Evolution

[Rasema]

Evolution

Darwinian theory
The first question of Fatwa no. 2872


Q 1: We studied something about the theory of Evolution and all that relates to creation as this forms part of our educational curriculum. The more I read on this subject, the more I become convinced that Allah is the Only One Who created this universe and all that it contains. Nevertheless, I was greatly astonished to come across a book written by a Muslim author approving the theory of Evolution and supporting it by the Qur'an! Moreover, one of my Muslim teachers asked me: "Since Islam forbids a man to marry to his sister; how could brothers and sisters amongst the offspring of Adam and Eve get married to each other?

A: The theory of Evolution which is renowned as the theory of Darwin contradicts the Qur'an, Sunnah (whatever is reported from the Prophet), and Ijma` (consensus of scholars). There are thus proofs from the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah stating that Allah (Exalted be He) created Adam from soil then created Eve from Adam.

regarding the fact that Adam (peace be upon him) married his sons to his daughters, this is something that he did according to the law that Allah commanded him to follow which we do not have any right to argue with. Anyway, as far the Shari`ah (Islamic law) that was sent to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is concerned; Allah makes it Haram (prohibited) for a man to marry his sister along with other well-established categories of women that a man is not allowed to marry. Besides, since Allah
( Part No : 1, Page No:16)

(Glorified and Exalted be He) says,Surah Al-Ma'idah, 5: 48 To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. while mentioning the laws of Tawrah (Torah), Injil (Gospel), and Qur'an; the same applies for Adam (peace be upon him) i.e. he had a specific law that he followed.

May Allah grant us success! May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family and Companions!


Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta'


Member Member Deputy Chairman Chairman
`Abdullah ibn Qa`ud `Abdullah ibn Ghudayyan `Abdul-Razzaq `Afify `Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz

[Rasema]

The Theory of Evolution

The fifth question of Fatwa No. 5167 :


Q5: There are some who claim that man was once an ape and then evolved. Is this correct, and is there any evidence to support this?


A5: This statement is false; the evidence on that is that Allah has clarified in the Qur’an the stages of Adam’s creation, saying (what means):Surah Al-`Imran, 3: 59 Verily, the likeness of ‘Isâ (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust
( Part No : 1, Page No:69)

Then that dust was wetted until it became sticky clay, clinging to the hands; Allah the Exalted says (what means):Surah Al-Mu'minun, 23: 12 And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth). Allah also says (what means):Surah Al-Saffat, 37: 11 Verily, We created them of a sticky clay. Then it turned into altered black mud; Allah the Exalted states (what means):Surah Al-Hijr, 15: 26 And indeed, We created man from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud. And when it dried, it turned into clay like that of pottery; Allah the Exalted states (what means):Surah Al-Rahman, 55: 14 He created man (Adam) from sounding clay like the clay of pottery. Allah then fashioned Adam into the form that He willed and then breathed into him the soul which He created for him, Allah the Exalted says (what means):Surah Al-Hijr, 15: 28 And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "I am going to create a man (Adam) from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud. Surah Al-Hijr, 15: 29 "So, when I have fashioned him completely and breathed into him (Adam) the soul which I created for him, then fall (you) down prostrating yourselves unto him." These are the stages of Adam’s creation according to the Qur’an. As for the stages of creating Adam’s offspring, Allah the Exalted says (what means):Surah Al-Mu'minun, 23: 12 And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth). Surah Al-Mu'minun, 23: 13 Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Surah Al-Mu'minun, 23: 14 Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So Blessed is Allâh, the Best of creators.
( Part No : 1, Page No:70)



As for Adam’s wife, Hawwa’ (Eve), Allah the Exalted has clarified that He created her from Adam, saying (what means):Surah Al-Nisa', 4: 1 O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam), and from him (Adam) He created his wife [Hawwâ’ (Eve)], and from them both He created many men and women

May Allah grant us success! May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions!


Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta’


Member Member Deputy Chairman Chairman
`Abdullah ibn Qa`ud `Abdullah ibn Ghudayyan `Abdul-Razzaq `Afify `Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz

[ahmed frihy]

[QUOTE] Theory of Evolution as originated By Rasema[QUOTE]
Bismillah Alrahman Alraheam
Jasaki Allah Khyran for your effort.
I be lying if I say I understood much of the point /He added points you are trying to make I too studied evolution .my professor Jasahu Allah Khyran { he was good Muslim }told this is part of your curriculum that you have to learn for your degree to be recognized overseas {as you ca see it is part of foreign agenda of teaching} . I will not allow it to come as part of your exams.
The story about Adam a s is true in the sense that the marriages between sons of A dams was cancelled by Allah when the new the first generations became adult and able to produce own children The best English description for the word { Hmaein masnnoon} that Allah use to create Adam is bloody rotting mud.
I hope I misunderstood nothing of what you wrote But what is the poit.
Keep up the great effort and I appreciate your efforts.
Wasalamo alikom .

[Rasema]

Respected brother, I did not write this. This is from top scholars: `Abdullah ibn Qa`ud `Abdullah ibn Ghudayyan `Abdul-Razzaq `Afify `Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz


As for evolution, I am only wondering as to how was Adam, alayhi salam, different from other humans?
JazzakALlahu Kahyr

[Faris.Alhammadi]

Assalaamu 'alaykum

Old time visiter of this blessed forum; first time poster.

you might find this website useful, and i'd like your feedback on it please.
Jazaakum Allahu khair

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

check the list of scientists that denounce Darwin's Theory as the answer to the origin of life.

also, check the "Links" there are 3 interesting articles about the fallacies of the theory.

Many muslims are unaware of how false evolution is; since unfortunately this was taught in almost all academic institutions as a fact in understanding life form.

و الله المستعان

[Rasema]

Originally Posted by Faris.Alhammadi

Assalaamu 'alaykum

Old time visiter of this blessed forum; first time poster.

you might find this website useful, and i'd like your feedback on it please.
Jazaakum Allahu khair

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

check the list of scientists that denounce Darwin's Theory as the answer to the origin of life.

also, check the "Links" there are 3 interesting articles about the fallacies of the theory.

Many muslims are unaware of how false evolution is; since unfortunately this was taught in almost all academic institutions as a fact in understanding life form.

و الله المستعان

Wa Alaykum Salam

Well, it would take me some time to read, listen and understand what you've recommended. Do you have a summary? Or could you summarize it writing an article pasting from it, or whatever?

scientists that denounce Darwin's Theory

Sounds good.
This would be gold..
May Alalh reward you

[Faris.Alhammadi]

Insha' Allah

First, this is the 20-page list of scientists and their doctoral degree and/or current position; just to get the idea of where Darwinism stands currently among scientists:
its a PDF: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

" We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The scientific controversy over whether processes observable within existing
species and gene pools (microevolution) can account for large-scale changes over
geological time (macroevolution) continues to this day. Here are a few examples of peerreviewed
scientific articles that have referred to it just in the last few years:

• David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the
Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.
"One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved…
Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of
micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some
dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism."

• Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology
and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27.
"Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of
extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and
species.”

• Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,"
Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.
"A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of
microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are
governed by the principles of microevolution."

source: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=118

Darwin called his theory "descent with modification." The phrase reflected Darwin's belief that all organisms are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the distant past. The only illustration in Darwin's book The Origin of Species shows the "tree of life" pattern one would expect to find in the fossil record if his theory were true. The common ancestor would come first, as a single species at the base of the tree. Minor differences among individuals would appear first, and these differences would eventually increase until one species had become two or more.

Differences among species would then grow until some species became so different they would be classed as separate genera; genera would diverge to become separate families, families would diverge to become separate orders, and so on.

Eventually differences would become so great that where there had originally been one major division or "phylum," there would now be two. Today there are several dozen animal phyla. The major ones include the nematodes (roundworms), annelids (earthworms and leeches), mollusks (clams and snails), arthropods (lobsters and insects), echinoderms (starfish and sea urchins) and chordates (fishes and mammals).


If Darwin's theory were true, then a long accumulation of minor differences must have preceded the major differences we now see among the animal phyla. As Darwin himself wrote, before the different phyla appeared there must have been "vast periods" during which "the world swarmed with living creatures" (Excerpt A, p. 83). In the fossil record, however, most of the major animal phyla appear fully formed at the beginning of the geological period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that they branched off from a common ancestor. Darwin was aware of this, acknowledging in The Origin of Species that "several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks." He called this a "serious" problem which "at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" (Excerpt A, pp. 82, 85).

source: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=119

SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE
OR MISLEADING. YET BIOLOGY TEXTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEM AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF
EVOLUTION. WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY ABOUT THEIR SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS?
-- JONATHAN WELLS

Jonathan Wells has two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.

Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings” that lived in the distant past. He believed that the differences among modern species arose primarily through natural selection, or survival of the fittest, and he described the whole process as “descent with modification.” No one doubts, of course, that a certain amount of descent with modification occurs within species. But Darwin’s theory claims to account for the origin of new species – in fact, for every species since the first cells emerged from the primordial ooze. This theory does have the virtue of making a prediction: If all living things are gradually modified descendants of one or a few original forms, then the history of life should resemble a branching tree.Unfortunately, despite official pronouncements, this prediction has in some important respects turned out to be wrong. The fossil record shows the major groups of animals appearing fully formed at about the same time in a “Cambrian explosion,” rather than diverging from a common ancestor.

Darwin knew this, and considered it a serious objection to his theory. But he attributed it to the imperfection of the fossil record, and he thought that future research would supply the missing ancestors. But a century and a half of continued fossil collecting has only aggravated the problem. Instead of slight differences appearing first, then greater differences emerging later, the greatest differences appear right at the start. Some fossil experts describe this as “top-down evolution,” and note that it contradicts the “bottom-up” pattern predicted by Darwin’s theory. Yet most current biology textbooks don’t even mention the Cambrian explosion, much less point out the challenge it poses for Darwinian evolution. Then came the evidence from molecular biology.

Biologists in the 1970’s began testing Darwin’s branching tree pattern by comparing molecules in various species. The more similar the molecules in two different species are, the more closely related they are presumed to be. At first this approach seemed to confirm Darwin’s tree of life. But as scientists compared more and more molecules, they found that different molecules yield conflicting results. The branching-tree pattern inferred from one molecule often contradicts the pattern obtained from another. Canadian molecular biologist W. Ford Doolittle doesn’t think the problem will go away. Maybe scientists “have failed to find the ‘true tree’,” he wrote in 1999, “not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.” Nevertheless, biology textbooks continue to assure students that Darwin’s Tree of Life is a scientific fact overwhelmingly confirmed by evidence. Judging from the real fossil and molecular evidence, however, it is an unsubstantiated hypothesis masquerading as a fact.


source: http://www.discovery.org/articleFile...fTheFakest.pdf