BELIEF IN ALLAH || This Universe must have a Creator || The Qur'an and Darwin's theory
THIS UNIVERSE MUST HAVE A CREATOR
The Qur'an offers the disbelievers and deniers proof which rational minds have no option but to affirm and which no sound mind can possibly reject. Allah (SWT), says:
أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَلِقُونَ أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَوَاتِوَالْأَرْضَ بَل لَّا يُوقِنُونَ
The Qur'an says to them: "You exist, and you cannot deny this"; the heavens and the earth exist, beyond any doubt. It is simply common sense, to the rational mind, that the things which exist must have a cause for their existence. The camel herder in the desert knows this. He says, "Camel dung indicates the presence of a camel and footsteps indicate that someone walked here. So the heavens with their stars and the earth with its mountains and valleys must indicate the existence of the All-Knowing, All-Aware." The great scientists who research into life and living beings also know this.
What is referred to in this aayah (verse) is known to the scientists as the law of cause and effect. This law states that a (possible) thing cannot happen by itself without another thing (causing it), because it does not possess in itself the power to exist by itself, and it cannot by itself cause something else to exist, for it cannot give to others that which it does not itself possess.
Let Us Give an Example to Explain This Law More Clearly
A few years ago, the sands in the Rub' al-Khaali desert (the Empty Quarter) were blown away by a windstorm to reveal the ruins of a city that had been covered by the sands. Scientists began to examine the contents of the city to try to determine the period in which it had been built. Nobody among the archaeologists or others even suggested that this city could have appeared as a result of the natural actions of the wind, rain, heat and cold, and not by the actions of man.
If anyone had suggested such a thing, people would have regarded him crazy and would have taken pity on him. So how about if someone had said that this city was formed by the air from nothing in the far distant past, then it settled on the earth? This suggestion is no less strange than the previous, in fact it is far stranger.
Why? Because nothing cannot create something, which is simply the matter of common sense, and a thing cannot create itself.
According to the way we know the city, there has to be someone who brought it into existence. What we see tells us something about the people who made it. The city must have been made by intelligent people who were skilled in construction and planning.
If we see a person going from the bottom of a building to the top, we see nothing strange in that, because a person has the ability to do that. But if we see that a rock which was in the courtyard of the building has moved to the top of the building, we will be certain that it did not move by itself. There has to have been someone who picked it up and moved it, because a rock does not have the ability to move or climb.
It is strange that people are certain that the city could not have come into existence without a creator, and that it could not have built itself, and they are certain that the rock must have had someone who would take it up to the top of the building, but there are those among them who insist that this universe came into being without a creator, even though the structure of the universe is far more complex.
لخَلْقُ السَّمَوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَكْبَرُ مِنْ خَلْقِ النَّاسِ...The creation of the heavens and the earth is indeed greater than the creation of mankind;...) (Qur'an 40: 57)
But when these deniers are confronted with scientific logic that addresses their reason, they have to either accept it or stubbornly reject it.
This is the evidence with which the scholars of Islam are still confronting the deniers. One of the scholars was approached by some of these heretics who deny the Creator. He asked them: what would you say about a man who tells you, I have seen a ship laden with cargo, filled with goods, in the middle of the ocean, being buffeted by waves and winds, yet, despite all that, it is sailing smoothly and following a straight course, with no sailors controlling or steering it. Is this reasonable to believe?
They said, "This is irrational."
The scholar said: "Subhaan Allah! If it is not rationally possible for a ship to sail smoothly across the sea without any sailors or crew, then how is it possible for this world, with all its different forces and factors, with its vastness and huge variety, to exist without a Creator or Keeper?" They all wept and said, you have spoken the truth, and they repented.
This law, which is rationally acceptable, is what is referred to in the aayah:
أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَلِقُونَWere they created by nothing? Or were they themselves the creators? (Qur'an 52: 35)
This is evidence which forces rational minds to accept that there is a Creator Who is to be worshipped. The aayah is worded in such an eloquent and moving way that anyone who hears it will be moved deeply.
Bukhari narrated in his Saheeḥ that Jubayr ibn Mut'im said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) reciting Soorah at-Toor in Maghrib (prayer). When he reached this passage-
أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَلِقُونَ أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بَل لَّا يُوقِنُونَ لأَمْ عِندَهُمْ خَزَائِنُ رَبِّكَ أَمْ هُمُ الْمُصَبْطِرُونَWere they created by nothing? Or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm Belief. Or are with them the treasures of your Lord? Or are they the tyrants with the authority to do as they like?" (Qur'an 52: 35-37)
- my heart almost began to soar."1
Al-Bayhaqi said that the Abu Sulaymaan al-Khaṭṭaabi said: "The reason why he was so moved when he heard these aayaat was because he understood the aayaat so well and because what he learned from the strong evidence contained therein touched his sensitive nature, and with his intelligence he understood it..."
With regard to the meaning of the aayah (verse),
Were they created by nothing?... (Qur'an 52: 35), Al-Khaṭṭaabi said: "Or were they brought into being without a creator? That could not happen, because the creation must inevitably be connected to the Creator. There has to have been a Creator. If they deny the Divine Creator, but they could not have come into being without a creator creating them, then did they create themselves? That is an even more fallacious argument, because if something does not exist, how can it be described as having power, and how could it create anything? How could it do anything? If these two arguments are refuted, then it is established that they have a Creator, so let them believe in Him.
Then Allah (SWT), says: Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm Belief (Qur'an 52: 36). This is something which they cannot lay any claim to. Thus they are defeated (in argument) and proof is established against them."
The point of what Al-Khaṭṭaabi said about that to which the kuffaar could not lay any claim is to put an end to this argument and dispute, because there could be some arrogant person who says "I created myself," just as one of his ilk who came before him claimed to have the power over life and death:
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِى حَاجَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ فِي رَبِّهِ أَنْ ءَاتَلَهُ اللَّهُ الْمُلْكَ إِذْ قَالَ إبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّيَ الَّذِى يُحْيِ، وَيُمِيتُ ...Have you not looked at him who disputed with Ibraheem [Abraham] about his Lord [Allah], because Allah had given him the kingdom? When Ibraheem said [to him]: 'My Lord [Allah] is He Who gives life and causes death.' He said, 'I give life and cause death.'.. (Qur'an 2: 258)
What was Ibraheem's response? He replied with another question which exposed the tyrant's incapability and proved him to be a liar:
....قَالَ إِبْرَاهِمُ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْتِي بِالشَّمْسِ مِنَ الْمَشْرِقِ فَأْتِ بِهَا مِنَ الْمَغْرِب ......Ibraheem [Abraham] said, 'Verily, Allah brings the sun from the east; then bring it you from the west.'... (Qur'an 2: 258)
The result of that was:
فَبُهِتَ الَّذِى كَفَرَ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ ......So the disbeliever was utterly defeated. And Allah guides not the people, who are Zaalimoon [wrongdoers]. (Qur'an 2: 258)
Let us suppose that someone said, "I created myself." Can he claim that he created the heavens and the earth? If nothing did not create the heavens and the earth, and if the heavens and the earth did not create themselves, and if these people cannot claim that they created all of that, then there must inevitably be a Creator Who created all of that, and this Creator is Allah, Glorified be He and Exalted.
The attitude of the empirical sciences towards this law
Human power and the nature of created beings is incapable of listing all the stages of cause and effect and tracing its sequence back, step by step, until it reaches the beginning of the universe. Hence the empirical sciences have no hope of finding out the origin of things. These sciences expressed refraining from such attempt. All that they have been able to do is to trace a few steps behind them, leaving everything beyond that to the realm of the unseen, concerning which scholars and ignorant people are on equal footing.
Reason has no choice but to admit
But this human despair of ever discovering the stages of creation in detail, with regard to both the past and the future, is counterbalanced by the general belief which every mind must acknowledge, voluntarily or otherwise, that no matter how long the list of cause and effect is, and whether it is considered to be finite or infinite, there should still be something else which carries in itself the cause of its existence and continued existence. This is the true beginning, before which there was nothing, otherwise all these created things would not have come into being (if they did not have an originator which exists independently).
Specious Arguments About the Origin of the Universe
We hear and read specious arguments which were put forward in the past, and those which are being proposed nowadays, which attempt to explain the existence of the universe. We shall quote some of these arguments and endeavour to explain where they went wrong.
The View that it Happened by Accident
Having examined the Qur'anic evidence which is addressed to the rational mind and which obliges it to acknowledge the existence of the Creator Who is to be worshipped, the notion that this universe came into being by accident without any creator is not only far from the truth, but also irrational. Whoever says this could be counted as one of those prattlers who have lost their minds, because they are stubbornly rejecting evidence which the rational mind has no choice but to accept and submit to.
There are yet others who said, "If six monkeys sat at typewriters and banged on the keys for billions of years, it is not unlikely that in the last pages they wrote we would find one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. This is the case with the universe that exists now. It came about as the result of random forces which played with matter for billions of years."
Waheed Uddeen Khan 2 said, after quoting this paragraph from Huxley:3 "Any talk of this nature is utter nonsense. None of our branches of sciences until the present day - know what type of accident could produce such a great reality with all its wonder and beauty."
He quotes another scientist who denounced this view by saying: "The idea that life happened as the result of an accident is like saying that you could get a dictionary as the result of an accidental explosion in a printing press."
Waheeduddin Khan states, "Mathematics, which has given us the concept of probability, itself states that it is mathematically impossible for this universe to have come into existence by accident."
Look at this example which Waheeduddin Khan quotes from the American scholar Christie Morrisson, which explains how it is impossible that the universe could have come into being by accident. He said: "If you take ten coins, and write on them the numbers from one to ten, then put them in your pocket and mix them well, then you try to take them out of your pocket in ascending numerical order (i.e., from one to ten), the chance of you taking out the coin on which is written the number one on the first attempt is one in ten. The chance of you taking out all ten coins in numerical order (1, 2, 3, 4...) is one in ten billion."4
On this basis, how long would it take for this universe to assume its current shape if it had come about by accident? If we were to calculate that in the same manner, we would not be able to imagine or calculate the numbers, let alone comprehend them.
Everything in the universe tells us that it was brought into existence by an omniscient, wise Creator, but man is unjust (to himself) and ignorant.
قُتِلَ الإِنسَنُ مَا أَكْفَرَهُ مِنْ أَيِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقَهُ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ خَلَقَهُ فَقَدَّرَمُ ثُمَّ السَّبِيلَ يَسَرَهُ ثُمَّ أَمَانَهُ فَأَقْبَرَهُ ثُمَّ إِذَا شَاءَ أَنشَرَهُ كَلَّا لَمَّا يَقْضِ مَا أَمَرَهُ فَلْيَنظُرِ الإِنسَنُ إِلَى طَعَامِهِ أَنَّا صَبَنَا الْمَاءَ صَبا شَقَقْنَا الْأَرْضَ شَقًّا فَأَنْتَنَا فِيهَا جَبًّا وَعِنَبا وَقَضَبَا الله وَزَيْتُونَا وَغَفَلا(Be cursed [the disbelieving] man! How ungrateful he is! From what thing did He create him? From Nutfah [male and female semen drops] He created him and then set him in due proportion. Then He makes the Path easy for him. Then He causes him to die and puts him in his grave. Then when it is His Will, He will resurrect him [again]. Nay, but [man] has not done what He commanded him. Then let man look at his food: We pour forth water in abundance. And We split the earth in clefts. And We cause therein the grain to grow. And grapes and clover plants [i.e. green fodder for the cattle]. And olives and date palms.> (Qur'an 80: 17-29)
How could man have been created and formed by accident, when his food is created in such a well-planned manner that requires the co- operation of the heavens and the earth? Allah (SWT), indeed spoke the truth when He described man as:
... إنَّهُ كَانَ ظَلُومًا جَهُولًا...Verily he was unjust [to himself] and ignorant. (Qur'an 33: 72).5
The View that Nature is the Creator
This is a lie which has become widespread in our own time, and has deceived even the prominent scientists, many of whom explain the creation of things through nature by saying it is nature that creates and originates.
We would like them to answer the question: What do you mean by nature? Do you mean the essence of things? Or do you mean the laws that govern and control the universe? Or do you mean other forces beyond this universe that created it and brought it into existence?
If they say that by nature they mean the universe itself, then we do not need to bother refuting them, because the falseness of this view is obvious from what we have said above. This view repeats the idea referred to above, that a thing can bring itself into existence. In other words, they are saying that the universe created the universe, i.e., the heavens created the heavens, the earth created the earth, the universe created man and animals. We have already explained that human reason refuses to accept that a thing could create itself. To make matters clearer, we say that a thing cannot create something that is more developed than itself. Nature, such as the heavens, earth, stars, sun and moon, does not possess reason or the faculties of hearing and seeing, so how could it create man who hears, sees and knows? This cannot be.
If they say, all of that was created by accident, we say, we know for sure that there was no accident involved in the creation of the universe. We have already explained this above.
The theory of self-generation (a specious argument that has been proven to be false)
One of the things that helped to spread this new idolatry (the view that nature is the creator) was the scientists' observation of the appearance of maggots in the excrement of humans and animals, and the formation of bacteria which ate food and caused it to rot. They said, these are living beings which are generated by nature alone.
This idea lent weight to the new idolatry of "nature" in the eyes of those who were misguided far astray from the true religion of Allah. But the guidance of Allah soon exposed the falsehood of this theory at the hands of the famous French scientist Pasteur who proved that these maggots and bacteria referred to did not generate themselves from nature, but their origins lay in something even smaller that was invisible to the naked eye. He produced evidence which convinced other scientists that what he said was true. He sealed some food away from the open air, and killed the bacteria by boiling it; no new bacteria formed in the food and it did not turn rotten. This is the theory on which the food canning industry is based.6
Nature is the laws which govern the universe
Another group suggests that nature is the laws which govern the universe. This is the view of those who claim to have knowledge and who believe that nature is the creator. They say: this universe is running according to certain laws which regulate its affairs down to the last detail. The events that happen in this universe happen according to these laws. This is like a clock which runs accurately and precisely for a long time, running by itself with no controller.
In fact, these people are not answering the question that has been asked: Who created the universe? They tell us about the way in which the universe operates, and they tell us how these laws affect things, but we want to know who created the universe and who created the laws that govern it.
Waheeduddin Khan says, "Ancient man knew that rain came from the sky, but nowadays we know everything about how water evaporates from the sea until drops of water fall on the land. All of this is a description of what happens, but it is not in itself an explanation. Science does not tell us how these events became laws, or how the water is held between heaven and earth in these stunning and beautiful forms (clouds). It is from these phenomena that the scientists derived these laws.
When man claims that by discovering the laws of nature he has solved the mystery of the universe, he is only deceiving himself. When he makes this claim, he is putting a link from the middle of the chain at the end.
Nature does not explain anything (about the universe). It itself is in need of explanation. Read this debate that could take place between an intelligent man and a doctor who is prominent in his field:
Questioner: Why is blood red?
Doctor: Because there are red cells in the blood. The size of each cell is 1/700 of an inch.
Questioner: OK, but why are these cells red?
Doctor: Because in the blood there is a substance called haemoglobin, which becomes red when it is mixed with oxygen in the heart.
Questioner: That's fair enough, but where do these cells which carry haemoglobin come from?
Doctor: They are manufactured in your liver.
Questioner: Wonderful! But how are all these things the blood, cells, liver etc. connected to one another so perfectly, and how do they each play their part with such precision?
Doctor: This is what we call the laws of nature.
Questioner: But what do you mean by the laws of nature?
Doctor: What we mean by the laws is the blind internal operation of natural and chemical forces.
Questioner: But why do these forces always produce the same result? How are things regulated so that birds fly in the air, fish live in water and man lives in this world with all his amazing potentials and capabilities?
Doctor: Don't ask me about that. My science only tells me about what happens, it does not answer the question about why it happens. From these questions it becomes clear the extent to which modern science can explain the causes and effects behind this universe. The universe is like a machine which operates beneath a cover, and we know nothing about it except the fact that it is running. "But if we lift the lid, we will see how the many parts and cogs of this machine are connected to one another, how they turn one another; we will see all the movements of this machine. But does this mean that we know who created this machine, just by looking at its parts spinning? How can our seeing the machine running be proof that the machine came into existence by itself and is running by itself?"7
Nature is a force
There are those who say that nature is a force which created the universe, and that it is a living, hearing, seeing, wise and powerful force... We say to them, this is right, but your mistake is that you call this force "nature." This creative, innovative force has told us the name by which it deserves to be called, and that is "Allah." Allah has told us of His beautiful Names and sublime Attributes, so we must call Him by the names which He has called Himself, Exalted is He and All-High.
Those who came before them said something similar
Those who attribute creation to nature had Predecessors who said something very similar. These were the Dahriyah- the atheists - who attributed events to Ad-Dahr (time). They saw that children grow into adults, adults grow into old men and old men die as time goes by and night and day alternate, so they attributed life and death to time.
وَقَالُوا مَا هِيَ إِلَّا حَيَاتُنَا الدُّنْيَا نَمُوتُ وَنَحْيَا وَمَا يُهْلِكُنا إِلَّا الدَّهْرُ وَمَا هُم بِذَلِكَ مِنْ عِلم إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَظُنُّونَAnd they say: 'There is nothing but our life of this world, we die and we live and nothing destroys us except Ad-Dahr [time].' And they have no knowledge of it, they only conjecture. (Qur'an 45: 24)
Those people attributed events to time, and these people attribute them to the nature of things; both are equally misguided.
Darwin's Theory 8
The supporters of this theory tried to use it to explain the existence of living beings. This theory is widespread; many people try to spread it with good intentions, because they think that it is a scientific fact, whilst others try to spread it with bad intentions, because it suits their desire, which is to prove religion wrong in its description of how man was created. Those who seek to undermine religion find evidence in science to support their stance and deceive people.
What does Darwin's theory say?
This theory claims that the origin of all creatures was small organisms which developed from water, then their environment changed them until new characteristics emerged in this life-form, and these characteristics, over millions of years, led to the development of more advanced characteristics which changed that primitive creature into a superior life form. This development of characteristics caused by the environment and evolution continued until it arrived at the appearance of man.
The bases of Darwin's theory
a) This theory is based on what was noted during excavations carried out during Darwin's time. They discovered that the more ancient levels contained primitive life-forms, and the levels above them contained progressively more developed life-forms. Darwin said: "These more highly-developed animals came about as a result of evolution from earlier, primitive life-forms."
b) It was also based on what was known at Darwin's time about the resemblance of the embryos of different animals at the early stages of development, which could give the impression that the origin of all animals is the same as their embryos appear to be the same, and that evolution happened on earth along the same lines as the development of embryos in the wombs of living beings.
c) It was also based on the existence of the vermiform appendix in human beings, which helps in digesting plant matter, but it no longer has any function in man. This gave the impression that it was something left over from monkeys that did not evolve, because it does have a function in monkeys.
Darwin's explanation of the process of evolution
a) Natural selection. Destructive factors kill off the weaker specimens and leave the stronger specimens. This is what they call the principle of "the survival of the fittest." So the strong specimens remain and pass on their strong characteristics to their offspring. These strong characteristics are combined as time goes by to form a new feature in the species. This is "evolution" which makes the specimen develop into a superior specimen. This ongoing development is evolution.
b) Sexual selection. This has to do with the preference of both males and females to mate with strong specimens, so that the characteristics of stronger specimens will be passed on and the characteristics of weaker specimens will be eliminated because of the reluctance of others to mate with them.
c) Every time a new characteristic emerges, it is passed on to the offspring.
Refutation of the bases on which Darwin's theory is founded
Archaeology is not a precise science, and no one can claim that he has carried out a complete survey of all the layers of the earth, including those beneath mountains and oceans, and that he did not find anything new that would challenge previously-held concepts.
Even if we suppose that the statements of this branch of science (i.e., archaeology) are proven to be true, the fact that there were at first primitive life-forms which were then superceded by more advanced creatures does not prove that the advanced life-forms developed from their primitive counterparts. All that this proves is the order of their existence, which may simply be a reflection of changes in the environment which supported different life-forms at different times. The archaeological view at the time of Darwin was that man has existed for 600,000 years; recent discoveries in the field of archaeology put the age of man at 10 million years.
Does this not prove that archaeology is a changeable science on which no definitive proof can be based? Tomorrow the archaeologists may discover something that is the opposite of what we expect!
Dr. Mustafa Shaakir Saleem has commented on the book Al-Insaan fi'l-Mar 'aah (Man in the Mirror) by Clyde Colquhoun, which talks about Neanderthal man, which the supporters of Darwin's theory say, was the first man to evolve from monkeys and gorillas... Dr. Mustafa said: "Neanderthal man is described as having the following main natural features: a larger brain than that of modern man, and a large, broad skull... In addition to that, the chain of evolution which the archaeologists are trying to piece together is not complete; there is something known as 'the missing link'."
Dr. Sooriyaal said in his book Taşaddu' Madhhab Darwin (The Collapse of Darwin's Theory):
a) The missing links in the chain of evolution are not only missing between man and the life-forms beneath him, but there are also missing links between the primitive single-celled life-forms and multi-celled life-forms, between unjointed and jointed, between invertebrates and fish and amphibians, between the latter and reptiles, between reptiles and human beings. I have mentioned them according to the order in which they appear in the geological periods.
b) Similarities between the embryos of different species: this is a serious mistake which some scientists made because microscopes had not yet been developed which would show the minute differences in the formation of the embryos of different species. In addition, there was a hoax perpetrated by the German scientist Ernst Haeckel who juxtaposed pictures of similar embryos. When some embryologists criticized him, he admitted that he had had to touch up approximately 8 per cent of the pictures and make them look similar because they were incomplete.
c) With regard to the human appendix being an evolutionary left-over from the monkey stage, this does not prove definitively that man evolved from monkeys. The reason for its presence may be that it is inherited from early man, who was dependent on plants, so it was created to help him digest that plant matter. Moreover, science may yet discover that it has a function which we currently do not know.
Science is advancing every day. If hermaphroditism is a characteristic of lower life forms, and having two genders is a characteristic of higher life-forms, and if having nipples is a sign of femininity, then why do we find that male elephants have nipples like man does, whilst the males of hoofed animals such as horses and donkeys do not? If Darwin claimed that man evolved from lower life forms, why is this trace of hermaphroditism left in man when it is not left in lower life-forms?
Refuting Darwin's explanation of how evolution works
a) Darwin says that there is a law that works in extermination and extinction of living beings so that only the fittest survive to pass on their characteristics to their offspring, until the strong characteristics combine to form a new species. There is indeed a law which works in the annihilation of all living beings, strong and weak alike, because Allah has decreed death for all living beings. But there is also a parallel law whereby there is co-operation between living beings and their environment, because when Allah created life, He also created the means to sustain life. So we see the sun, the oceans, the wind, rain, plants, gravity... all of these and other things co-operate to sustain human and animal life.
Focusing on the destructive factors and overlooking the factors of sustenance creates an imbalance in one's way of thinking. If there is a law of death or destruction, then there is also a law of life, and each of them has a role to play in life. If these natural forces such as wind, thunder, heat, water, storms, etc. are able to cause damage to people or to destroy their works, such as blinding them or destroying what they have built, it is impossible to believe that these blind, unintelligent natural forces are able to create an eye for one who does not have an eye, or to repair a structure that is in a state of disrepair.
It is reasonable to say that natural forces could be destructive or fatal, but it is unreasonable to say that these forces explain this perfect, wonderful creation in which everything has been shaped perfectly and formed in a systematic way such that its parts fit together with such amazing precision and work together in perfect harmony. It is impossible to attribute this perfection to blind natural forces.
Jamaaluddeen al-Afghaani said in his book Al-Radd 'ala ad- Dahriyeen - Refutation of the atheists where he discusses this theory. After that, I ask them, how does each separate part of a living being know what the other parts are trying to achieve when each of them serves a different function? By what means does one part inform the others of what it intends to do? What parliament or senate or assembly of elders was held to create this perfectly-assembled being? How do these parts know when they are still inside the bird's egg-that they should come out in the form of a bird which eats grains, so it has to have the necessary beak and craw?
Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest has destroyed human life, because it has given justification for every oppressor, whether an individual or a government. When the oppressor engages in oppression, confiscation, war and plots, he does not think that he is doing anything wrong rather, he is following a natural law, according to Darwin's claims, the law of the survival of the fittest. This claim led to the ugliest excesses of colonialism.
b) Natural selection, the tendency to mate with stronger individuals so as to eliminate weaker individuals, does not prove that evolution takes place within that species. What we understand from it is that stronger individuals of a given species survive whilst weaker specimens are eliminated.
It may be said that if evolution occurs in some individuals, this may lead to a lack of sexual attraction because sexual attraction will be reduced according to the difference of form between males and females. This is what was suggested by the famous scientist Duwayr Zansky in 1958, a century after Darwin. Among the things that he suggested was: "Differences in physical form reduce sexual attraction, so the tendency to reproduce is reduced between animals of different shapes; the more different they are, the less attraction there is between them. Therefore it is wrong to say that new characteristics will be passed on from an individual in its genes. For example, a blacksmith with strong muscles will not pass on his muscular strength to his offspring, just as a scientist with deep being know what the other parts are trying to achieve when each of them serves a different function? By what means does one part inform the others of what it intends to do? What parliament or senate or assembly of elders was held to create this perfectly-assembled being? How do these parts know when they are still inside the bird's egg-that they should come out in the form of a bird which eats grains, so it has to have the necessary beak and craw?
Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest has destroyed human life, because it has given justification for every oppressor, whether an individual or a government. When the oppressor engages in oppression, confiscation, war and plots, he does not think that he is doing anything wrong rather, he is following a natural law, according to Darwin's claims, the law of the survival of the fittest. This claim led to the ugliest excesses of colonialism.
b) Natural selection, the tendency to mate with stronger individuals so as to eliminate weaker individuals, does not prove that evolution takes place within that species. What we understand from it is that stronger individuals of a given species survive whilst weaker specimens are eliminated.
It may be said that if evolution occurs in some individuals, this may lead to a lack of sexual attraction because sexual attraction will be reduced according to the difference of form between males and females. This is what was suggested by the famous scientist Duwayr Zansky in 1958, a century after Darwin. Among the things that he suggested was: "Differences in physical form reduce sexual attraction, so the tendency to reproduce is reduced between animals of different shapes; the more different they are, the less attraction there is between them. Therefore it is wrong to say that new characteristics will be passed on from an individual in its genes. For example, a blacksmith with strong muscles will not pass on his muscular strength to his offspring, just as a scientist with deep knowledge will not pass his knowledge on to his sons in his genes."
c) The suggestion that some characteristics emerge accidentally and are then passed on has been rejected by the modern science of genetics. Every characteristic that is not carried in the genes is an earned or acquired characteristic which cannot be passed on to the offspring.
Professor Nabeel George, one of the reliable scientists in this field, says: "For that reason, natural selection does not explain the theory of evolution. It only explains that the least fit will die, and that some characteristics will spread among the species. Those who speak of evolutionary leaps mean that an animal which did not have an eye suddenly had an eye because of the action of some rays.
Some specialists have proved that x-rays can cause changes in the number of genes, but this change occurs in something that is already present it does not create something that does not exist. The number of a monkey's genes differs from the number of a human's genes. X- rays only affect the genes that are present; how could these rays, which do not possess any form of intelligence, create the intelligence in man which distinguishes him from monkeys and other animals?
These rays can affect the genes, but it is more akin to distortion than reforming, as happens in the case of atomic rays (radiation). This is in addition to the fact that science of genetics disproves Darwin's theory, as experience shows. The Jews, and the Muslims after them, have been circumcising their sons for centuries, but this has not led to any of their children being born circumcised. The more science advances, the more Darwin's theory is proven wrong.
Darwin's theory is not supported by reality
a) If this theory were true, we would see many animals and people coming into existence through evolution, not only through reproduction. Even if evolution needs a long time, this does not mean that we would not see monkeys changing into men, one group after another.
b) Even if we accept that natural circumstances and natural selection turned a monkey into a man, for example, we cannot accept that these circumstances would also dictate that there would be a woman to accompany this man, so that they could reproduce and there would be a balance between men and women.
c) The ability to adapt which we see in creatures such as the chameleon, which changes its colour according to where it is, is an ability which is inherent in the formation of that creature. It is born with that ability which exists in some and is barely present in others. All creatures have limits beyond which they cannot pass. The ability to adapt is the matter of inborn potential, not a developed characteristic that has been formed by the environment as the proponents of this theory say. Otherwise, the environment would have forced rocks, soil, and other inanimate objects to adapt.
d) Frogs are distinguished from man in their ability to live on the land and in water. Birds are distinguished from man by their ability to fly and move rapidly without the aid of a machine. A dog's nose is far more sensitive than that of a human so is a dog's nose more advanced than a human's nose? Are frogs and birds more advanced than humans in some ways? Camels', horses' and donkeys' eyes see equally well by day and by night, whereas human eyes are unable to see in the dark. An eagle's vision is far more acute than that of a human. So are eagles and donkeys more advanced than man? If we take self-sufficiency as the basis of superiority, then plants are superior to man and all animals, because they manufacture their own food and food for others, with no need for nourishment from elsewhere.
If we take size as the basis of superiority, then camels and elephants and prehistoric animals (dinosaurs for example) would be superior to man.
The attitude of natural scientists towards this theory
a) Those who support this theory want to support the freedom of thought which the Church opposed and resisted. The natural scientists launched a war against the priests of the Church and their thought after the conflict between the two sides took a vicious turn.
b) Those who oppose it demand tangible evidence that natural selection has changed any species, especially mankind. Those who oppose it because they want natural proof are no less in number or in the fierceness of their resistance than the theologians in Europe who oppose it.
These are some of the views of the scientists who oppose this theory as quoted by Prof. Ibraaheem Ḥouraani: "The scientists have not proven the theory of Darwin; in fact they have disproved it and criticized it, even though they know that he researched it for twenty years." Among them are the scientists Nechel and Dallas, whose comments may be summed up as follows: "Evolution by natural selection cannot apply in the case of man; he can only have been created directly."
Another scientist, Farkho, said: "It is clear to us from real life that there is a big difference between humans and monkeys. We cannot say for sure that man is descended from monkeys or from any other animal, so we should not say any such thing."
Another scientist, Mivart, said, after examining the realities of life in detail: "The theory of Darwin is insupportable and is a childish opinion."
Von Biskoun said, after he and Farkho had conducted a comparative study of humans and monkeys: "The difference between the two is basic and a very great difference..."
Agassiz said in a paper which he delivered during a seminar on Victorian science that Darwin's theory was in fact wrong and false, his methods had nothing to do with science, and his theory was of no use at all.
Huxley, who was a skeptic and a friend of Darwin said that according to the evidence we have, it can never be proven that any kind of plants or animals evolved through either natural selection or artificial selection.
Tyndall, who was like Haeckel, said: "Undoubtedly those who believe in evolution are unaware of the fact that it is based on principles which are not proven (i.e., hypothetical principles). It is obvious to me that Darwin's theory needs to be altered."
Theory not fact
For all of these reasons, what Darwin said about evolution is called the theory of evolution. In the eyes of scientists, there is gulf of difference between a theory and a fact or law. According to their terminology, a theory is something which may be either true or false, whereas a fact or law is something which cannot be false in any way.
So why did it become so widespread?
The reason why this theory became so widespread is that it appeared at a time when Allah (), willed that the falsehood of that distorted and altered religion (Christianity) should become apparent through the actions of some of its followers. The advance of science played a major role in exposing the falsehood of this religion, which led to the outbreak of a fierce battle in which thousands of scientists were killed. In this heated battle each side started to use all kinds of weapons against the other, and this theory spread as a weapon wielded by the scientists against their own religion, then against the religion of every land they colonized. They did this because they believed the theory to be true, and as an act of vengeance against the false religion which had stood in the way of scientific research. Then they used it as a means of destroying the religions of the colonized nations so that it would become easy for the colonialists to dominate those peoples.
Thus the colonialist education system, after destroying the people's religion, imposed the study of this theory in the curriculum, introducing it in scientific garb so that students would believe it to be true, thus instilling in students' minds the difference between this falsified science and religion, so that people would reject religion.
It is sufficient for the reader to know that because of this theory, many Muslims deviated from their religion. For this reason the colonialists were keen to teach this theory to Muslim children in their schools at the time when American law forbade teaching this theory in schools from 1935 CE.
But in Europe, after they had dealt the final blow to their deviated religion, they announced that Darwin's theory, which they had used in the battle to support science against religion, was not a scientific fact; it was no more than a theory, and the more science advanced, the more the falsehood of this theory became apparent.
The Qur'an and Darwin's theory
When the Qur'an speaks about the realities of past eternity, people must listen and pay heed to.
وَإِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْهَانُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُمْ وَأَنصِتُوا ...So, when the Qur'an is recited, listen to it, and be silent...(Qur'an 7: 204)
because it comes from the All-Knowing, All-Aware, Who encompasses all things with His knowledge. What does man know? In comparison to the knowledge of Allah, he knows nothing.
... وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ...Allah knows but you do not know.) (Qur'an 2: 216)
How could he not know about His creatures' affairs when He is the one Who has created them?
أَلَا يَعْلَمُ مَنْ خَلَقَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُShould not He Who has created know? And He is the Most Kind and Courteous [to His slaves], All-Aware [of everything]. (Qur'an 67: 14)
How can people let themselves talk about their origins when they did not witness that act of creation?
مَّا أَشْهَدتُهُمْ خَلَقَ السَّمَوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنفُسِهِمْ ...I [Allah] made them [Iblees and his offspring] not to witness [nor took their help in] the creation of the heavens and the earth and not [even] their own creation... (Qur'an 18: 51)
Because they did not witness it, what they get right concerning this matter is very little, and the mistakes they make are many.
The opposite of this theory is the truth
What the All-Knowing All-Aware, the Creator of man, says is diametrically opposed to what these ignorant people said. Allah (SWT), tells us that He created man as a complete and independent creature. He told His angels that He was going to create him before He brought him into being.
وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَتَبِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةٌ ...And [remember] when your Lord said to the angels: 'Verily, I am going to place [mankind] generations after generations on earth.'...) (Qur'an 2: 30)9
Allah (SWT), has told us of the substance from which He created man. He created him from dust:
... فَإِنَّا خَلَقْتَكُم مِّن تُرَابٍ......We have created you [i.e. Adam] from dust... (Qur'an 22: 5)
Abu Moosa al-Ash'ari said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say:
"Allah created Adam from a handful which He gathered from throughout the earth, so the sons of Adam vary as the earth varies; some are red, some are white, some are black, and some are of colours in between, some are easy-going, some are difficult, some are evil and some are good."10
Water is an element in the creation of man:
ه وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَ كُلَّ دَابَّةٍ مِّن مَّاء ...(Allah has created every moving [living] creature from water... (Qur'an 24: 45)
Man is created from water and dust:
هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن طِينٍ ...He it is Who has created you from clay... (Qur'an 6: 2)
This clay turned into sounding clay like the clay of pottery,
خَلَقَ الإِنسَانَ مِن صَلْصَلٍ كَالْفَخَارِHe created man [Adam] from sounding clay like the clay of pottery. (Qur'an 55: 14)
Allah (SWT), created him with His hands:
قَالَ يَابْلِيسُ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَن تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقَتُ بِيَدَى ...[Allah] said: "O' Iblees [Satan]! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands... (Qur'an 38: 75)
Allah (SWT), has created him hollow from the beginning. According to the hadith narrated from Anas (RA), the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
"When Allah formed Adam in Paradise, He left him for as long as He willed to leave him, and Iblees started walking around him, looking at him. When he saw that he was hollow, he knew that this was a creature which was not solid (strong)."11
Allah(SWT), blew into this clay of His Spirit, and life entered into it, so he started to hear, see, speak, think and be aware. Allah commanded the angels to prostrate to Adam when He breathed into him of His Spirit and life entered into him.
هو فَإذَا سَوَّيْتُهُ وَنَفَخْتُ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِي فَقَعُوا لَهُ سَجِدِينَ اللهSo when I have fashioned him and breathed into him [his] soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him. (Qur'an 38: 72)
Allah (3), tells us of the place where He caused him to dwell after He had created him:
وَقُلْنَا يَكَادَمُ اسْكُنْ أَنتَ وَزَوْجُكَ الْجَنَّةَ ...(And We said: 'O' Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Paradise..." (Qur'an 2: 35)
As soon as his creation was completed, he began to speak and he understood what was said to him:
وَعَلَّمَ ءَادَمَ الْأَسْمَاءَ كُلَّهَا ثُمَّ عَرَضَهُمْ عَلَى الْمَلَائِكَةِ فَقَالَ أَنْبِتُونِي بِأَسْمَاء هَؤُلَاءِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَدِقِينَ ) قَالُوا سُبْحَنَكَ لَا عِلْمَ لَنَا إِلَّا مَا عَلَّمْتَنَا إِنَّكَ أَنتَ الْعَلِيمُ الْحَكِيمُ قَالَ يَقَادَمُ أَنْبِتْهُم بِأَسْمَاهِم .And He taught Adam all the names [of everything], then He showed them to the angels and said, "Tell Me the names of these if you are truthful.' They [angels] said: 'Glory is to You, we have no knowledge except what you have taught us. Verily, it is You, the All- Knower, the All-Wise.' He said: 'O' Adam! Inform them of their names,...) (Qur'an 2: 31-33)
Abu Hurayrah (4) reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
"When Allah created Adam and breathed His Spirit into him, he sneezed and said, 'Al-Hamdu lillah (praise be to Allah),' praising Allah by His Leave. His Lord said to him, 'May Allah have mercy on you, O' Adam. Go to those angels' to a group of them who were sitting- 'and say, As-Salaamu 'alaykum. ' They said, "Wa 'alayk as-salaam wa rahmatullah."12
This first man was Adam, who is the father of all people. From Adam, Allah (SWT), created his wife Ḥawwaa' (Eve),
يَتأَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُوا رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِى خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَاO' mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person [Adam], and from him [Adam] He created his wife [Ḥawwaa (Eve)],...) (Qur'an 4: 1)
Man was not created imperfect and then completed as the proponents of the theory of evolution say. On the contrary, he was complete, then his form started to diminish. According to a hadith narrated by Bukhari and Muslim in their ṣaḥeeḥs from Abu Hurayrah, the Prophet (ﷺ) said:
"Allah created Adam and his height was sixty cubits."13
Hence the believers will enter Paradise physically perfect, in the form of Adam. The remainder of the hadith quoted above says: "Everyone who enters Paradise will do so in the form of Adam (), whose height was sixty cubits." Then he (the Prophet) (ﷺ) said:
"Man's form kept decreasing (in height) from that time until now."14
Allah (SWT), informs us that He transformed some misguided humans into monkeys and pigs, so the higher level of creation can be reduced to a lower level, but the idea of monkeys and pigs turning into humans is an idea that occurs only to those with the weakest powers of reasoning.
This is a brief look at what the Qur'an and aḥaadeeth say about the creation of man. We did not quote at length all of the texts of the Qur'an and Sunnah on this topic, but what we have said gives a clear picture and leaves no room for confusion and imagination. This is what Islam says about the noble origins of man, which he should feel proud of to belong to. The origins of man as described by the proponents of the theory of evolution, where a monkey evolved from a rat or a cockroach, is an origin which man would feel embarrassed to belong to.
This idea of early man taught to children by the scholars of history, as a savage who cannot speak and cannot do anything well, who learns from the animals, has cast many aspersions on the noble origin of man.
In conclusion
It is high time for us to wake up and return to our religion which brought the Book of our Lord, filled with goodness. It tells of what happened before you, what will happen after you, it judges between you. It is a serious matter, not a joke, and whoever follows guidance from any other source will be sent astray by Allah...
It is high time for us to keep away from the products of corrupt minds in such areas, i.e., matters concerning which Allah has spoken decisively and left no room for people's opinions.
We must put a stop to this intellectual defeat which has made us hasten to accept every new thing without pausing to think. We realize our mistake only when those who started it are destroyed.
Notes:
1. Bukhari, 8/603, hadith no. 4854.
2. Al-Islam Yataḥadda, Pp. 66.
3. Huxley is the atheist writer who wrote the famous book Man Stands Alone. Allah brought forth a scientist from his own nation, A. Christie Morrisson, the head of the New York Academy of Science and a former member of the Executive Committee of the US National Research Council, wrote the valuable book Man Does Not Stand Alone to refute Huxley. This book has been translated into Arabi, under the title Al-'Ilm yad'u ila 'l-Eemaan (Sciences call to Faith).
4. Al-'Ilm Yad'u ila 'l-Eemaan, Pp. 51.
5. This matter will be discussed further when we look at the signs of Allah in the universe, In sha Allah (God willing).
6. Az-Zandaani, Kitaab at-Tawheed, 2/74.
7. Waheeduddin Khan, Al-Islam yataḥaddaa (Islam challenges), 29-31; he also quotes from other western scientists.
8. Zandaani, Kitaab at-Tawheed, 3/81.
9. So when your Lord told the angels: "I am placing an overlord on earth." - T.B. Irving. Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." A. Yusuf 'Ali.
10. Aḥmad, Tirmidhi and Abu Dawood (Mishkaat al-Maṣaabeeḥ, 1/36, hadith no. 100).
11. Muslim, 4/2016, hadith no. 2611.
12. Tirmidhi, Mishkaat al-Maṣaabeeḥ, 2/542, hadith no. 4662. The editor of Al- Mishkaat said: this is classed as şaheeḥ by Al-Haakim and Adh-Dhahabi agreed with him. And it is as they said.
13. Bukhari, 6/362, hadith no. 3326; Muslim, 4/2183, hadith no. 2841. This version is by Bukhari.
14. Ibid. Here the version quoted is by Muslim.
****************************************
>>> Welcome, You are now on Mohammadia Foundation's Website. Please stay & Tune with us>>>
মোহাম্মদীয়া ফাউন্ডেশনের নীতিমালা মেনে কমেন্ট করুন। প্রতিটি কমেন্ট রিভিউ করা হয়।
comment url