As a Muslim it always been beyond me why Muslims would be against Evolution. There is nothing specifically against Evolution in the Koran. If the evidence shows that evolution is a reality, why are so many people unwilling to acknowledge reality? Its like denying the Sun exists or that we breath Oxygen.
Imam who believes in evolution retracts statements
Many British Muslims do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution
An imam has retracted statements about evolution and the right of Muslim women not to cover their hair after death threats were made against him.
Dr Usama Hasan, a science lecturer, has voluntarily suspended his role in taking Friday prayers at Leyton Mosque in east London.
He said he went too far in the way he defended the theory of evolution.
He acknowledged many British Muslims believe in creationism, adding that he intended only to begin a debate.
Dr Hasan - a senior lecturer at Middlesex University - [used an opinion piece on the Guardian newspaper's website](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/11/religion.darwinbicentenary)in 2008 to suggest Darwin's theory of evolution was not incompatible with the teaching of Islam.
He wrote that there were many Muslim biologists who had no doubt about the essential correctness of evolutionary theory and he added: "Many believers in God have no problem with an obvious solution: that God created man via evolution."
‘Obscuring clear scientific thinking’ Dr Hasan wrote: “Snazzy websites, videos and books produced by fundamentalist Muslim ‘creationists’ such as those at www.harunyahya.com, are obscuring clear scientific thinking.”
He also wrote: "One problem is that many Muslims retain the simple picture that God created Adam from clay, much as a potter makes a statue, and then breathed into the lifeless statue and lo! it became a living human.
“This is a children’s madrasa-level understanding and Muslims really have to move on as adults and intellectuals.”
In a separate article he claimed the requirement for women to cover their hair in public was cultural in origin, and that British Muslims should have the choice.
The BBC’s Religious Affairs Correspondent Robert Pigott said his remarks three years ago have led to fatwas denouncing him from Muslim scholars in several countries.
More recently, it was reported that he was subjected to death threats when he delivered a lecture in January and that a leaflet campaign had been mounted against him.
Dr Hasan, who is vice chairman of Leyton Mosque - which houses one of the country’s largest sharia courts - has agreed he went too far in suggesting that the Adam of the creation story would have had human parents.
And whats with the Death threats? You would think England of all places would be a place where scholars could openly express their opinions without the threat of violence, but apparently, close minded religious fanatics cant even countenance free speech in other countries besides their own.
Evolution is baseless that is the reason for disregarding it. It is as much as a belief system as the belief in Deity is for us we choose to believe in Him (Allah), not in them (Atheistic Evolutionary Pseudo-Scientists).
Evolution is not a reality as you claim it be ... how could it be?
In order for me to accept evolution is for me to see it happen. I would like to see a human born to unhuman parents. If you cannot show me this then I cannot believe in evolution. If it is a matter of looking at fossil remains and piecing together a jigsaw puzzle, then that is already being done in my Islamic belief to provide me subjective proof that Allah (SWT) is the Creator and Maintainer of everything.
Evolution could not match my belief. For me each moment as it passes is the complete destruction of a previous state and a reconstruction of another. A sequence of events that we call time. Rather the same fossil evidence can demonstrate that whole species once existed were killed off and replaced with similar or other species without any connection other than they came from Allah (SWT).
Some people look to the Qur'an and see that it has a similar message to the Bible, they hence conclude that the Qur'an was prepared by copying a Bible manuscript. That is not the only conclusion one can draw for the similarity. One can also say that The One who sent the Bible is the Same as The One who sent Qur'an. Not copied from it, but from the same source. Hence when we see similar creatures we don't have to conclude that they came from one another, but that everything comes from Him (Allah).
The challenge for the evolutionist is to prove that two given species of similarity have not separately come into existence. If the evolutionist cannot prove this his claims of them coming from one another is just a belief.
Evolution is baseless that is the reason for disregarding it. It is as much as a belief system as the belief in Deity is for us we choose to believe in Him (Allah), not in them (Atheistic Evolutionary Pseudo-Scientists).
Evolution is not a reality as you claim it be ... how could it be?
In order for me to accept evolution is for me to see it happen. I would like to see a human born to unhuman parents. If you cannot show me this then I cannot believe in evolution. If it is a matter of looking at fossil remains and piecing together a jigsaw puzzle, then that is already being done in my Islamic belief to provide me subjective proof that Allah (SWT) is the Creator and Maintainer of everything.
i dont want to derail the thread but i want to correct just one line ( though other lines have mistakes too). there is actually proof of evolution, you can look it up on youtube or google. plus evolution doesnt say that humans were born from non humans. it is actually an progressive process where every step is one better than previous one. the end result is our present form as humans. though evolution has not stopped and it is still going on, alas that it is a very slow process for us to see a real difference in human timeline.
I feel it is either Evolution or Allah - and I choose Allah!
I think it should be either Evolution or Religion.
Allah/God/Bhagwan is/are a different domain altogether. His/Her existence isnt threatened by either evolution or religion.
Islam is not the only faith that does not believe in Evolution
As for the evolutionary theory Darwin was not the first or the last but the idea that humans are from Monkeys just doesn’t make sense…
Heres something I cant understand… civilistation seems to have stemmed from the Middle Eastern deserts right? The Horse and the Dog as we know them appeared through Desert landscapes… as did the first human on earth… literally everything seems to have popped out of the desert at least if you follow the blood trail.
So in a place where there are hardly any trees where the hell did monkeys become humans…?
To me it makes hardly any sense… Sure if we all popped out of Africa after the last Ice Age how does anyone explain why the first humans appear not in forests as you would imagine but in wastelands much further North?
^^ Faris here is a question for you. if human came from monkeys then when will todays monkeys become humans? lol..
jokes aside, evolution doesnt say that human came from monkeys, it says human and monkeys came from same species.
plus only arab civilization came out of middle east. humans were first born in africa as far as we know . indian civilization, chinese, mayan etc have no middle eastern connections at all. where did you get all those facts you mentioned, i find a lot of flaws in them.
btw dog was never a wild animal, it is purely human created creature.
Heres something I cant understand... civilistation seems to have stemmed from the Middle Eastern deserts right? The Horse and the Dog as we know them appeared through Desert landscapes... as did the first human on earth... literally everything seems to have popped out of the desert at least if you follow the blood trail.
So in a place where there are hardly any trees where the hell did monkeys become humans...?
To me it makes hardly any sense... Sure if we all popped out of Africa after the last Ice Age how does anyone explain why the first humans appear not in forests as you would imagine but in wastelands much further North?
Faris bhai, not all humans came from the middle east, so that logic is flawed.
We are obviously both deeply entrenched in seperate beliefs... It seems you and I both have strong arguments with evidence to support both. Just as a side note, Dogs exist in the wild both in India as Dholes, and the African wild dog as well as Australian Dingo. Anyway your right in some of what you say yes evidence seems to suggest that humanoids appeared across the world but the cradle of civilistaion was indeed the Middle East.
Long before Arab civilisation there were the Persians, the Babylonians, Hitites etc all passed long before.... :)
Faris bhai, not all humans came from the middle east, so that logic is flawed.
I understand the logic is as flawed as any other... nobody has a 100% certainty on the matter, however it's a known fact that civilisation first appeared in the Near East and so surely it makes sense that thats where humans came from too... dogs and horse trace thier bloodline to the same region as do most humans... :)
i dont want to derail the thread but i want to correct just one line ( though other lines have mistakes too). there is actually proof of evolution, you can look it up on youtube or google. plus evolution doesnt say that humans were born from non humans. it is actually an progressive process where every step is one better than previous one. the end result is our present form as humans. though evolution has not stopped and it is still going on, alas that it is a very slow process for us to see a real difference in human timeline.
Peace kaka_in_usa
Too slow for us to see?
If we can't "see" it then it 'aint scientific. The fossil records do not conclusively describe evolution. They can just as easily be described as new species being raised, allowed to dwell for a time and then being destroyed and replaced with other species.
There is no slow progress ... to be able to justify that even numerically then we should get many humans centuries old that are more like other creatures. You do not get that we have been the SAME for thousands of years and then we stop. There is no trace of us. The specimens that we find number in 10s and 20s and some of the less developed forms date later than the more developed forms. This is a theory that is why it is called a theory and not Darwin's Law.
It is a belief system and you seem to be party to it. Good luck to you sir!
Besides there will always be a case according to evolution when a species makes a transition. It has to be the case. However the problem in this is that in order for procreation it has to be done in masses. You can't expect a whole new species developing from chance mutations. Mutants are just that anomalies usually die young and can't procreate. Yet your theory wants us to believe that one mutation occurs. Then if that does happen another has to occur with it in order for procreation to occur successfully. Theories ... I can make many mistakes in what I write about evolution because those who follow it claim that I have made mistakes. It is simple evolution is correct it's just my understanding of it that is flawed. ... That being the case I wish someone would teach it to me properly.
We are obviously both deeply entrenched in seperate beliefs... It seems you and I both have strong arguments with evidence to support both. Just as a side note, Dogs exist in the wild both in India as Dholes, and the African wild dog as well as Australian Dingo. Anyway your right in some of what you say yes evidence seems to suggest that humanoids appeared across the world but the cradle of civilistaion was indeed the Middle East.
Long before Arab civilisation there were the Persians, the Babylonians, Hitites etc all passed long before.... :)
but Indian civilization predates any existing major civilization. there were many more civilizations but are dead now.
i dont understand what do you mean by cradle of civilization and how it relates to middle east .
middle east has infact gained from other civilizations due to its location.
Plus its not about beliefs , its all facts and very well documented.
actually the matter of faith is "Creation" which is Abrahamic concept and all the abrahamic religions have it. not in every faith god is looked upon as a creator .
If we can't "see" it then it 'aint scientific. The fossil records do not conclusively describe evolution. They can just as easily be described as new species being raised, allowed to dwell for a time and then being destroyed and replaced with other species.
There is no slow progress ... to be able to justify that even numerically then we should get many humans centuries old that are more like other creatures. You do not get that we have been the SAME for thousands of years and then we stop. There is no trace of us. The specimens that we find number in 10s and 20s and some of the less developed forms date later than the more developed forms. This is a theory that is why it is called a theory and not Darwin's Law.
It is a belief system and you seem to be party to it. Good luck to you sir!
Besides there will always be a case according to evolution when a species makes a transition. It has to be the case. However the problem in this is that in order for procreation it has to be done in masses. You can't expect a whole new species developing from chance mutations. Mutants are just that anomalies usually die young and can't procreate. Yet your theory wants us to believe that one mutation occurs. Then if that does happen another has to occur with it in order for procreation to occur successfully. Theories ... I can make many mistakes in what I write about evolution because those who follow it claim that I have made mistakes. It is simple evolution is correct it's just my understanding of it that is flawed. ... That being the case I wish someone would teach it to me properly.
Peace brother Psyah,
Actually you got it all wrong again. I meant human evolution is too slow, not all types of evolution. like i said earlier that thre is video available that has proof of evolution.
And i dont know how you got an idea that if we cant see it then it is not scientific, we cannot see atoms but they still exist. we dont have to see anything to prove its existance. one human life is not enough to observe tons of scientific things, thats why we have a system of writing books and passing on our knowledge to next generation so they can continue it and benefit from it.
Plus, you got darwin theory all wrong too.
Evolution is a FACT, i repeat it is a fact. Darwin's theory just explains it.
its like sun it hot we all know it, but one theory explains the reason behind it. if that theory is proven wrong still sun is gonnna be hot, theory may change but the fact that sun is hot doesnt.
Again i am not trying to equate beliefs with facts here. you are talking about belief and i am talkign about facts.
your belief in islam has nothing to do with scientific facts. nor science can negate the existance of god, it just explains the way god made things work.
If it was about science vs religion then science will win hands down. every miracle that is described in holy books can be performed many times over by science today. Again fact is science can do much more than what books says. if there is something science cannot do today then it will be able to do it in near future. so the comparision of religion and science is incorrect. one is faith and other is fact. huge huge difference.
but Indian civilization predates any existing major civilization. there were many more civilizations but are dead now. i dont understand what do you mean by cradle of civilization and how it relates to middle east . middle east has infact gained from other civilizations due to its location. Plus its not about beliefs , its all facts and very well documented. actually the matter of faith is "Creation" which is Abrahamic concept and all the abrahamic religions have it. not in every faith god is looked upon as a creator .
Actually my friend it's obvious you are entrenched in your beliefs. I can only tell you that it's an established fact that Middle East civilistaions were long believed by the majority of the world to pre-date any other culture. No doubt Indian culture is old maybe older... I cant say for sure... however nothing survives to suggest that at the times the Babylonians had Babels Tower that anything akin to it existed in the Sub-Continent... even the Bhudist Stupas came much later... Sure Middle eastern Civilistations have been borrowing from others but so has Indian civilisation.
As for the idea that Abrahamic belief is the only system which has the creationist theory... again you will find that my ancestors were not Arabs however they believed in Tengri a sole creator. As did the Zororastrians who also believe in a sole creator and even Hinduism mentions a sole creator.
Also most of the Ancient wonders of the world are Middle Eastern... there is nothing recorded that is remotely on the same scale in the Sub-Continent. Unless you can prove me wrong Kaka. :)
how anyone can believe in adam and eve and such, but want all kinds of proof when it comes to actual scientific ideas they can't even fathom is beyond me..
