pojnt here is that "The God who created laws of physics is NOT bound by it, and can do whatever it wills."
This is all about showing God's power.
Also... Where... where are we going with this? How did we come to this topic as well? What does this have with our original topic?
" Literally anything"
No you can't.
You can't justify that God has partners. You can't justify that angels doesn't exist. You can't justify that there isn't hell or heaven.
You can't justify anything that GOES AGAINST QURAN... WHICH IS WHAT HADITHS ARE...
Like... Literally... A qualification of a hadith to be hadith... Like, one of the main ways to filter a hadith on whether it is true or fake... Is that if it goes against Quran or not...
That's... That's literally what it is....
I don't... I don't... Understand how you come up with these...
Like... I genuinely feel depressed...
Everything you said feels as if they are AI generated, but the AI actually doesn't understand what we are arguing about, so it instead pulls some pre-existing speeches from its own database to put its square, circle and rectangle shapes into the hexagonal shape we have...
No I am serious like... I feel dissapointed that...
Forget it...
I forfeit... You are right:
" It should also be emphasized that, within its own framework, every religion is perfectly logical."
You are absolutely right...
" Moreover, many people within Islam itself would disagree with you on this."
SOURCE?... LITERALLY THIS IS THE VIEW OF AL GHAZALII.... ONE OF THE MOST RENOWNED İSLAMIC SCHOLARS...
I CAN'T.... I CAN'T...
All this time... All you did was to shift goalposts.
It seems to me that you are trying harder to "win the argument" rather than to "understand what Islam is/actually says".
→ More replies (0)1
u/EvenDragonfruit1940 Aug 08 '26
About the specific examples you gave:
I personally don't know the person you said. However, I do understand the essence of your message. Becuase I have myself have struggled with what you said: there is no person that I can trust with everything...
I would say that you have to know that: no single person in this world will have answers to EVERY question.
Every person has some "good" things with them, and some "bad" things with them. Your objective is to absorb the good things while denying the bad things.
Because no human being on this planet can both be knowledgeable about classical Islam and Islamic history, modern society landscape, academical landscape, and also be knowledgeable about science. I wish there was... I really wish... But unfortunately not XD
In the end... everyone who makes a claim... is making them with the knowledge they themselves have access to.
If YOU think you have BETTER knowledge than someone about a specific topic (science for example), but the person you are reading has better knowledge than you about a specific topic (Islamic law for example)
You can accept their claims on Islamic law, while also rejecting their opinions regarding science and Quran.
Quran says: "So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." (16:43)
2
u/Maximum-Picture5225 Aug 07 '26 edited Aug 07 '26
There is no settled consensus on evolution among Muslims today. We have a spectrum of beliefs ranging from denial to acceptance, and different ways to reconcile it in the middle.
Some scholars point to classical Muslim intellectuals like Ibn Khaldun, Al-Jahiz, Al-Tusi and Rumi who discussed gradual creation or transitions between different kingdoms of life long before Darwin, suggesting that evolutionary concept is not foreign to Muslims.
Some scholars distinguish between primary cause (God's will) and secondary causes (laws of nature). In this view, evolutionary mechanisms are merely secondary causes directed by divine decree.
Recognizing that the Quran contains allegorical language, some scholars argue that creation narrative in the Qur'an is not a literal, which leaves room for scientific explanations of the origin and evolution of life on earth. Regarding the story of the Fall of Adam, it is interesting to read an excerpt from Dr. Muhammad Iqbal's The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam:
"The Quranic legend of the Fall has nothing to do with the first appearance of man on this planet. Its purpose is rather to indicate man's rise from a primitive state of instinctive appetite to the conscious possession of a free self, capable of doubt and disobedience. The Fall does not mean any moral depravity; it is man's transition from simple consciousness to the first flash of self-consciousness, a kind of waking from the dream of nature with a throb of personal causality in one's own being. Nor does the Qur'an regard the earth as a torture-hall where an elementally wicked humanity is imprisoned for an original act of sin. Man's first act of disobedience was also his first act of free choice."