Is Human Evolution Compatible with Islam? Refuting Jalajel’s Heresy

Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Human Beings are Special and Specially Created

1.2 Evolution: A Theory Still in Crisis

1.3 Modern Attempts at Aligning Islam with Evolution

1.4 Jalajel’s “Novel Contributions”

1.5 Principles of Tafsīr

2. Jalajel’s Proposals:

2.1 Human Being is not synonymous to Banī Ādam Or The Non-Banī-Ādam Human narrative

2.2 Adam is not necessarily the biological origin of humans

2.3 Scripture is silent about the existence of Non-Banī-Ādam humans predating Adam

2.4 Adam’s physical and mental features were neither unique nor an honor

2.5 Possibility of Banī Ādam intermarrying with non-Banī-Ādam

2.6 Non-Banī Ādam eventually became Banī Ādam

2.7 Jalajel’s ‘Novel’ Proposal: Tawaqquf

3. Conclusion

4. Postscript: Yaqeen and the “Traditional” Scholars Who Enable Heresy

1. Introduction

Darwinian evolution—a topic that has long been and continues to be subject to much discussion and debate—has gained much more traction in contemporary times. The extent of its influence speaks for itself as one now witnesses Muslim modernists attempting to reconcile the theory with Islam. This research examines their speculations and their usage of scriptural exegeses in efforts to attain an alignment between Islam and evolution. The propositions of one Muslim academic, Dr. David Solomon Jalajel, are scrutinized in particular and form the meat of this examination.

Are their postulations in congruence with revelation? What do the scriptures have to say on the matter? Is their approach to the scriptures in line with well-established principles of Qurʾānic tafsīr in the Sunni orthodoxy? These are the main questions this research aims to address in light of the Qurʾān and Sunnah and the commentaries of the scholars of the Ashʿarī, Māturīdī, and Salafī theological schools.

The study commences with a brief look into deficiencies of evolutionary theory, the general attempts of modernist Muslim thinkers at aligning Islam with evolution, and Jalajel’s overall “novel contributions” in particular. The subsequent sections of the research then delve into dissecting some of Jalajel’s main speculations around Adam, his progeny, and non-Banī-Ādam hominids; the biological origin of humans; and his “unique proposal” of tawaqquf—cross-examining all of the aforementioned with Sunni orthodox literature.

1.1 Human Beings are Special and Specially Created

Human beings are mentioned with high regard in the Qurʿān. Allah honored and dignified the human race, and made the entire universe subservient to man. He says,

أَلَمْ تَرَوْا أَنَّ اللَّهَ سَخَّرَ لَكُم مَّا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَأَسْبَغَ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعَمَهُ ظَاهِرَةً وَبَاطِنَةً [لقمان: 20]

Do you not see that Allah has made subject to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, and lavished you with His favors, [both] apparent and unapparent? [31:20]

Human beings were in turn created to worship Allah. Allah says:

وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ [الذاريات: 56]

And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me. [51:56]

For the righteous Allah created Paradise, and for the disbelievers Hellfire, for He says,

إِنَّهُ يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ لِيَجْزِيَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ بِالْقِسْطِ ۚ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَهُمْ شَرَابٌ مِّنْ حَمِيمٍ وَعَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ بِمَا كَانُوا يَكْفُرُونَ [يونس: 4]

Indeed, He begins the [process of] creation and then repeats it that He may reward those who have believed and done righteous deeds, in justice. But those who disbelieved will have a drink of scalding water and a painful punishment for what they used to deny. [10:4]

He also says:

وَما خَلَقنَا السَّماءَ وَالأَرضَ وَما بَينَهُما لٰعِبينَ

‏ لَو أَرَدنا أَن نَتَّخِذَ لَهوًا لَاتَّخَذنٰهُ مِن لَدُنّا إِن كُنّا فٰعِلينَ [الأنبياء: 16-17]

And We did not create the heaven and earth and that between them in play. Had We intended to take a diversion [that is, entertainment], We could have taken it from [what is] with Us – if [indeed] We were among those that did so. [21:16-17]

Al-Rāghib al-Aṣfahānī comments here saying:

The sole purpose of the creation of the heavens and the earth is the human being. Plants and animals [and so on] were only created as a sustenance for him. Allah says, ‘It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth.’[2:29][1]

The Qurʾān then poses the inevitable question:

أَيَحسَبُ الإِنسٰنُ أَن يُترَكَ سُدًى [القيامة: 36]

Does man think that he will be left free [to do what he pleases]?” [75:36] “that is, without being obligated to observe the precepts of religion in this world, and without any reckoning for his deeds in the Hereafter … . The explanation of this is that granting capability, organs, and intellect, without obliging man to observe the precepts of religion, and (without) commanding obedience, and forbidding evil, implies that Allah is pleased with abhorrent actions, and that does not befit His Wisdom, therefore religious obligation is necessary.[2]

The creation of human beings was no ordinary event. The Qurʾān uses the creation of humanity as proof for the existence of Allah. Al-Rāzī says expounding on this:

The established proof for the existence of the Maker is seeking evidence from the creation of human beings on His existence: Do you not see that Ibrahim عليه السلام said, “My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death” [2:258], and in another place he said, “[The Lord of the worlds] Who created me, and He [it is who] guides me” [26:78], and Musa عليه السلام said, “Our Lord is He who gave each thing its form and then guided [it]” [20:50], and in another place he said, “[The Lord of the worlds is] Your Lord and the Lord of your first forefathers” [26:26], and Allah says in the beginning of Sūrah al-Baqarah, “O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous” [2:26], and He said in the first verses revealed to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, “Recite in the name of your Lord Who created–created man from a [blood] clot” [96:1-2]. So, these six verses prove that Allah used His creation of human beings as proof for the existence of the Maker, and if you contemplate the Qurʾān you will find this type of evidence used in great abundance. … Similarly, the coming into existence of the human body is evidence of the existence of Allah, and that is because the generation of multiple organs so diverse in nature, form, and shape, from a homogenous sperm-drop is not [rationally] possible unless the Creator purposely brought those organs into existence from a state of non-existence into those specific forms and natures. So, the coming into existence of these different organs is evidence of the existence of an all-Knowing Omnipotent Creator, Who by His Mercy and Beneficence, purposely created these organs in a form adequate for our needs and conducive to our benefit.[3]

Heretics on the other hand, do not see anything special in the creation of human beings. They have, on the contrary, always raised doubts about the Quranic account of the creation of humanity.

The Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH) mentions that amongst the doubts raised by heretics are their doubts about the verse, ‘[And Allah] created you from dust’ [35:11]. He says:

As for the saying of Allah عز وجل, “[And Allah] created you from dust” [35:11], and then He said, “[We created men] from sticky clay” [37:11], and then He said, “[And certainly did We create man] from an extract [of clay]” [23:12], and then He said, “[And We did certainly create man out of clay] from an altered black mud” [15:26], and then He said, “[He created man] from clay like [that of] pottery” [55:14], so they doubted what was mentioned in the Qurʾān, and they said, “This is deception; it is self-contradictory.” We say, “These verses are about the genesis of Adam.” … As for the verse, “[Then He made his posterity] out of the extract of a despised fluid” [32:8], this is about the genesis of the offspring of Adam. … So, this [the genesis of Adam and his offspring] is what the heretics doubted.[4]

1.2 Evolution: A Theory Still in Crisis

The debate about the origin of life, especially human beings, continues into modern times, an age dominated by people hell-bent on finding a materialistic explanation of the world. As Jalajel explains, the theory of human evolution entails “the idea that the species Homo sapiens evolved from other species of the genus Homo which in turn evolved from other species of hominid ape in a line of descent ultimately going back to the earliest life-forms on Earth.”[5] After passing through different phases, this theory eventually became the mainstream scientific explanation for the origin of species in many western countries by the mid-19th century.

Facing systematic criticism ranging from paleontology to molecular biology by a great and growing number of scientists and experts, the current Darwinian model remains incapable as ever of providing a complete, comprehensive, and entirely plausible explanation for all biological phenomena from the origin of life on through all its diverse manifestations up to, and including, the intellect of man.[6]

However, the main crisis for the theory of evolution lies in the fact that, like other theories, it requires basic assumptions (a priori postulates) put forward with a scientific veneer which are unempirical. These presuppositions are not observable, but are of a metaphysical nature, built into the interpretive framework of evolutionary biology. This interpretive framework is a-scien­tific because it has not arisen out of empirical data but rather is imposed upon empirical data. What remains central to the religion-evolution discourse is thus not the changing scientific data but the interpretive apparatus applied to experimental data and observed facts. It is through this application of a meta-scientific frame­work of interpretation that one derives the aforementioned “beliefs” which then precipitate grand theories about the origin and evolution of species.

The facts and the logic of the arguments that purport to establish Darwinian evolution draw much of their strength, not from empirical fact, but from an uncompromising commitment in philosophical naturalism, i.e., the belief that the natural, i.e., physical, world is all that exists and all phenomena in the world can be explained as being the result of physical causes.

Naturalistic speculation, conjecture, and interpretation form the foundation of the methodology used to prove evolution and are deemed to be as scientifically significant as experiment and observation.

Speculation, for example, is necessary in order for evolutionists to imagine what organisms that lived millions of years ago actually looked like. Such fanciful reconstructions that are often found in evolutionary textbooks look more like science fiction than science fact.

In this way, the “missing links” or gaps in the fossil record where the intermediate and transitional species should appear are nothing more than wishful thinking based on evolutionary ideology, rather than scientific fact. Stephen J. Gould, renowned Harvard Paleontologist, an icon in his field, stated:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The Evolutionary trees that adorn our text books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”[7]

In his essay titled “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Gould goes so far as to declare that Darwinism is “effectively dead, despite its peristence as textbook orthodoxy.”

Jonathan Wells, PhD in molecular and cell biology from Berkley, states:

“The now well-documented Precambrian fossil record does not provide anything like the long history of gradual divergence required by Darwin’s theory.”[8]

In the realm of genetics, scientists have yet to find a genetic mutation that increases genetic information in ways needed for “microbes to man” evolution to be feasible. Even then, pairing the archaeological record with this genetic information would be entirely speculative. Furthermore, the vast majority of genetic mutations are harmful to an organism, not helpful.

Similarly, the various inductive inferences used to assert evolution as fact all extend well beyond what the actual data proves, making the entire theory far from empirically established.

The discoveries of molecular biologists, far from strengthening Darwin’s claims, are throwing more and more doubt on traditional Darwinism. At a fundamental level of molecular structure, each member of a class seems equally representative of that class, and no species appear to be in any real sense “intermediate” between two classes. James Shapiro, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Chicago, writes:

The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have brought us revolutionary discoveries. Rather than confirm the oversimplified views of cellular organization and function held at mid-century, the molecular revolution has revealed an unanticipated realm of complexity and interaction more consistent with computer technology than with the mechanical viewpoint, which dominated when the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis was formulated. The conceptual changes in biology are comparable in magnitude to the transition from classical physics to relativistic and quantum physics. […] The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with postulates held by Neo-Darwinists.[9]

Trying to imagine possible intermediary forms requires so much wild conjecture that Michael Denton puts it this way:

“The essential problem with this ‘gigantic lottery’ conception of evolution is that all experience teaches that searching for solutions by purely random search procedures is hopelessly inefficient.”[10]

Evolutionists admit that:

“Evolutionary theory is, consequently, incapable of addressing the question of how the earliest self-replicating entities came into existence,” and not only are “the questions of life’s origins […] far from being answered,” but it is also “highly unlikely that any direct evidence will be found to answer such questions.”[11]

Jalajel should know that these questions cannot be resolved without acknowledging a purposeful Creator Who willed the world into existence and continues to maintain it in every successive moment. And once we acknowledge this Creator, we do not need the devices of evolutionary theory to explain anything.

It is this meta-scientific aspect of the theory of evolution which has always been at the heart of the criticism of evolution ever since Darwin.

Biochemist researcher Michael Denton notes:

[N]ature refuses to be imprisoned. In the final analysis we still know very little about how new forms of life arise. The ‘mystery of mysteries’ -the origin of new beings on earth -is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle.[12]

Despite these and numerous other heavy criticisms, Darwinism has had a tremendous significance in that it has brought about a social and moral transformation in Western thought and has retained its hypnotic hold on the modernist mind.

Richard Lewontin, a Harvard Genetics Professor, expounds this further. His comment comes from The New York Review of Books, 2/9/1997, and he says:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[13]

1.3 Modern Attempts at Aligning Islam with Evolution

For the most part, Darwin’s theory has had little relevance to most Muslims and Islamic thought.

Nonetheless, around the same time the theory of evolution became mainstream in the West, some modernist Muslims in the mid-19th century, like Muhammad ʿAbduh and Ḥusayn al-Jisr, attempted to make the theory of evolution compatible with the history of human origins described in the Qur’ān by introducing a new interpretation that went against all classical interpretations.

These reformists exerted themselves to re-read Islam’s fundamental sources—the Qurʾān and the Sunnah—by claiming that those texts were only literally applicable in their historical context and needed to be reinterpreted non-literally to conform with current paradigms and prevalent scientific theories. These thinkers argued that Islam was compatible with the notions of “rationality” defended by the European Enlightenment and modern science and were bent on exploring metaphysical realities through scientific methodology. Therefore, they, like the heretics in the times of Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, disagreed with the Qurʾānic description of the origination of human beings.

Although most traditionalists have always argued for the Qurʾānic account of creation of human beings, opposition to Darwin and the theory of evolution among Muslims was limited to a few elite clerics and a few intellectuals fluent in Western languages, until the last decades of the 20th century.[14]

Most scholars who wrote on the subject, however, added little scientific, religious, or philosophical content to the discourse because of their lack of scientific understanding of the subject. The reason was perhaps evident: Most Muslims trained in the natural sciences have no framework independent of modern science itself to examine and explore meta-scientific issues involved in the claims, inferences, and postulates of various aspects of the theory of evolution.

Overall, the Muslim reaction was limited to two extremes: The first, total rejection without further need to know the details of the evolutionary arguments; the second, uncritical surrender to evolution as scientific fact, and hence a valid truth by itself, requiring no further investigation simply because it carries the formidable weight of “scientific truth,” as Muzaffar Iqbal points out.[15]

With the passage of time, the theory of evolution, “a theory still in crisis,” became incorporated as a fact in some schools, textbooks, and academic communities in the Muslim world. Within those circles, the efforts to sustain orthodoxy on human origins were hastily dismissed as religious pseudoscience.

Due to this infiltration, a few Muslim intellectuals, felt the urge to somehow create a compromise between the two prevailing attitudes of either complete rejection or complete acceptance. They attempted to align evolution with Islam under the guise of traditionalism in order to safeguard “both the Islamic narrative and respect for the natural sciences.”

In their efforts to align Islam with evolution, these pseudo-traditionalists excluded human beings from the larger evolutionary process. According to them, evolution is true, but it does not apply to human beings. Arbitrarily, they claim that human beings are a “special case of creation” purely on theological grounds and in complete rejection of the “scientific evidence” supplied by evolutionists, whereas the same “scientific evidence” is considered acceptable in all other cases. Additionally, these would-be traditionalists stipulated that all evolutionary processes must be taken as Allah’s way of creation and that all causal relations, whether based on the struggle to survive or not, must also be somehow ascribed to Allah.[16]

These Muslims accepted all the postulates and findings based on atheistic evolutionary theories and inserted God into them, thus making their faith compatible with science. It came at a cost, however. These attempts at reconciliation require reframing and reinterpreting Qurʾānic descriptions, Prophetic traditions, exegetical works including those going back to the Companions of the Prophet, and reflections of Muslim scholars and theologians. In a few cases, attempts have been made by some Muslims to buttress their so-called “Islamic theistic evolution” by finding antecedents through selective and inaccurate reading of source material.

Prominent figures that have peddled this version of evolution as compliant with the traditional understanding of the creation of human beings include Western academics like Yasir Qadhi, Tahir Wyatt, Nazir Khan, Hatem al-Haj, and, recently, Shoaib Malik.

Yasir Qadhi contends:

[O]ne can certainly imagine a scenario wherein hominid species were gradually evolving on earth, and right at the point when evolutionists would predict the emergence of modern humans, God miraculously inserted the children of Adam. Let us suppose that these ‘Adamic species’ are biologically, anatomically, physiologically, and genetically indistinguishable from the would-be species one would have predicted to have emerged based on the preceding population of species in evolutionary history. They appear to occupy the exact same position on the phylogenetic tree. The occurrence of such a scenario is theologically plausible and would be impossible to disprove empirically since it is a metaphysical assertion.[17]

The most extensive effort for Islam-evolution reconciliation has been David Solomon Jalajel with his account of “Adamic exceptionalism.”[18] It is Jalajel’s main argument that Qadhi, Wyatt, Khan, et al., have either given their stamp of approval or even propagated.

1.4 Jalajel’s “Novel Contributions”

Jalajel wrote two works relevant to Islam and Evolution. One was a book that he published in 2009 by the name of Islam and Biological Evolution: Exploring Classical Sources and Methodologies.[19] The second was an article he published with the Yaqeen Institute in 2018 with the title Tawaqquf and Acceptance of Human Evolution.[20]

Jalajel’s approach to the theory of evolution, as is apparent from his book Islam and Biological Evolution, is taking it for granted, much like the evolutionist F.M. Wuketits writes [W5, p. 11]:

“We pre-suppose the essential correctness of biological evolution, yes, we assume that evolution is universally valid.”[21]

He states that his goal in exploring new “classical interpretive strategies” is to address the presumed “confusion” and “unnecessary resistance” to evolution from “some traditional Muslims who nevertheless identify with theological traditions for which this should never have been a problem.” In other words, Muslims who have rejected the evolutionary account of human origins are simply confused!

Jalajel claims that the reason most traditional Muslims reject evolution as a possible narrative for the origin of human beings is “because the scriptural texts have been over-interpreted by contemporary Muslims who, having been confronted with the question of human biological origins, took the Adam and Eve story to be an account of those biological origins.” He identifies this is as “just an assumption” that “overreaches what is found in the texts and which violates the principle of theological non-commitment (tawaqquf) required when dealing with matters of the Unseen.”

Jalajel then proceeds to define exactly where “people” have made personal assumptions, and where they have overreached and over-interpreted the texts, and read into the texts what the texts do not actually indicate.

He corrects the notion that is generally held by Muslims that human beings are synonymous with Banī Ādam, and claims that “[m]uslim theologians did not limit themselves to this idea when they defined human beings.”

He contends that “the story of Adam must be kept separate from the question of the biological origins of Homo sapiens,” contrary to the inherited belief of Sunni orthodoxy, a belief handed down from generation to generation for 14 centuries, that Adam is the origin of all human beings that ever existed.

He then proceeds to emphasize the possibility of the existence of non-Banī-Ādam human beings that predated Adam. He says:

“What is important is that a belief in Adam’s direct creation does not prevent Muslims who hold that belief from accepting the possibility that beings who were biologically human could have evolved on Earth from other species.”

Those species, he then proposes, were “anatomically identical to the descendants of Adam,” that is, they shared the same physical and mental features of Adam, because “there is no reason to assume that He [that is, Allah] would be obliged to furnish that individual [that is, Adam] with physical or genetic markers to set it and its descendants apart from their fellow creatures.”

Further speculation brings him to propose “the possibility of intermarriage between Adam’s descendants and possible pre-existing populations, since there is no definitive scriptural evidence one way or the other.”

Left with the apparent contradiction to his speculations that “[t]he Qur’ān addresses its audience as Banū Ādam,” which he feels “provides a strong implication that all human beings on Earth at the time the scripture speaks to them are direct descendants of Adam,” and that could have “historical, scriptural, metaphysical, spiritual, and theological dimensions that are unique to Adam and his descendants,” he finds a convenient way of making the Qurʾānic address of Banī Ādam inclusive to his proposed non-Banī-Ādam species by asserting that “if Adam’s descendants intermarried with members of pre-existing populations,” the term Banī Ādam would be inclusive of them too, “as long as everyone shares their lineage with Adam in some way.”

Theological tawaqquf, Jalajel’s “novel proposal,” although defined by him as “an epistemological claim that knowledge on a matter is impossible so there is a binding religious obligation to refrain from speculating about it,” is applied, however, as an appeal to classical Muslim theologians to “refrain from affirming or negating such scenarios [that is, Jalajel’s proposals] in the absence of direct scriptural evidence.” He says:

As a consequence, they [that is, classical Muslim theologians] would not be able to object to the idea that the species Homo sapiens evolved from other species of the genus Homo which in turn evolved from other species of hominid ape in a line of descent ultimately going back to the earliest life-forms on Earth. They would have to take a non-committal stance about human evolution. They would, on a theological level, neither accept it as true nor reject it as false.

The result of Jalajel’s “novel contributions” is that:

“Muslims who accept the traditional account of Adam’s creation, therefore, would have no reason to object to the idea that the biological species Homo sapiens evolved from other species of hominid and shares a common genetic origin with all other living things. They could accept this fully and without reservation, while also accepting on faith that Adam was specially and miraculously created by God for reasons best known to Him, and that he is a forefather to all people living today [emphasis added]. That is the limit of what a traditional approach to the texts requires to be taken as a matter of faith. Therefore, Muslims would not be obligated to deny the idea of human evolution in order to remain faithful.”

The fact that Muslim intellectuals would accept a theory that is neither theologically plausible nor scientifically tenable and try to incorporate it into orthodox Sunni interpretation with the wildest of speculations, is deeply troubling.

In the process, they severed their bonds with Sunni orthodoxy, and at the same time the version of evolution that they propose doubtless stands rejected by the mainstream scientific community. As Salman Hameed puts it:

Some, though, have come up with creative ways to reconcile Islam with evidence for early hominid species. For example, Maurice Bucaille, famous in the Islamic world for his book, claiming that many of the modern scientific discoveries were already mentioned in the Koran, accepts animal evolution up to early hominid species and then posits a separate hominid evolution leading to modern humans. These evolutionary ideas are a far cry from the theory of evolution as accepted by biologists all over the world.[22]

What a striking resemblance there is between these apologists and those whom Allah condemned in the Quran for trying to play two sides at once, failing to be accepted by either side!

مُّذَبْذَبِينَ بَيْنَ ذَٰلِكَ لَا إِلَىٰ هَٰؤُلَاءِ وَلَا إِلَىٰ هَٰؤُلَاءِ [النساء: 143]

Wavering between them, [belonging] neither to the believers nor to the disbelievers. [4:143]

Although Jalajel’s article is evidently self-refuting to anyone with basic knowledge in the Islamic sciences, the need to address his claims arose when these heretical ideas were considered Islamically-sound enough to be published by the so-called Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research. Yaqeen deserves most of the blame for spreading the heretical ideas of an unabashed Muslim reformist to the wider Muslim community. The need to refute Jalajel is also due to the fact that he has recently been teaching courses at “traditional” online institutes, like AlBalagh. Unfortunately, even some confused madrasah graduates have begun promoting Jalajel’s fallacious arguments.

1.5 Principles of Tafsīr

Before proceeding to address Jalajel’s speculations, however, it would be necessary to highlight a few principles of tafsīr, as most of the entailing arguments are related to the Qurʿānic account of creation of human beings.

One of the basic established principles of Ahl al-Sunnah in the tafsīr of the Qurʾān, as mentioned by Abu al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, al-Shāṭibī, Ibn Taymiyyah, and others, is that it should be in accordance with the principles of Sharīʿah, the general indications of the Qurʾān and Sunnah, and the Arabic language. However, in matters pertaining to the Unseen, total reliance should be on the aḥādith of the Prophet ﷺ, the saying of the Companions, the Tābiʾin, and the earliest generations of Muslims (that is, the salaf), as is evident in the works of the great imams of tafsīr. Deviant sects, on the other hand, like the Muʿtazilah, the Murjiʾah, the Qadarīyyah, the Rāfiḍah, and other heretics, deflect and turn away from these sources, relying solely on their reason and knowledge of the Arabic language in understanding the Qurʾān.[23] The muʿtazilī al-Qāḍī Abd al-Jabbār (d. 415 AH), in his voluminous book al-Mughnī, dedicated a whole chapter to this principle, entitled “Understanding of Allah’s message in the Qurʾān is not exclusive to the Prophet ﷺ or the salaf.”[24] This, as Ibn Taymiyyah insists, amounts to forging falsehoods against Allah, according heretical interpretations to His verses, distorting the meaning of the revealed words by taking them out of their context, and this opens the door for heresy and disbelief.[25]

The second principle, mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Zarkashī, al-Suyūṭī, and others, is that the apparent differences that appear in the commentaries of the Qurʾān are often a matter of discussing different aspects of a matter that are complementary to each other, like the different facets of a gem, entailing no contradiction.[26]

2. Jalajel’s Proposals:

2.1 Human Being is not synonymous to Banī Ādam Or The Non-Banī-Ādam Human narrative

Central to Jalajel’s speculation about the existence of hominids prior to Adam is the definition of human beings. He says:

“Definitions matter. If someone were to define human beings as the children of Adam, then, by that definition, it would follow that human beings could not exist before Adam’s appearance.”

But humans that “evolved from other species of hominid ape in a line of descent ultimately going back to the earliest life-forms on Earth,” according to Jalajel, possibly did exist prior to Adam. After all, Jalajel appears awestruck with what he sees as undeniable and overwhelming empirical evidence for human evolution proclaimed by evolutionists. Thus, in the process of safeguarding “both the Islamic narrative and respect for the natural sciences,” he speculates that there are two types of humans:

Banī Ādam, that is, the descendants of Adam.

Non-Banī-Ādam, that is, the hominids predating Adam that descended from apes.

Jalajel thus introduces a new species of human beings into Sunni orthodoxy.

Instead of providing any references from orthodox Sunni sources in support of his claim that the term insān or human being, in Islam, is not restricted to “the children of Adam,” Jalajel made a general statement claiming:

“Muslim theologians did not limit themselves to this idea when they defined human beings.”

Jalajel quotes al-Rāzī in an apparent attempt to confuse the readers by saying that al-Rāzī affirms “that the human being is an entity that is neither the physical body nor anything of a physical nature and attributes this opinion to the majority of theologians, including al-Aṣfahānī and al-Ghazālī,” giving the impression that al-Rāzī is conveying that human beings are not restricted to Banī Ādam.

However, al-Rāzī is saying no such thing. He is discussing the same individual that is from the children of Adam, only from the perspective of the essence of that being. Elsewhere in his tafsīr, al-Rāzī himself specifies that all people are children of Adam.[27]

To assert that Muslim theologians did not restrict human beings to the children of Adam is a gross misrepresentation of Sunni Orthodoxy. The term insān wherever mentioned in the texts of the Qurʾan and Sunnah, or by scholars of tafsīr (Quranic commentary), jurists, theologians and linguists, applies solely to Adam and his descendants. Insān and Banī Ādam are synonymous with each other in the Islamic context, and non-Banī-Ādam human beings are non-existent in Sunni Orthodoxy. There are no two ways about it.

Muslim commentators of the Qurʿān, theologians, linguists, et al., all define human beings as the children of Adam.

Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH) mentions twenty five ways in which the term insān was used in the Qurʾan, all of which come down to Adam and his children.[28]

Similarly, al-Shihāb al-Khafājī (d. 1069 AH) mentions five ways the term Banī Ādam is used:

  1. The entire human species, including Adam, Eve, all males and all females;
  2. The male and female descendants of Adam while excluding only Adam and Eve;
  3. Whoever came forth from Adam, including Eve in this case, as she was created from his rib;
  4. The male descendants of Adam; and
  5. The widespread use among non-Arabs: al-insān [human being].[29]

Al-Juwaynī (d. 478 AH), the shaykh of al-Ghazālī, asserts that if someone said:

‘I saw a human,’ it would not be appropriate to ask, ‘Do you mean an individual from the children of Adam, or a donkey?’ This is because the term insān is indicative of the ‘children of Adam’ species [by default], so it would not be appropriate to seek further detail.[30]

ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Samarqandī contends that the name insān indicates Banī Ādam by consensus of the people of the Arabic language.[31]

The great linguist Abū Hilāl al-ʿAskarī (d. 395 AH) says:

“Our saying [in the Arabic language], ‘He is a son of that person,’ signifies that his lineage is from him, that’s why it is said, ‘Human beings are Banū Ādam,’ because their lineage goes up to him.”[32]

The famous linguist Ibn Sīdah (d. 458 AH) in his voluminous treatise al-Mukhaṣṣaṣ and al-Suyūtī (d. 911 AH) in al-Muzhir expounds the specific indication of insān for Banī Ādam, saying:

It’s as if they came to a descendant of Banī Ādam, and pointed to him, and said, “[This is an] insān,” [such that] whenever this word insān is heard, it is known [intuitively] that this specific species [that is, Banī Ādam] from the created genera is being referred to.[33]

Other linguists, like Abū Manṣūr al-Thaʿālabī (d. 429 AH),[34] Nashwān ibn Saʿīd al-Ḥimyarī (d. 573 AH),[35] Ibn al-Athīr (d. 606 AH),[36] Ibn Mālik (d. 672 AH),[37] and Ibn Manzūr (d. 711 AH),[38] to name a few, also define human beings or humanity as the children of Adam.

Muslim theologians are no exceptions. Insān, wherever discussed in their texts, refers by default to the descendants of Adam.

Al-Jurjānī (d. 816 AH) in his commentary on al-Mawāqif defines Banī Ādam as the species of human beings.[39]

Al-Zarrūq (d. 899 AH) in his commentary of al-Ghazālī’s ʿAqīdah, defines al-ʾins, the plural of al-insān, as “the descendants of Adam, that is, from the first of them to the last of them.”[40]

Al-Laqqānī (d. 1041 AH) refers to al-ʾins as the children of Adam in his ʿUmdah al-Murīd,[41] as does Al-Safārīnī in his Lawāmiʿ al-Anwār.[42]

Al-Khādimī (d. 1156 AH) defines insān as, “a single individual from the children of Adam, male or female.”[43]

This is not an exhaustive list. These are but a few examples.

2.2 Adam is not necessarily the biological origin of humans

If non-Banī-Ādam humans existed, it would naturally follow that Adam would not be the origin of the human species. Jalajel holds possible the existence of non-Banī-Ādam humans, and therefore is obliged to assume, contrary to Sunni orthodoxy, that the account of Adam’s origins does not necessarily explain the biological origins of humans. He says:

The account of Adam’s special mode of creation, therefore, remains the story of Adam. It is not an account explaining the biological origins of the genus Homo or the species Homo sapiens. The idea that the story of Adam explains human biological origins is only an assumption people read into the texts, not something the texts indicate. This assumption is widely held by people today, and it clouds many discussions on the theological implications of human evolution, where we find the account of Adam’s origins being presented as if it is synonymous with an account of human biological origins. This is incorrect from the methodological approach of classical theology since it over-extends what the texts are actually saying about a matter of the Unseen.

He further says:

“[T]he story of Adam must be kept separate from the question of the biological origins of Homo sapiens.”

In explaining Jalajel’s view in his book, Shoaib Malik mistakenly claims:

“Jalajel uniquely divorces the connection between the creation of Adam with the start of humanity.”[44]

This is mistaken because Jalajel is not unique to divorce Adam from human origins.

The famous modernist reformer Muhammad ʿAbduh (d. 1323 AH) preceded Jalajel in divorcing the connection between Adam and the start of humanity. His students Rashīd Riḍā and al-Murāghī quote him in their respective tafsīrs claiming that the texts do not indicate that Adam was the origin of human beings and that the human species, as proven by scientific and historical research, predated Adam.[45] Jalajel’s claims bear a striking resemblance to ʿAbduh’s.

Qadianis also reject the creationist doctrine that Adam was the first human being on Earth.[46] The apostate and heretic Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (d. 1326 AH) stated:

“We believe in the existence of human race before Adam.”[47]

However, Jalajel still has a unique contribution here that Malik seems to have missed. He uniquely attributes the “assumption” that Adam was the biological origin of mankind to “people today,” thus divorcing any connection between this “assumption” and “the scholars of the Ashʿarī, Māturīdī, and Salafī theological schools, as well as the sources they all draw upon—the Qur’ān, the Sunnah, and the opinions of the earliest generations of Muslims (salaf).”[48]

This “assumption” that is “widely held by people today,” he believes “is incorrect from the methodological approach of classical theology since it over-extends what the texts are actually saying about a matter of the Unseen.”

Jalajel did not provide a single quotation from classical theologians on the matter, giving readers the false impression that the issue of Adam being the origin of the human race had no mention in their works, as it was a matter of the Unseen.

The truth of the matter, however, is that the mention of Adam being the origin of human beings is overwhelmingly recurrent in the texts of Qurʾān and Sunnah as well as the works of the scholars of the above-mentioned theological schools from the earliest times until today. It would be quite a task to prepare an exhaustive list on it.

Allah (subḥānahū wa taʿāla) says in the Qurʾān:

يٰأَيُّهَا النّاسُ اتَّقوا رَبَّكُمُ الَّذى خَلَقَكُم مِن نَفسٍ وٰحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنها زَوجَها وَبَثَّ مِنهُما رِجالًا كَثيرًا وَنِساءً ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذى تَساءَلونَ بِهِ وَالأَرحامَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كانَ عَلَيكُم رَقيبًا ‎

O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from a single soul, and created from it its mate, and dispersed from both of them many men and women. [4:1]

And He says:

وَهُوَ الَّذى أَنشَأَكُم مِن نَفسٍ وٰحِدَةٍ [الأنعام: 98]

And it is He who produced (that is, originated) you from one soul. [6:98]

Commentators of the Qurʾān agree that the “soul” in the above verses is Adam, as narrated by al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH) from al-Suddī, Qatādah, and Mujāhid[49] and narrated by Ibn Abī Ḥātim (d. 327 AH) from al-Ḍaḥḥāk, Abū Mālik, and Muqātil bin Ḥayyān.[50]

Abū al-Muẓaffar al-Samʿānī (d. 489 AH),[51] al-Rāghib al-Aṣfahānī (d. 502 AH),[52] Ibn ʿAtīyyah (d. 546 AH),[53] al-Qurṭubī (d. AH),[54] Abū Ḥayyān (d. 745 AH),[55] and al-Thaʿālabī (d. 875 AH),[56] among others, assert that this is the view of the majority of the exegetes (mufassirīn).

Al-Rāzī (d. 606 AH) declares consensus of all Muslims on this tafsīr saying, “The Muslims unanimously agree that ‘one soul’ here indicates Adam عليه السلام.”[57]

Numerous aḥādīth also indicate that Adam عليه السلام is the origin of human beings.

Abū Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) reports from the Prophet ﷺ in a lengthy narration:

I will be the chief of the people on the Day of Resurrection. Do you know how? Allah will gather the first [of people] and the last [of them] in an even ground, [where] an observer will be able to see [all] of them, and a caller will be able to make them hear [his voice], and the sun will come close to them. Some people will say, “Don’t you see the condition you are in and the state you have reached? Why don’t you look for a person who can intercede for you with your Lord?” Some people will say, “Appeal to your father, Adam.” They will go to him and say, “O Adam! You are the father of all human beings,[58]

And in another narration:

“They will say: ‘You are Adam, father of all [human] creation,’”[59] and in another narration, “They will say: ‘You are the father of all people.’”[60]

This hadith clearly mentions that Adam عليه السلام is the father of all human beings, from the first of them to the last of them.

In another narration reported by Abū Hurairah and Ibn ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with them), the Prophet ﷺ said in a sermon he delivered on the day of the conquest of Makkah:

“Human beings are all [that is, without exception] the children of Adam, and Allah created Adam from dust.”[61]

Abū Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) reports, that the Prophet ﷺ said:

“When Allah created Ādam He wiped his back, and every soul that He was to create until the Day of Resurrection fell from his back, resembling tiny particles.”[62]

Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allah be pleased with them) reports, that the Prophet ﷺ said:

Allah took the covenant from Adam’s back in Naʿmān, that is, ʿArafah, and brought forth from his backbone all [human] beings that He created, and scattered them before Him like small particles. He then spoke to them face to face saying, “Am I not your Lord?” They replied, “Yes, we have testified.” [This] lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, “Indeed, we were of this unaware,” Or [lest] you say, “It was only that our fathers associated [others in worship] with Allah before, and we were but descendants after them. Then would You destroy us for what the falsifiers have done? [7:172-173][63]

Notice the words of the Prophet ﷺ, “all [human] beings that He created”; this shows undeniably that all human beings are from the back of Adam عليه السلام.

In another narration, reported by ʿUqbah ibn ʿĀmir (may Allah pleased be him), the Prophet ﷺ said:

“These lineages of yours are not a [source of] disgrace for anyone [of you, because] you are all the children of Adam,” [in another narration: “human beings are all the children of Adam and Ḥawwāʾ”[64]] “like the quantity that falls short of filling a ṣāʿ [unit of measurement],”[65] meaning: all of you, in being related to one father, are in one state in respect of lowliness / mundaneness, by originating from dust, all of you are peas in a pod. The Prophet ﷺ then proceeded to inform them that there is no excellence of one above another except by piety. [66]

Ibn Abī Ḥātim reports from Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allah be pleased with them), that he said commenting on the āyah, “And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam – from their loins – their descendants” [7:172]:

Allah created Adam, then He took out his offspring from his backbone as tiny particles, and He said to them, ‘Who is your Lord?’ They said, ‘Allah is our Lord’, then He returned them to his backbone, until every soul that He took the covenant from has been born, no soul will be added to them, nor will (any soul) be deducted from them until the Day of Resurrection.”[67]

So, this shows categorically that the only human beings that ever existed or will exist are the offspring of Adam عليه السلام.

“The grandfather was mentioned in the presence of Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allah be pleased with him). A person asked, ‘Who is the farthest father [you are aware of] in your lineage? He said, “Adam; because Allah says, ‘O children of Adam’.”[68]

Al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH) narrates, with a chain termed authentic by Ibn Kathīr, that al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 101 AH) said:

“Adam is the origin of human beings.”[69]

A person came complaining to Abū Bishr al-Wahbī that someone had disgraced his lineage by calling him a half-breed. Abū Bishr replied saying:

“There is no half-breed amongst the children of Adam, all of you are the progeny of Adam and Ḥawwāʾ.”[70]

Scholars of the Ashʿarī, Māturīdī, and Salafī theological schools all commonly refer to Adam عليه السلام as the origin of the human race.

Al-Wāḥidī (d. 468 AH),[71] Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH),[72] al-Rāzī (d. 606 AH),[73] al-Qurṭubī (d. 671 AH),[74] al-Shihāb al-Khafājī (d. 1069 AH),[75] al-Shawkānī (d. 1250 AH),[76] and al-Alūsī (d. 1270 AH),[77] among others, refer to Adam عليه السلام as the origin of human beings.

Abū Ḥayyān (d. 745 AH) refers to Adam عليه السلام as “the genesis of human creation,”[78] and “the first human to have been created.”[79]

Al-Alūsī also refers to Adam عليه السلام as the first individual and origin of the human species and the inception of it’s lineage.[80]

Qurʾānic commentators go to great lengths in asserting that Adam عليه السلام is the origin of human beings.

Al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH) says, commenting on the above-mentioned verses:

Allah (subḥānahū wa taʿāla) glorifies the mention of Himself [in these verses] by asserting that He alone created all humanity from a single person—informing them how His originating them [that is, bringing them into being] began from a single soul, notifying them by that that they are all children of one man and one mother, and that they are all from [that is, related to] each other, and that their rights on each other are like those of a brother on his brother, because they all go back in their lineage to the same father [Adam] and the same mother [Ḥawwāʾ].[81]

And he also says:

“Your Lord, O you who equate others with Him, ‘who produced you’, that is, started your creation from nothing, and brought you to existence after you were non-existent, ‘from one soul,’ that is, from Adam?”[82]

Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 333 AH), the founder of the Maturīdī theological school, says in his tafsīr:

“Allah informed us [in these verses] that He created all humanity from a single soul,”[83] “from the time human beings were created on the face of this Earth,”[84] “from the first of you [humans] brought into existence to the last of you that will be brought into existence, all are created from that single soul.”[85]

Al-Rāzī (d. 606 AH) says in the tafsīr of these verses:

“There is no doubt that the single soul is Adam, and it is a single soul. Ḥawwaʾ was created from a rib of Adam’s ribs. So it follows that all humanity is from a single soul, and that is Adam,”[86] and “the creation of all human individuals from a single soul is a greater testament to the Omnipotence [of Allah].”[87]

Al-Rāzī also reasons for this rationally, saying:

As for humans, there is no doubt that they have a father that is their first father. Otherwise, the creation of humans would be an infinite regress, and the Qurʾān asserts that that first father is Adam عليه السلام.[88]

And he also says:

Know that reason [also] contends that it is necessary for all humanity to have a first father. Otherwise, it would necessitate that every child be preceded by a father, and so on to no beginning point. That is impossible, and the Qurʾān asserts that that first father is Adam عليه السلام.[89]

And yet in another place he says:

It is [rationally] necessary that all human beings begin from a single person that is the first human, and if that is such, then that first human should not have been born to parents [otherwise he wouldn’t be the first human], and therefore [it follows] that he should be created [uniquely] by the Power of Allah…and the commentators unanimously agree that that first person is Adam عليه السلام.[90]

Al-ʾAlūsī says commenting on the āyah: “And We have certainly created you, [O Mankind], and given you [human] form,”[7-11]:

The meaning is: We started creating you and forming you by creating Adam and forming him [first], and [therefore] this [āyah] would be referring to the beginning of the creation of the genus[91] [human beings], as [the principle is that] the beginning of creation of every genus is by the creation of the first individual of that genus,[92]

which in this case is Adam عليه السلام.

Al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538 AH) says in his tafsīr:

He divided you into nations [and tribes] from a single soul, and this is that soul’s description: He brought it into existence from dust and created that soul’s wife from a rib of its ribs, and dispersed from both of them both species of the genus human beings, and those species are: males and females.[93]

Abū Ḥayyān (d. 745 AH) says:

Allah (subḥānahū wa taʿāla) drew attention in the beginning of this chapter to the [act of] bringing into existence [from a state of non-existence] the origin [of humanity], and [then] the branching off from that origin the human species.[94]

Ibn Kathīr (d. 774 AH) says:

“Allah (subḥānahū wa taʿāla) mentions that the origin of (human) creation is from one father (Adam) and one mother (Ḥawwāʾ),”[95] and “He created you with your diverse kinds, classes, languages, and colors, from a single soul, and that is Adam عليه السلام.”[96]

Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 AH) says commenting on the verse:

وَلَقَد خَلَقنٰكُم ثُمَّ صَوَّرنٰكُم [الأعراف: 11]

And We have certainly created you, [O Mankind], and given you [human] form. [7:11]

This alludes to the creation of the origin and father of human beings. Allah made the creation of the origin (equivalent to) the creation of (all) human beings and giving form to them, because he (Adam) is their origin, and they are his progeny, and this is how the Salaf interpreted the āyah.[97]

Shaikh Aḥmad al-Rifāʿī (d. 578 AH) says:

Adam and Ḥawwā are the all-inclusive origin of the human kingdom, being the father and mother [of mankind]. Then, ‘Allah dispersed from them many men and women’ [4:1], and divided their children [into nations and tribes]. So, mankind is united in Adam and Ḥawwāʾ, and go back to them.[98]

Ibn ʿĀshūr (d. 1393 AH) leaves no room for difference of opinion stating:

As for Adam عليه السلام, he is the father of humanity by the consensus of all nations, with the exception of a few people of atheistic inclinations who emerged in Europe and invented the theory of evolution of different species of animals from each other, and that is a false theory.[99]

These are just a few references. An extensive and thorough research into the works of the scholars of the Sunni orthodox schools on this topic is beyond the scope of this article.

In an article where Jalajel claims to cover “the works of the scholars of the Ashʿarī, Māturīdī, and Salafī theological schools, as well as the sources they all draw upon—the Qur’ān, the Sunnah, and the opinions of the earliest generations of Muslims [salaf],” one is left wondering why he failed to mention any of these relevant citations.

Is this not intellectual dishonesty? He simply asserts that Adam عليه السلام being the origin of human beings is an “assumption widely held by people today,” which he finds to be “incorrect from the methodological approach of classical theology.” How can this be “incorrect” when the classical scholars and founders of these theological schools all professed that Adam is the origin of all human beings, without exception, and nowhere acknowledge the bizarre speculations that Jalajel forwards?

2.3 Scripture is silent about the existence of Non-Banī-Ādam humans predating Adam

After conveniently divorcing the connection between the creation of Adam عليه السلام with the start of humanity, and the synonymity of human beings to Banī Ādam, Jalajel attempts to introduce a new species of non-Banī-Ādam humans predating Adam عليه السلام, tracing their line of descent to hominid apes and ultimately back to the earliest life-forms on Earth.

Jalajel says:

Could there have been hominid species prior to Adam? Scripture does not rule it out. Could these hominid species have co-existed with Adam and his descendants? Again, there is nothing explicit from scripture to negate this. […] What is important is that a belief in Adam’s direct creation does not prevent Muslims who hold that belief from accepting the possibility that beings who were biologically human could have evolved on Earth from other species, beings anatomically identical to the descendants of Adam.

Shoaib Malik phrases Jalajel’s argument thus:

[T]he Quran doesn’t affirm nor negate the idea of there being already existing humans on earth. In other words, the Quran is silent on there being humans on earth prior to Adam’s descent. […] This entails that there is equally the possibility of there being humans prior to Adam’s descent and there not being humans prior to Adam’s descent. Both are valid possibilities since Islamic scripture is silent on the matter. If we go by this argument, then there is a plausible scenario of Adam descending to Earth while there are pre-existing humans on Earth who were created through the process of evolution![100]

Malik’s scenario would only be plausible to those who are oblivious to the many relevant passages in the Quran and the Sunnah and the discussions of the great authorities of tafsir from the earliest times. They all proclaim that Adam was the first of humankind and undeniably rule out the possibility that he was preceded by any human species, as we have seen from what was discussed above.

The gist of Jalajel’s argument here is that because the texts are silent on the existence of non-Banī-Ādam humans, it is possible they existed.

But the texts are demonstrably not silent on the existence of humans on earth prior to the descent of Adam عليه السلام.

Adam عليه السلام, as proven above by texts from the Qurʾān and Sunnah as well as the works of the scholars of the Ashʿarī, Māturīdī, and Salafī theological schools, was the father of all humanity: All human beings that ever existed are therefore the direct descendants of Adam عليه السلام.

Furthermore, the Qurʾānic account of the creation of human beings does actually “rule out” and “negate” the idea of “pre-existing humans on Earth who were created through the process of evolution,” as it explicitly recounts the creation of every single member of the human species.

In numerous verses of the Qurʾān that relate the account of creation of human beings, the word ‘al-insān’ is used, which is a singular generic noun[101], preceded by the definite article: alif-lām (ال), where the letter ‘lām’ (ل) is for ‘istighrāq al-jins[102], that is, it denotes the universal inclusion of a genus. This lām is used to encompass all of the individuals of a genus without exception.

Some name this lām as lām al-jins, while others refer to it as lām al-istighrāq.[103] But in either case it implies the same meaning mentioned above.

A common example of this well-known use of (ال) with this meaning is: الحمد لله, that is: All praise is due to Allah.

Similarly, in the statement: الإنسانُ خُلق من طين, “Humans are created from clay,” the lām on “al-insān” denotes all individuals in the class of things called “human beings,” giving the meaning of every (كُلُّ), in other words, every human is created from clay.[104] It would be incorrect to say, “the human,” as this would imply a specific individual.

Al-Zarkashī (d. 794 AH) says:

“When someone says, ‘al-insān,’ he denotes with this term every being that is from the genus human beings.”[105]

Ibn Āshūr also mentions in his tafsīr that the definite article in the word al-insān (that is, the lām) stands for the genus, and it denotes universal inclusion.[106]

This principle is asserted by nearly all imams in the rules of fiqh in the ʿAshʿarī, Māturīdī, and Salafī schools.

Al-Ghazālī (d. 505 AH) says:

The singular noun when preceded by alif lām the definite article signifies universality, like their statement: “The dīnār is better than the dirham[107]; that is, every dīnār is better than every dirham.

Abū al-Muẓaffar al-Samʿānī (d. 489 AH),[108] Abū al-Khaṭṭāb al-Kalwadhāni (d. 510 AH),[109] Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 771 AH),[110] Jamāl al-Dīn al-Isnawī (d. 772 AH),[111] Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftazānī (d. 793 AH),[112] and Ibn al-Humām (d. 861 AH),[113] also assert the same.

Al-Zarkashī (d. 794 AH) mentions that Imam al-Shāfʿī (d. 204 AH) himself alluded to this principle in al-Risālah and al-ʾUmm, as did al-Buwayṭī (d. 231 AH).[114]

Al-Rāzī (d. 606 AH) and al-Āmidī (d. 631 AH) mention as an example the verse: “You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right [al-maʿrūf] and forbid what is wrong [al-munkar],” [3:110]. Al-Āmidī contends that for the statement to be true it is necessary that they enjoined every right and forbade every wrong, not a specific right or wrong.[115] Al-Rāzī asserts that because lām al-jins preceding the two words signifies universality, it shows that they enjoined every right and forbade every wrong.[116]

Ibn ʿAqīl al-Ḥanbalī (d. 513 AH) after asserting this principle furnishes proof for it saying:

“From our proofs [that alif lām when preceding a singular noun indicates universality] is that when Allah uses alif lām before a singular noun He intends the whole genus.”

He then mentions, as an example for the principle, the verses: “[I swear] by Time, indeed, mankind [al-insān] is in loss,” [103:1-2] and says:

Then Allah added [to this verse] what proves that the whole genus is intended, and that is His saying: ‘Except for those who have believed,’ [103:3] and the relative pronoun alladhīna indicates plurality, and a plurality cannot be excepted from a single person, and that shows that Allah intended by saying, ‘al-insān,’ the genus, and in that case the exclusion of a plurality [from the singular noun] is correct.[117]

Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (d. 476 AH) says, “Al-alif and al-lām the definite article does not precede a singular noun except to encompass the entire genus, that’s why Allah says … ‘and mankind [al-insān] was created weak,’ [4:28] and He says, ‘but man [al-insān] undertook to bear it. Indeed, he was unjust and ignorant’ [33:72],”[118] again implying every single human being from the genus of human beings.[119]

ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Bukhārī (d. 730 AH) mentions that the position of the vast majority of the jurisprudents, the linguists, and mashāʾikh of the Ḥanafī school, is that the generic noun when preceded with the definite article that is not referring to a specific individual, is for totality and universality. The proof for this, he states, is that there is a consensus among scholars that the nouns mentioned with the definite article in the verse: “[As for] the thief, the male [al-sāriq] and the female [al-sāriqah], amputate their hands,” [5:38] and the verse: “The fornicatress [al-zānīyah] and the fornicator [al-zānī], lash each one of them,” [24:2] indicate totality and universality, that is, every thief’s hands should be amputated, and every fornicator should be lashed.[120]

This consensus is also alluded to by al-Zarkashī (d. 794 AH) in al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ.[121]

Al-Bukhārī goes on to elaborate this principle with other examples from the Qurʾān, such as the verse, “It is He who made for you the night [al-layl] to rest therein and the day [al-nahār], giving sight,” [10:67] that is, every day and every night. He then mentions that Ahl al-Sunnah all affirm that the lām in the verse, {الحمد لله} [1:2] denotes universal inclusion, meaning that all praises are due to Allah.[122]

ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 539 AH) and ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Bukhārī mention that the great linguists are also in unanimous agreement on this principle.[123]

The Qurʾān relates the account of creation of human beings from its inception, referring to human beings using the word: al-insān.

الَّذى أَحسَنَ كُلَّ شَىءٍ خَلَقَهُ ۖ وَبَدَأَ خَلقَ الإِنسٰنِ مِن طينٍ ‎

‏ ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسلَهُ مِن سُلٰلَةٍ مِن ماءٍ مَهينٍ [السجدة: 7-8]

[He is the Knower of the Unseen] Who perfected everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay. Then He made his posterity out of the extract of a despised fluid. [32:7-8]

Ibn ʿĀshūr says:

“Al-insān here refers to the entire species, and the beginning of its creation is the creation of its origin, Adam …, as indicated by the verse: ‘Then He made his posterity out of the extract of a despised fluid,’ because that (that is, the creation of human beings from a despised fluid), began from the first offspring of Adam and Ḥawwāʾ.”[124]

Allah also says in the Qurʾān:

So let man [al-insān] observe from what he was created. He was created from a fluid, ejected. Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs. [86:5-7]

These verses enjoin all human beings to reflect on the genesis of human creation, as mentioned by al-Zamakhsharī, Ibn ʿAtīyyah, al-Qurṭubī, al-Bayḍāwī, al-Nasafī, Abū Ḥayyān, and al-Alūsī.[125]

And in the very first verses that were revealed to the Prophet ﷺ, Allah says:

Recite in the name of your Lord who created – Created man [al-insān] from a clinging substance. Recite, and your Lord is the most Generous. [96:1-3]

Al-Rāzī says:

“From the honor of human beings in the sight of Allah, is that when Allah created them in the beginning He praised Himself as being the Most Generous.”[126]

Ibn Kathīr also says that these verses highlight the beginning of human creation.[127]

Qurʾānic commentators, like Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī, Ibn ʿAtīyyah, Abū Ḥayyān, al-Thaʿālibī, al-Biqāʿī, and al-Suyūṭī, all agree that al-insān here is a generic noun, connoting inclusion of every individual of the genus human being.[128]

Another verse which mentions the creation of human beings from their inception:

Has there [not] come upon man [al-insān] a period of time when he was not a thing [even] mentioned? Indeed, We created man [al-Insān] from a sperm-drop mixture that We may try him; and We made him hearing and seeing. [76:1-2]

Commentators, like Makkī bin Abī Ṭālib (d. 437 AH), al-Zamakhsharī, Ibn ʿAtīyyah, al-Bayḍāwī, Abū Ḥayyān, al-Thaʿālibī, and al-Suyūṭī mention that there is no difference of opinion that al-insān in the second verse is a generic noun preceded by alif lām, and therefore encompasses all individuals of the genus human being without exception.[129]

In Surah al-Muʾminūn, Allah says:

وَلَقَد خَلَقنَا الإِنسٰنَ مِن سُلٰلَةٍ مِن طينٍ ‎

ثُمَّ جَعَلنٰهُ نُطفَةً في قَرارٍ مَكينٍ [المؤمنون: 12-13]

And certainly did We create man [al-insān] from an extract of clay. Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging. [23:12-13]

Here again, commentators like al-Wāḥidī, al-Baghawī, al-Bayḍāwī, Ibn Kathīr, and Abū al-Saʿūd assert that al-insān in the above verse is generic noun, denoting universal inclusion.[130]

So, as is plainly apparent, contrary to what Jalajel suggests, the Quran is not at all silent on the possibility of the evolution or existence of any human species pre-dating Adam عليه السلام, and in fact it absolutely and categorically rules this out. The account of creation of Adam عليه السلام and his descendants is an account of creation of every human being that ever existed.

These are just a few examples. Numerous other verses of the Qurʾān also relate the account of the creation of human beings. The word al-insān used in relating these accounts is inclusive of every single individual of the human species that ever existed or will come to exist, as proven in the detailed discussions above. Great authorities of the Arabic language and tafsīr, like al-Zamakhsharī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām, and Abū Ḥayyān, among many others restrict the entire genus of al-insān to the children of Adam عليه السلام, leaving no room for non-Banī-Ādam humans in any case.[131]

Consequently, the “scenario of Adam descending to Earth while there are pre-existing humans on Earth who were created through the process of evolution,” as proposed by Jalajel in Malik’s words, is anything but “plausible” from the Orthodox Sunni perspective.

The Qurʾānic account of the creation of Adam عليه السلام and his children from dust or seminal fluid, as mentioned in the above verses, is also an account of the first creation of the genus human beings.

Allah says:

وَهُوَ خَلَقَكُم أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ [فصلت: 21]

and He created you the first time. [41:21]

And He says:

فَسَيَقولونَ مَن يُعيدُنا ۖ قُلِ الَّذى فَطَرَكُم أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ [الإسراء: 51]

And they will say, “Who will restore us” Say, “He who brought you forth the first time”. [17:51]

Yet in another verse Allah says:

أَفَعَيينا بِالخَلقِ الأَوَّلِ [ق: 15]

Did We fail in the first creation? [50:15]

These verses allude to the first creation of human beings. Al-Ṭabarī says in his tafsīr commenting on these verses:

“Who created you humans from non-existence the first time,”[132] and he says, “Allah created you the first creation while you were nothing,”[133] and he asserts that nothing similar to humans existed before this first creation saying, “He will give them life who originated the creation for first time without any pre-existing pattern, when they were nothing [before that].”[134]

The Arabic term translated above as “originated the creation without any pre-existing pattern” is ibtadʿa. E.W. Lane mentions in his Lexicon that the meaning of ibtadʿa is:

“caused it to be or exist, or brought it into existence, newly, for the first time, it not having been or existed before, and not after the similitude of anything pre-existing.”

Qurʾānic commentators again contend that the first creation was from dust, keeping in conformity with the orthodox Sunni position that Adam عليه السلام was the first human created, and at the same time ruling out other “pre-existing humans on Earth who were created through the process of evolution.”[135]

Al-Bayḍāwī asserts that the first creation was from dust referring to the creation of Adam عليه السلام. He says, “Say, ‘He who brought you forth the first time,’ and you were dust.”[136]

Al-ʾAlūsī indicates the same saying:

“‘And they will say’ to you, ‘Who will restore us,’ given the far-extending difference between us and our re-creation? ‘Say’ to them ascertaining the truth and removing their doubts of improbability and guiding [them] towards the [correct] way of seeking proof: ‘He who brought you forth the first time,’ that is, the One Who possesses the Power, the Supreme, Who brought you into existence the first time without imitating any previous pattern, or following any procedure, and you were [only] dust.”[137]

Relating the account of the first creation of Adam’s descendants from a sperm-drop, Allah says:

Does man not consider that We created him from a [mere] sperm-drop – then at once he is a clear adversary? And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, “Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?” Say, “He will give them life who produced them the first time; and He is, of all creation, Knowing.” [36:77-79]

Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī says:

“Man should observe and reflect on the fact that the One who possesses the Power to create man in his inception from a sperm-drop, indeed possesses the Power to re-create him.”[138]

Ibn Kathīr asserts the same saying:

“He Who created human beings in the beginning from this weak sperm-drop, does He not possess the Power to re-create him after his death?”

Then he mentioned a narration reported by Busr ibn Jaḥḥāsh (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Prophet ﷺ spat one day in his palm, then put his finger on it, and said:

Allah says: ‘O son of Adam! How can you escape from Me when I have created you from something like this? And when I formed you and proportioned you, you walked in your garments, and you treaded noisily on the ground, and you gathered [wealth] and held back [from giving in charity], until when your soul reached your collar bones you said: ‘I give charity,’ but it is too late for charity.[139]

Ibn ʿĀshūr says referring to the creation of Adam’s first descendants:

“That is, as the creation of human beings the first time was from a sperm-drop, their creation the second time will be from something too.”[140]

Allah also says alluding to how humans are first born saying,

كَما بَدَأنا أَوَّلَ خَلقٍ نُعيدُهُ [الأنبياء: 104]

As We began the first creation, We will repeat it. [21:104]

Al-Ṭabarī and al-Wāḥidī mention that the meaning of this verse is that human beings will be re-created on the Day of Resurrection naked, barefoot, and uncircumcised, as Allah had created them the first time in the bellies of their mothers,[141] as is mentioned in the ḥadīth reported by Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allah be pleased with them), that the Prophet ﷺ stood up among us and addressed [us] saying:

“You will be gathered, barefooted, naked, and uncircumcised [as Allah says]: ‘As We began the first creation, We will repeat it’. [21:104]”[142]

To sum it up, the Islamic scriptures have spoken, and they conclusively rule out and negate any form of “pre-existing humans on Earth who were created through the process of evolution.” On the contrary, the scriptures unequivocally proclaim that the first creation of human beings was the creation of Adam عليه السلام, and he was created from dust, and then his progeny was created from sperm. This āyah denotes it very clearly:

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُم مِن تُرابٍ ثُمَّ مِن نُطفَةٍ [فاطر: 11]

And Allah created you [that is, your origin Adam] from dust, then [He created Adam’s progeny] from a sperm-drop. [35:11]

Ibn ʿĀshūr says:

Allah started [in recounting proofs of His Oneness] by reminding them [that is, human beings] of the origin of their first creation from dust, the knowledge of which is established for all of humanity that their origin–and he was the first human–was created from clay, and this fact has become well-established in the minds of all human beings, and this is expressed in logic as ‘first principles’ that are [as certain] as the things we sense. Then in the next step He drew their attention to the second creation, using as evidence the creation of his progeny from a sperm-drop, and that is an established fact in the minds of people, based on what they witness in their own lives, and by basing what they have not observed [concerning the previous generations] from what they observe, just like a person affirms with certainty that his progeny came forth from his seminal fluid, [in the same way] he can affirm with certainty that he came into being from the seminal fluid of his parents, and extrapolate back to the creation of the [first] children of Adam and Ḥawwāʾ.[143]

2.4 Adam’s physical and mental features were neither unique nor an honor

Satisfied by his speculation of the possible existence of non-Banī-Ādam humans, Jalajel feels it is important that Muslims not only accept “the possibility that beings who were biologically human could have evolved on Earth from other species” of hominid ape, but also that those beings were “anatomically identical to the descendants of Adam.”

After all:

“If God created all the creatures by way of evolution and then decided to honor one individual member of one species by creating it ex nihilo, then there is no reason to assume that He would be obliged to furnish that individual with physical or genetic markers to set it and its descendants apart from their fellow creatures.”

He further says:

“A distinction enjoyed by Adam was the honor he had in God’s regard but this was not necessarily due to some physical or mental characteristic and, even if it were, we have no way of pinpointing with any level of certainty what that characteristic might be. The distinctions that can be found in the hadith, as we have seen, are all honors that God bestowed on Adam, and not inherent physical or mental qualities.”

So, Adam عليه السلام and his descendents, in Jalajel’s narrative, do not enjoy any distinction in their physical or mental qualities and characteristics over the supposed non-Banī-Ādam humans that are descendants of apes. The only privilege Jalajel affords Banī Ādam is that they were honored by Allah. But even that honor proves to be short-lived because Jalajel speculates the possibility that “Adam’s descendants intermarried with members of pre-existing populations,” and that would allow everyone, including non-Banī-Ādam humans that were descendants of apes, to share “their lineage with Adam in some way,” and therefore be included in the Qurʾānic address: “Banī Ādam.”

Jalajel then proudly draws the conclusion of his novel speculations saying:

“This means that traditional Muslims would still be able to view humanity biologically in the context of a broader evolutionary perspective and engage actively in the scientific investigation of human biological evolution without hesitation.”

However, orthodox Sunni Muslims will more than just hesitate in entertaining Jalajel’s proposed account of a human species pre-dating Adam عليه السلام that evolved from hominid apes; in fact, they will be shocked by this suggestion and reject it as a blasphemy, disgracing what is holy, for the idea of Adam’s precedence and uniqueness is fundamental to the religion.

As proven above beyond doubt, non-Banī-Ādam humans do not exist outside of Jalajel’s imagination. Being anatomically identical to a non-existent being is therefore out of the question.

Were not Adam’s unique physical and mental characteristics that distinguished him over all other creations an honor bestowed on him by Allah? Jalajel claims Adam’s distinction “was not necessarily due to some physical or mental characteristic,” that is, Adam عليه السلام did not necessarily enjoy any distinctive quality in his physical and mental features, contradicting what has been explicitly mentioned in the Qurʾān, as well as the works of the scholars of the Sunni schools.

Indeed, Allah, after mentioning the different phases in the creation of man, praised Himself for His creation of man, saying, “So, blessed is Allah, the best of creators,” [23:14], as mentioned by al-Rāzī.[144]

Numerous verses in the Qurʾān assert the honor and privilege that was bestowed on Adam عليه السلام and his progeny, in their unique form, stature, and other physical and mental features.

Allah states in Sūrah al-Tīn after taking solemn oaths:

لَقَد خَلَقنَا الإِنسٰنَ فى أَحسَنِ تَقويمٍ [التين: 4]

“We have certainly created man in the best of stature.” [95:4]

Al-insān, as documented above, is restricted to Adam عليه السلام and his descendants in the Qurʾān and Sunnah, as well as the orthodox Sunni schools. Nonetheless, Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib clearly states that the āyah is referring to Adam عليه السلام, that is, Allah created him in the best of stature,[145] and what goes for Adam عليه السلام goes for his offspring.

All commentators of the Qurʾān, al-Ṭabarī, Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Wāḥidī, al-Samʿānī, Tāj al-Qurrāʾ al-Kirmānī, al-Baghawī, al-Zamakhsharī, al-Rāzī, al-Qurṭubī, al-Bayḍāwī, al-Nasafī, Abū Ḥayyān, Ibn Kathīr, al-Biqāʿī, al-Suyuṭī, Abū al-Saʿūd, and al-Shawkānī, to name a few, unequivocally interpret the “best of stature” as the physical form of human beings, mentioning features like the finest shape, balanced limbs, eloquent speech, upright posture, walking erect instead of slinking like animals, taking food by the hands instead of the mouth, as animals do, and so on.[146]

Al-Thaʿālabī refers to the physical and mental distinctions of Banī Ādam as apparent and hidden features. He says:

“‘best of stature’ includes all beautiful features of human beings, apparent and hidden, such as his graceful form, upright posture, high intellect, and sound ability to distinguish.”[147]

Allah explicitly recounts to Banī Ādam, in another āyah of the Qurʾān, the perfect form that He created them in, saying:

وَصَوَّرَكُم فَأَحسَنَ صُوَرَكُم [التغابن: 3]

… and formed you and perfected your forms. [64:13]

Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī says commenting on this āyah:

“[T]he form of Banī Ādam in appearance is the best of forms.”[148]

Ibn ʿAṭiyyah says:

This is an enumeration of the blessing of the beautiful external appearance …, and Banī Ādam excels [other animals in addition to the superiority of his external appearance] by the beauty of [the features of] his face and the gracefulness of his limbs.[149]

Al-Samʿānī says:

“No form is better than that of the descendants of Adam.”[150]

Tāj al-Qurrāʾ al-Kirmānī (d. 505 AH) says explicitly:

“The human form is better than the form of animals, and nothing else shares the form and shape of Banī Ādam.”[151]

Al-Wāḥidī, Ibn al-Jawzī, and al-Biqāʿī comment saying:

“Allah created you in a form that is the most perfect form among all animals.”[152]

Al-Thaʿlabī mentions that ‘form’ in the āyah means the physical form.[153]

Al-Zamakhsharī says:

If you ask, ‘How did Allah perfect their forms?’ I’d say, ‘He made them the best among all animals and the most beautiful, the proof of which is the fact that no human would prefer any other form he sees about him over his own.[154]

Ibn Kathīr says in his tafsīr:

“[T]hat is, He created you in the best of shapes, and bestowed you with the most complete form in the best of stature.”[155]

Al-Biqāʿī asserts that the human form is indeed the most perfect of forms, nothing in existence resembles it, and this proves that He indeed is the flawless Shaper, who shapes the forms not after the similitude of anything pre-existing.[156]

Other commentators proclaim the same in their commentary on the following āyah:

وَلَقَد خَلَقنٰكُم ثُمَّ صَوَّرنٰكُم ثُمَّ قُلنا لِلمَلٰئِكَةِ اسجُدوا لِـٔادَمَ [الأعراف: 11]

And We have certainly created you and given you [human] form. Then We said to the angels, “Prostrate to Adam. [7:11]

Al-Ṭabarī says that the verse means:

“And We have certainly created your father Adam, and then We gave him [human] form.”[157]

Abū al-Saʿūd says that this āyah is a:

“reminder for the great blessing bestowed on Adam emanating [from him] to his progeny, obligating them to show gratitude [to Allah for this blessing].”[158]

Al-Alūsī says:

“The meaning [of this āyah] is: We created your father Adam as unformed clay, then We formed him in a unique form and the best stature, [both of which were] handed down to you.”[159]

In Sūrah al-Isrāʾ, Allah makes specific mention of the honor He bestowed on Banī Ādam, saying:

وَلَقَد كَرَّمنا بَنى ءادَمَ [الإسراء: 70]

And We have certainly honored the children of Adam. [17:70]

Al-Wāḥidī mentions that this verse alludes to the mental qualities that Allah bestowed on Adam عليه السلام and his descendants. He says:

“‘And We have certainly honored,’ that is, favored, ‘the children of Adam’ (by bestowing them) with intellect, and speech, and the ability to distinguish things.”[160]

Ibn Kathīr includes physical features also saying:

“Allah mentions His bestowing honor and glory on Banī Ādam in creating them in the best and most perfect of shapes.”[161]

Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī enumerates a much more detailed list of honors bestowed on Banī Ādam by Allah, including many of their physical and mental features. He says:

Allah honored them [that is, Banī Ādam] by creating them in the best of forms, as He says, ‘and formed you and perfected your forms’ [64:13], and created them in the best stature and the best figure, as He says, ‘We have certainly created man in the best of stature’ [95:4], and He honored them by bestowing them with intellect, with which they are able to distinguish noble acts from the despicable, and the good qualities from the bad, and wisdom from foolishness, and good from evil, and He honored them by bestowing them with a tongue, that they use to speak wisdom and everything desirable, and by means of which they can attain and gather wisdom, and He honored them by making their sustenance the purest of nourishments, and for those other than them what was detestable and the leftovers from Banī Ādam, and He honored them by creating for them all that is on the face of the Earth, [He says], ‘It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth’ [2:29], and He honored them by making all creation subservient to them, [He says], ‘And He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth – all from Him’ [45:13], and He made Banī Ādam themselves the purpose behind creating all creations, and He honored them by paving the way for them to use the sky and the earth, and the sun and the moon, and the oceans and the lands, for their needs and benefits, as was not attainable to creations other than them. All of these are the distinguishing features of Banī Ādam.[162]

2.5 Possibility of Banī Ādam intermarrying with non-Banī-Ādam

Jalajel sees it as conceivable that a holy creation of Allah like Adam عليه السلام, who Allah exalted by creating him with His Own Hands, making him His representative on earth, ordering the angels to prostrate to him, teaching him the names of all things, making him the father of all humanity and the first of Prophets, would marry his son or daughter to the descendants of apes. This is nothing but blasphemy!

“Could the descendants of Adam,” Jalajel queries, “have intermarried with other populations that were already present on Earth? Once again, scripture is silent.” “Therefore,” he concludes, “tawaqquf must be applied to the possibility of intermarriage between Adam’s descendants and possible pre-existing populations, since there is no definitive scriptural evidence one way or the other.”

Those appalled at how Jalajel could even conceive such of an outrageous idea should be aware that the logical implication of evolution, as Muzaffar Iqbal contends, is “nothing but the destruction of the sanctity of species,”[163] and in this case, the sanctity of Allah’s Prophet Adamعليه السلام .

You see, one of the disgraceful practices of Banī Isrāʾīl, as mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah, is that they would vilify the prophets by slandering them, as they did with Mūsā, for example.[164] When they said something offensive about the person of Musa, Allah came to his defense, declaring:

يٰأَيُّهَا الَّذينَ ءامَنوا لا تَكونوا كَالَّذينَ ءاذَوا موسىٰ فَبَرَّأَهُ اللَّهُ مِمّا قالوا ۚ وَكانَ عِندَ اللَّهِ وَجيهًا [الأحزاب: 69]

[B]ut Allah proved his innocence of that which they alleged, and he was well esteemed in Allah’s sight. [33:69]

Likewise, all prophets of Allah, including Adam عليه السلام, have great honor and are holy in the sight of Allah, Who will not tolerate that anyone defame His prophets. Sunni theologians all assert that a condition of prophethood is that prophets are protected from all sorts of indecency, [165] and what greater indecency could one imagine than marrying one’s daughter to an ape or a descendant of an ape.

Jalajel’s use of the “scripture is silent” argument seems to conveniently crop up in every instance of his glaring ignorance of what the scriptures have to say on a particular issue.

The Qur’an explicitly mentions that the mates of the children of Adam were also from the children of Adam عليه السلام.

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُم مِن تُرابٍ ثُمَّ مِن نُطفَةٍ ثُمَّ جَعَلَكُم أَزوٰجًا  [فاطر: 11]

And Allah created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop; then He made you mates, [35:11]

that is, Allah created the origin of mankind Adam from dust, then He created Adam’s progeny from the seminal fluid of a male and female, and then He married them to each other, the females of them to the males, as mentioned by al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, al-Shawkānī, and others.[166]

The Qurʾān relates this even more clearly in the following verses:

وَاللَّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُم مِن أَنفُسِكُم أَزوٰجًا [النحل: 72]

And Allah has made for you from yourselves mates. [16:72]

And He says:

وَمِن ءايٰتِهِ أَن خَلَقَ لَكُم مِن أَنفُسِكُم أَزوٰجًا لِتَسكُنوا إِلَيها وَجَعَلَ بَينَكُم مَوَدَّةً وَرَحمَةً ۚ إِنَّ فى ذٰلِكَ لَـٔايٰتٍ لِقَومٍ يَتَفَكَّرونَ [الروم: 21]

And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought. [30:21]

Commentators, like al-Samʿānī, al-Baghawī, Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Khāzīn (d. 741 AH), Ibn Kathīr, Sirāj al-Dīn al-Nuʿmānī (d. 775 AH), and al-Suyūṭī, all assert that ‘from yourselves’ in the above verses means from your genus of Banī Ādam,[167] ruling out any other related kind.

Al-Samʿānī says:

“He created from the likes of you mates for you, and women are the from the same species as men, because men and women both are from the children of Adam.”[168]

Ibn Kathīr says:

Allah mentions His bounties on His slaves, in that He made for them their mates from their own genus, and their resemblance, and the same outer appearance. If He made the mates from a different type [of species], there wouldn’t have been any unity, affection, and mercy [between them], but He, out of His Mercy, created from the children of Adam males and females, and made the females mates for the males.[169]

Ibn Kathīr excludes the possibility of non-Banī-Ādam being mates for Banī Ādam, saying:

“If Allah made all children of Adam males, and made their females from a genus other than them, like the jinn or animals, there wouldn’t be any of this unity [that is observed] between them and their mates, instead there would be aversion if the mates were from a different genus.”[170]

Ibn Kathīr mentions jinn or other animals as an example of non-Banī-Ādam because that is all that is left to mention outside of Banī Ādam. The idea of non-Banī-Ādam human beings, as proven above, stands rejected in orthodox Sunni schools.

Many jurists of the Sunni schools mention that it is impermissible for Banī Ādam to marry non-Banī Ādam beings.

Sirāj ul-Dīn al-ʾŪshī al-Ḥanafī (d. 569 AH) says:

“Intermarriage between Banī Ādam and jinn or mermaids is not permissible, because of the difference of the genera.”[171]

Al-Suyūṭi mentions proof for the impermissibility saying:

Allah said, ‘[T]hen marry those that please you of [other] women [al-nisāʾ],’ [4:3], and al-nisāʾ is a name for the females of Banī Ādam solely; therefore, all genera excluding the females of Banī Ādam will remain prohibited, because the default status of the female genitalia is prohibition, until permissibility is proven.[172]

Ibn Nujaym mentions an interesting incident very much relevant to our context: He says:

The jurist ʿĀlī ibn Aḥmad was asked about marriage with a muslimah jinn, would it be permissible if it was conceivable, or would the permissibility be restricted to descendants of Adam? The jurist answered, “The person asking should be slapped on the back of his neck for his stupidity and ignorance [in asking such a ridiculous question].”[173]

In other words, even speculating about such an idea is condemnable.

2.6 Non-Banī Ādam eventually became Banī Ādam

Jalajel first divorced the connection between the creation of Adam عليه السلام with the start of humanity to allow space for the introduction of a non-Banī Ādam species that evolved from apes. Then in an apparent attempt to narrow the gap between those non-Banī Ādam species and Banī Ādam, Jalajel claimed that since Adam عليه السلام did not enjoy any distinction in his physical and mental features, therefore those non-Banī-Ādam species were “anatomically identical to the descendants of Adam,” going as far as proposing that Adam’s descendants intermarried with these “anatomically identical” descendants of apes.

But Jalajel, acknowledging the fact that the Qur’ān addresses its audience as Banī Ādam, appears to be discontent with the label non-Banī-Ādam. He says:

“The Qur’ān addresses its audience as Banū Ādam. This provides a strong implication that all human beings on Earth at the time the scripture speaks to them are direct descendants of Adam,” and that could have “historical, scriptural, metaphysical, spiritual, and theological dimensions that are unique to Adam and his descendants.”

In his wrong-headed endeavor to somehow include his proposed non-Banī Ādam species into the Qurʾānic address of Banī Ādam, Jalajel conveniently pushes them into the lineage of Adam عليه السلام, by asserting that “if Adam’s descendants intermarried with members of pre-existing populations” that evolved from apes, the term Banī Ādam would be inclusive of them too, “as long as everyone shares their lineage with Adam in some way.” But, Jalajel continues:

“Would it have to be through the male line, since in Islamic Law, lineage is established this way? Not necessarily. For one thing, Islamic teachings accept the idea that the Law manifested to earlier peoples could be different than the final form it took with the advent of Islam. Even during the time of revelation, laws changed over time. Therefore, matrilineal descent could not be ruled out as having been allowed at one time. Also, even in the context of Islamic Law, the Prophet’s descendants are recognized through his grandchildren al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn from his daughter Fāṭimah, showing a limited application of matrilineal descent within the context of Islamic Law.”

With just a swipe of the keyboard, Jalajel innovates a “novel” meaning for the Arabic word “banū,” the plural of “ibn,”[174] unknown to even the greatest of linguists and scholars of Islam. Jalajel’s speculation now proceeds from the matters of the Unseen, and moves on to linguistics, and then the legal laws of the previous scriptures. These are the types of proofs he advances in justifying his heretical proposals. Nothing could be farther from the truth than his claim that his article “covers the works of the scholars of the Ashʿarī, Māturīdī, and Salafī theological schools as well as the sources they all draw upon—the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the opinions of the earliest generations of Muslims (salaf).” In fact, he is quite guilty of misrepresenting them.

Trivializing the gravity of the matter, he went so far as to propose that Adam’s children married descendants of apes, and the progeny that followed became Banī Ādam.

This absurd analogy entails that it would be necessary for every hominid to get married to a child of Adam, so that their offspring could share a lineage with Adam عليه السلام. But because those supposed non-Banī-Ādam humans that inhabited the Earth before Adam عليه السلام for an unknown period of time would have been much more in number than Adam’s children, only a few of them would have been able to have gotten married to Adam’s children. The remaining hundreds and thousands of non-Banī-Ādam humans would have continued pro-creating with each other, just like other animals.

Darwinists can triumphantly claim, using Jalajel’s very arguments, that since all offspring that came forth from the intermarriage of Adam’s children and the descendants of apes share a lineage with their ape ancestors from the male as well as female line, it would be more accurate to term the emerging offspring as Banī Apes instead of Banī Ādam, and that proves the evolutionist narrative that apes are the last common ancestor for all human beings living on earth today. It would be a more logical approach, they would argue, to consider the hybrid children of Banī Ādam and Banī Apes as Banī Apes, than to force hundreds of thousands of pre-existing hominids and their descendants into the lineage of Adam عليه السلام. Presumably, Jalajel would not consider as derogatory a remark like, “son of an ape,” because he holds it to be a “plausible scenario,” as Shoaib Malik mentions.

Obviously, this would contradict what Jalajel claims “all Muslim scholars” believe, that is, “all human beings living on the Earth today are direct descendants of these two people.” Even though, as clarified before, the truth of the matter is that Muslim scholars do not qualify their belief with the word “today.” Rather, they believe that all human beings that ever existed on earth were descendants of Adam عليه السلام.

As for removing the doubts of the general readers regarding these abominable proposals by Jalajel, it would suffice to say that Banī Ādam, as cited above, forms the entire human species, and that Adam عليه السلام is the origin of all human beings, and the texts undeniably rule out the existence of non-Banī-Ādam humans in any form, and this is all agreed upon by the scholars of Ashʿarī, Māturīdī, and Salafī theological schools. There are no two ways about it.

Interestingly, al-Rāzī explicitly rules out, by consensus, the essence of Jalajel’s arguments for changing the lineage of non-Banī-Ādam to Banī Ādam, leaving no room for disagreement. He says, while refuting the statement made by some people that Allah sent maidens from Paradise to marry them to the first sons of Adam:

“This is far-fetched, because if Adam’s sons’ wives and his daughter’s husbands were from Paradise, in that case this progeny would not be exclusively of the children of Adam, and that [idea that the human race is not solely the progeny of Adam] is, by consensus, null and void.”[175]

Al-Ṭabarī explicitly states that the lineages of all children of Adam are from the father’s side, because Allah says:

“Call them by [the names of] their [true] fathers; it is more just in the sight of Allah.” [33:5]”[176]

Ibn Kathīr says:

“Allah ordered that their lineages be returned to their real fathers, and this was justice and fairness.”[177]

However, Jalajel’s argument that “matrilineal descent could not be ruled out as having been allowed at one time,” implies, on the contrary to what Allah has affirmed, that it might not always have been just and fair.

The great linguist Abū Hilāl al-ʿAskarī (d. 395 AH) defines nasl, the Arabic word for progeny, saying:

“The progeny of a man is his son, and his son’s son, [and so on], and all people are the progeny of Adam,”[178]

And in another book he says:

“Our saying [in the Arabic language], ‘He is a son of that person,’ signifies that his lineage is from him, that’s why it is said, ‘Human beings are Banū Ādam,’ because their lineage goes up to him, and the same is for Banū Isrāʾīl,”[179] that is, it signifies that “they are the children of Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq,”[180]

as mentioned by Khalīl ibn Aḥmad al-Farāhīdī (d. 170 AH).

Jurists, like al-Sarakhsī (d. 483 AH) and Ibn Qudāmah (d. 620 AH), to cite a few, also define the “Banī of someone” as “their children from their loins.”[181] In other words, descent is determined by the fathers.

There is no such thing as “a limited application of matrilineal descent within the context of Islamic Law.” Ibn Taymīyyah mentions the consensus of all Muslims and Muslim scholars that lineage is established from the father.[182]

Indeed, one of the distinguished characteristics exclusive for the Prophet ﷺ is that the first generation of the children of his daughters are attributed to him. After the first generation, the default principle that lineage is established through the father, came back into effect. Therefore, the children of the Prophet’s ﷺ daughters’ daughters, like Zaynab and Umm Kulthūm, the daughters of Fatimah, were not attributed to the Prophet ﷺ, but to their fathers, ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and ʿAbdullah ibn Jaʿfar respectively (may Allah be pleased with them all). This is precisely why the scholars are unanimous that the son of a sharīfah, that is, a woman who is a descendant of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, is not himself a sharīf in lineage if his father is not a sharīf because lineage goes by the father.

However, this exclusive honor was continued with the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (may Allah be pleased with them) because their descendants traced back their lineage to their fathers, that is al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (may Allah be pleased with them), and both were specially honored by being attributed to the Prophet ﷺ. Even then, the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (may Allah be pleased with them), are not called Banī Muḥammad ﷺ.[183]

2.7 Jalajel’s ‘Novel’ Proposal: Tawaqquf

Shoaib Malik is undeniably dumbfounded with this “very unique proposal” of tawaqquf that Jalajel has brought forward, “which marks him out in the vast array of opinions that Muslim thinkers have come up with.” He says:

“[I]f Adam is born without a father and without a mother, then how can this be reconciled with evolution? It is at this juncture that Jalajel utilizes the principle of tawaqquf, which is his novel contribution.”

So, as Malik mentions, in his efforts to reconcile evolution with the scriptural narrative of the genesis of humanity, Jalajel invokes the principle of tawaqquf.

Indeed, after bringing forth such a “novel proposal,” Jalajel finds himself in the position to instruct the “classical Muslim theologians” on how to approach matters of the Unseen, by determining for them “where the principle of tawaqquf, theological non-commitment, must be applied.”

He says:

“[W]hen the Qur’an and Sunnah are silent about a matter of the Unseen, theological non-commitment (tawaqquf) is required, since any suggestion made by the interpreter would be baseless speculation. Therefore, it is important for a theologian to be as aware of what the texts are not saying as with what they are saying, so as not to mistake a personal assumption for a matter of religious creed.” “Therefore,” he continues, “adherence to the principle of tawaqquf, which is to take a stance of theological non-commitment in matters of the Unseen not expressly stipulated by the sacred texts, means that the story of Adam must be kept separate from the question of the biological origins of Homo sapiens.”

However, as documented above with clear-cut citations from the Qurʾān, Sunnah, and the works of the scholars of the Ashʿarī, Māturīdī, and Salafī theological schools, it is apparent that scripture is not at all silent but rather quite vocal and in essential agreement about Adam عليه السلام being the first human being and the origin of all human beings that ever existed. Tawaqquf, therefore, is clearly contraindicated here.

Jalajel then, ignoring the textual evidence, or being ignorant of it, proceeds to decide what the theologians can and cannot say about the creation of human beings. He says:

“As a consequence, they [that is, classical Muslim theologians] would not be able to object to the idea that the species Homo sapiens evolved from other species of the genus Homo which in turn evolved from other species of hominid ape in a line of descent ultimately going back to the earliest life-forms on Earth. They would have to take a non-committal stance about human evolution. They would, on a theological level, neither accept it as true nor reject it as false.”

Then Jalajel draws his prized conclusion, saying:

“This means that traditional Muslims would still be able to view humanity biologically in the context of a broader evolutionary perspective and engage actively in the scientific investigation of human biological evolution without hesitation.”

Malik, himself eager to reconcile Islam with Neo-Darwinism, seems to have all too hastily bought into Jalajel’s claim of the creation of the origin of humanity as a matter of the Unseen.

The truth of the matter is that the only Unseen for Jalajel, and Malik too, are the numerous verses of the Qurʾān mentioned above that elaborate the account of creation of the genus human beings and contend that Adam عليه السلام is in fact the “one soul” from which all humanity originated.

Unseen for them is the fact that all Quranic commentators of the Sunni theological schools explicitly mention that Adam عليه السلام is the “one soul,” the “genesis,” the “single person,” the “first human,” the “first father,” the “first person,” and the “father of humanity by the consensus of all [Abrahamic] nations,” as documented above.

Unseen for them also are the numerous aḥādīth and sayings of the salaf that assert Adam عليه السلام to be the father of all human beings that ever existed, and the origin of all humanity.

Unseen for them is the fact that theologians, linguists, Quranic commentators, and others all define human beings as Banī Ādam.

Unseen by them are the numerous verses of the Qurʾān that enumerate the countless honors bestowed on Adam عليه السلام and his children, including their unique physical forms and mental characteristics that distinguished them from all other creations.

Unknown to Jalajel and Malik is the holiness and sanctity of the Prophet of Allah Adam عليه السلام.

Jalajel’s calling on theologians to exercise tawaqquf in this matter claiming:

“Theologians would therefore not have grounds to claim that Homo sapiens, as defined by biologists in strictly physiological or genetic terms, were absent in the world before or during Adam’s time. They would have to remain non-committal on the issue”

This is nothing but a subterfuge to get his foot in the door and to place the matter of human evolution on the table for discussion in order to sway the minds of the believers to accept his heresy for the purported need of reconciling the tenets of Islam with the “prevailing scientific account of human evolutionary origins,” as he states it.

This stratagem of applying tawaqquf to well-established facts of Islam in order to have the masses believe that there are no relevant texts, or to dismiss those texts as irrelevant, is not new. Heretics in the past have used precisely this strategy to make room for their heretical claims. Malik is again deluded in terming this strategy of Jalajel as “very unique” and “novel.”

Abu al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī mentions how the Jahamīyyah previously used tawaqquf as a pretense to avoid having to assert the belief that the Qurʾān is not created. He says:

[To those] that do tawaqquf in the Qurʾān, and say, “I don’t say that it’s created or not created,” we answer, “Why do you claim and say that?” If they say, “We said that because Allah did not mention in the Qurʾān that it is created, nor did the Prophet ﷺ say so, nor did the Muslims unanimously agree on it, and neither did Allah say in the Qurʾān that it is not created, nor did the Prophet ﷺ say so, nor did the Muslims unanimously agree on it; that is why we made tawaqquf, and we neither say it is created, nor do we say it is not created.” They would be asked, “Did Allah order you in the Qurʾān to observe tawaqquf and not to assert that it is not created, and did the Prophet ﷺ order you to observe tawaqquf from saying that it is not created, and did the Muslims unanimously agree on observing tawaqquf from saying that it is not created?” If they say, “Yes,” they would have surely committed slander, and if they say, “No,” we would say, “In that case, don’t hold back from asserting that it is not created on the basis of this [unworthy] pretense of yours that [you feel] obligates you to observe tawaqquf.” Then we would say, “Why do you reject [the fact] that there is in the Qurʾān what proves that the Qurʾān is not created?” If they say, “We couldn’t find those proofs,” we would reply saying, “So, why did you insist because of you yourselves could not find the proofs in the Qurʾān that there were no such proofs in the Qurʾān?” Then we will proceed to show them the proofs and recite to them the verses of the Qurʾān that we have based our arguments on in this book proving that the Qurʾān is not created.[184]

Jalajel’s arguments have striking resemblance with those of the Jahamīyyah in this passage above. Jalajel, ignorant or pretending to be ignorant of the explicit proofs documented above, uses the pretense of tawaqquf, just like the Jahamīyyah, on whether Adam عليه السلام was the origin of human beings, and whether non-Banī-Ādam descendants of apes existed before Adam عليه السلام, and whether they were anatomically identical to Adam عليه السلام, and whether Adam عليه السلام married his children to those supposed descendants of apes, and whether the previous scriptures allowed the forthcoming offspring to be called “Banū Ādam,” all on the pretense that “scripture is silent” on these matters.

This article undertakes to shed light, following in the footsteps of Abu al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, on a few of the numerous verses of the Qurʾān that directly address these speculations of Jalajel, proving that scripture is in fact quite vocal and not at all silent on these matters, and therefore leaves no room whatsoever for tawaqquf. Citations of texts from the scholars and theologians of the Ashʿarī, Māturīdī, and Salafī schools, mentioned above, prove without doubt that none of these issues ever demanded tawaqquf in Sunni orthodoxy.

Jalajel, however, having no regard for the works of these scholars might simply dismiss their statements as personal assumptions that “people read into the texts.” After all, Jalajel says,“[m]ost of Islamic history preceded it [the theory of evolution], so the development of Islamic theology occurred in the absence of the evolutionary paradigms that now have such a marked effect on contemporary thinking in the West.”[185] Therefore, Sunni theologians that were unaware of the theory of evolution were not, according to Jalajel, in the proper position to affirm or negate issues pertaining to the creation of Adam عليه السلام based on their understanding of the scriptural texts.

Jalajel’s line of reasoning is that, instead of asserting what they did on the above matters, Sunni theologians must keep the story of Adam عليه السلام “separate from the question of the biological origins of Homo sapiens.” They should “refrain from affirming or negating such scenarios in the absence of direct scriptural evidence, as all such questions constitute baseless speculation about matters of the Unseen.” Jalajel demands “adherence to the principle of tawaqquf, which is to take a stance of theological non-commitment in matters of the Unseen not expressly stipulated by the sacred texts,” because “[i]n the absence of such [direct textual] evidence, it is not permissible to fill in the blanks, since any suggestion would be baseless speculation.” Sunni theologians stand guilty, according to Jalajel’s line of reasoning, of not observing tawaqquf where tawaqquf was necessary.

As for Jalajel himself, he has the green light to “fill in the blanks” by speculating the existence of hominids before Adam عليه السلام, that “evolved from other species of the genus Homo which in turn evolved from other species of hominid ape in a line of descent ultimately going back to the earliest life-forms on Earth,” and that these hominids were “anatomically identical to the descendants of Adam,” and that “Adam and his family could or couldn’t have (again, tawaqquf) mingled with these other humans,”[186] and then speculate “the possibility of intermarriage between Adam’s descendants and possible pre-existing populations, since there is no definitive scriptural evidence one way or the other,” and then speculate that “matrilineal descent could not be ruled out as having been allowed at one time” in the legal laws of the previous scriptures, thereby “leading to established lineages right up to our time, […] allowing for all people thereafter to share in common descent with all life on Earth as well as a lineage going back to Adam.”[187]

Malik claims:

“All are valid possibilities since they are all compatible with Islamic scripture!”

Meanwhile, Allah says:

قُتِلَ الخَرّٰصونَ [الذاريات: 10]

Death to the conjecturers! [51:10]

This is how Allah condemns the use of wild conjecture as a mode of reasoning.

Ibn ʿĀshūr says:

“Conjecture in the principles of belief is condemnable because matters of belief are based solely on certainty, due to the gravity of the subject.”[188]

Allah said rebuking the mushrikīn for speculating that angels were females:

وَجَعَلُوا المَلٰئِكَةَ الَّذينَ هُم عِبٰدُ الرَّحمٰنِ إِنٰثًا ۚ أَشَهِدوا خَلقَهُم [الزخرف: 19]

And they have made the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, females. Did they witness their creation? [43:19]

Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib says commenting on this verse:

The meaning is that they did not witness the creation of the angels, so how then did they dare to describe them as females? Then, Allah said warning and threatening those that do that [that is, speculate in matters of the Unseen], “Their testimony will be recorded, and they will be questioned” [43:19]; that is, they will be questioned for their speculation and slander on the Day of Judgement, and they will certainly not find any excuse whatsoever for saying what they said.[189]

Al-Thaʿālabī says, commenting on the verse:

ما أَشهَدتُهُم خَلقَ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالأَرضِ وَلا خَلقَ أَنفُسِهِم وَما كُنتُ مُتَّخِذَ المُضِلّينَ عَضُدًا [الكهف: 51]

I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves, and I would not have taken as assistants those that lead astray, [18:51]

This verse encompasses refutation of [deviant] factions, [like those] of astronomers, and naturalists, and philosophical physicians, and all others who conjecture in these matters.”[190]

It would be noteworthy to mention here, on the side, that Jalajel’s translation of tawaqquf as “non-commitment” is grossly erroneous. Theological tawaqquf, as cited by Jalajel himself, is defined by Badr al-Ghāmdī in al-Tawaqquf fi al-ʿAqīdah (p. 32) in the following words:

الكف والإمساك عن الخوض برأي أو قول في مسألة ما أو باب مختارا

[Theological tawaqquf is] to refrain and withhold from entering [into speculation and discourse, even] by a mere opinion or statement in an individual issue, or a [complete] chapter, by choice.

Jalajel himself alludes to this in his own words, saying:

“It must be noted that if the term tawaqquf is encountered in legal works or elsewhere, it simply means “suspension of judgment,” a temporary non-commitment on the part of the jurist due to conflicting or unclear evidence that needs further investigation to resolve. […] This differs from how the term is used in theology, where it is an epistemological claim that knowledge on a matter is impossible so there is a binding religious obligation to refrain from speculating about it.”

Is this the type of tawaqquf Jalajel observed in his article? When Jalajel said, “Could there have been hominid species prior to Adam? Scripture does not rule it out.”

If he were following tawaqquf, he should have stopped right here. However, he continues on and on: “Could these hominid species have co-existed with Adam and his descendants? Again, there is nothing explicit from scripture to negate this. Could the descendants of Adam have intermarried with other populations that were already present on Earth? Once again, scripture is silent.”

Conceding, for the sake of argument, that the scriptures were silent on these issues, adherence to theological tawaqquf should have made it a “binding religious obligation” for Jalajel “to refrain from speculating about it.” However, witness how Jalajel pushes one speculation after another, each one wilder than the previous one.

Despite all this, none of the matters that Jalajel raised in his article called for tawaqquf, and so, had Jalajel adhered to his own “novel contribution” and observed theological tawaqquf in these matters as he defined it above, he would have saved himself and his followers from condemnable heresy.

3. Conclusion

In fact, what Jalajel has done is he has departed from the consensus of the Ummah with respect to what it understood pertaining to the religion of Allah, a consensus that has obtained from the time the Prophet ﷺ until our day, disregarding the tradition and its conveyance of the Book of Allah تعالى and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ.

Prior to the spread of notions about evolution in the Muslim world late in the 19th century, one could not find any Muslim anywhere in the Muslim world, from Mauritania to the Philippines, who did not believe that Adam عليه السلام was a father of all of humanity. This is an infallible consensus.

Commentators of the Qurʿān, theologians, and linguists all define human beings as the children of Adam عليه السلام.

Narrations of the Prophet ﷺ and sayings of the salaf categorically show that Adam عليه السلام is the father of all human beings, from the first of them to the last of them, that all human beings are from the back of Adam عليه السلام, and that the only human beings that ever existed or will exist are the offspring of Adam عليه السلام.

The Islamic scriptures conclusively rule out and negate any form of “pre-existing humans on Earth who were created through the process of evolution,” and unequivocally proclaim that the first creation of human beings was the creation of Adam عليه السلام, and he was created from dust, and then his progeny was created from sperm.

The physical stature of Adam عليه السلام and his children, their form, physique, intellect, and reason, were indeed a distinct and unique honor bestowed upon them by Allah.

Allah also blessed the children of Adam with mates from among themselves only.

The term Banī Ādam does not denote descendants of apes, even supposing the abominable idea of the children of Adam cohabiting with slinking apes.

Jalajel wrong-headedly contradicts every one of these tenets.

Jalajel’s stance that the human race is not solely the progeny of Adam defies the consensus declaring such an idea null and void, as mentioned by al-Rāzī.

In divorcing the connection between Adam عليه السلام and the start of humanity, Jalajel defies the consensus of all Abrahamic nations that Adam عليه السلام is the father of all humanity, as mentioned by Ibn ʿĀshūr, and the consensus of all Muslims that Adam عليه السلام is the “one soul,” and the consensus of all Qurʿānic commentators that Adam عليه السلام is the first human being, as mentioned by al-Rāzī.

The very notion that human beings evolved from inferior beings is in its essence in direct contradiction with the temperament of the Sharīʿah. Transformation into animals has always been mentioned as a punishment, a curse, a disgrace, and a wrath.

And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the Sabbath, and We said to them, “Be apes, despised.” And We made it a exemplary punishment for those who were present and those who succeeded [them] and a lesson for those who fear Allah. [2:65-66]

Abū ʿĀmir, or Abū Mālik al-Ashʿari, reports that he heard the Prophet ﷺ say:

From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, “Return to us tomorrow.” Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection.[191]

Abū Saʿīd (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Prophet ﷺ said:

O desert dweller! Allah had cursed, or became wrathful upon, a tribe of the Children of Israel and transformed them into creatures that crawl upon the Earth.[192]

4. Postscript: Yaqeen and the “Traditional” Scholars Who Enable Heresy

MuslimSkeptic first critiqued Jalajel’s arguments in our Reviewing Yaqeen Institute: A Source of Certainty or Doubt? That critique noted how Jalajel himself is an open reformist. Why would Yaqeen Institute, which claims to care about Islamic soundness, publish the wild musings of an open reformist who has even published a book about reforming Islamic Law titled: Women and Leadership in Islamic Law: A Critical Analysis of Classical Legal Texts? (And that is not even the most shocking thing Jalajel has published in his career…)

Jalajel makes no secret of his animosity toward the Islamic tradition in this work and elsewhere, yet Yaqeen has no problem publishing him, giving him free exposure, thus exposing his poison to their naïve and unsuspecting Muslim audience.

In response to our review, Jalajel fired back with some confused objections that ignored the substance of our criticism. Shockingly, Sh. Tahir Wyatt—who serves as one of the “scholarly editorial reviewers” at Yaqeen—quickly came to Jalajel’s defense and accused us of deliberately misquoting Jalajel in order to malign Yaqeen. Did Wyatt miss all the heresy found in Jalajel’s paper? Or is Wyatt as ignorant of the Quran and Sunnah as Jalajel himself?

As mentioned above, Yasir Qadhi also validated Jalajel’s main contentions. After our first critique was published, Qadhi continued to work with Jalajel, co-teaching an entire online course on evolution with him through AlBalagh Academy. AlBalagh, like Yaqeen, chose to give a platform to Jalajel, allowing him to teach his confused heresy as if it is something acceptable in Islam.

We must ask again: These figures and institutions who wear the mantle of Islamic scholarly authority and tradition, how are they so eager and comfortable collaborating with and promoting a person whose work is a source of clear deviance and misguidance? Do they not care about the damage they are doing to people’s iman? Or are they simply too ignorant of basic Islamic fundamentals to know that what Jalajel is promoting is a brazen denial of clear cut, definitive matters of the Quran and Sunnah?

Muslims should continue to ask these questions and demand answers.

Notes

  1. قال الراغب الأصفهاني في تفسيره (3/ 1046): “القصد بخلق السموات والأرض إنّما هو الإِنسان، وإنّما خلق النبات والحيوانات قواماً له. قال: (خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مَا فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا)”.
  2. قال الرازي في تفسيره (30/ 737): “ولا يكلف في الدنيا ولا يحاسب بعمله في الآخرة….، وتقريره أن إعطاء القدرة والآلة والعقل بدون التكليف والأمر بالطاعة والنهي عن المفاسد يقتضي كونه تعالى راضيا بقبائح الأفعال، وذلك لا يليق بحكمته، فإذا لا بد من التكليف”.
  3. قال في مفاتيح الغيب (1/ 228): “اعلم أن قوله الحمد لله إشارة إلى إثبات الصانع المختار، وتقريره: أن المعتمد في إثبات الصانع في القرآن هو الاستدلال بخلقة الإنسان على ذلك، ألا ترى أن إبراهيم عليه السلام قال: ربي الذي يحيي ويميت [البقرة: 258] ، وقال في موضع آخر: الذي خلقني فهو يهدين [الشعراء: 78] ، وقال موسى عليه السلام: ربنا الذي أعطى كل شيء خلقه ثم هدى [طه: 50] ، وقال في موضع آخر: ربكم ورب آبائكم الأولين [الشعراء: 26] ، وقال تعالى في أول سورة البقرة: يا أيها الناس اعبدوا ربكم الذي خلقكم والذين من قبلكم لعلكم تتقون [البقرة: 21] وقال في أول ما أنزله على محمد عليه السلام: اقرأ باسم ربك الذي خلق، خلق الإنسان من علق [العلق: 1، 2] فهذه الآيات الست تدل على أنه تعالى استدل بخلق الإنسان على وجود الصانع تعالى، وإذا تأملت في القرآن وجدت هذا النوع من الاستدلال فيه كثيرا جدا. واعلم أن هذا الدليل كما أنه في نفسه هو دليل فكذلك هو نفسه إنعام عظيم، فهذه الحالة من حيث إنها تعرف العبد وجود الإله دليل، ومن حيث إنها نفع عظيم وصل من الله إلى العبد إنعام، فلا جرم هو دليل من وجه، وإنعام من وجه، والإنعام متى وقع بقصد الفاعل إلى إيقاعه إنعاما كان يستحق هو الحمد، وحدوث بدن الإنسان أيضا كذلك، وذلك لأن تولد الأعضاء المختلفة الطبائع والصور والأشكال من النطفة المتشابهة الأجزاء لا يمكن إلا إذا قصد الخالق إيجاد تلك الأعضاء على تلك الصور والطبائع، فحدوث هذه الأعضاء المختلفة يدل على وجود صانع عالم بالمعلومات قادر على كل المقدورات قصد بحكم رحمته وإحسانه خلق هذه الأعضاء على الوجه المطابق لمصالحنا الموافق لمنافعنا، ومتى كان الأمر كذلك كان مستحقا للحمد والثناء”.
  4. قال في الرد على الجهمية والزنادقة (ص: 66-68): “شك الزنادقة في قوله: {خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ تُرَابٍ}. وأما قوله عز وجل، {خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ تُرَابٍ} [فاطر: 11]، ثم قال: {مِنْ طِينٍ لازِبٍ} [الصافات: 11]، ثم قال: {مِنْ سُلالَةٍ} [المؤمنون: 12]، ثم قال: {مِنْ حَمَإٍ مَسْنُونٍ} [الحجر: 26]، ثم قال: {مِنْ صَلْصَالٍ كَالْفَخَّارِ} [الرحمن: 14]، فشكوا في القرآن، وقالوا: هذا تلبيس ينقض بعضها بعضًا. نقول: هذا بدء خلق آدم، خلقه الله أول بدء من تراب، ثم من طينة حمراء وسوداء وبيضاء، ومن طينة طيبة وسبخة، فكذلك ذريته طيب، وخبيث، أسود وأحمر وأبيض2. ثم بلَّ ذلك التراب فصار طينًا، فذلك قوله: “من طين” فلما لصق الطين بعضه ببعض، فصار طينًا لازبًا، بمعنى لاصقًا، ثم قال: {مِنْ سُلالَةٍ مِنْ طِينٍ}. يقول: مثل الطين إذا عصر انسل من بين الأصابع، ثم نتن فصار حمأ مسنونًا، فخلق من الحمأ، فلما جفَّ صار صلصالاً كالفخار، يقول: صار له صلصلة كصلصلة الفخار، له دوي كدوي الفخار. فهذا بيان خلق آدم، وأما قوله: {مِنْ سُلالَةٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ مَهِينٍ} [السجدة: 8] . فهذا بدء خلق ذريته، من سلالة يعني النطفة إذا انسلت من الرجل، فذلك قوله: {مِنْ مَاءٍ} ، يعني النطفة، {مَهِينٍ} يعني ضعيف. فهذا ما شَكَّت فيه الزنادقة.”.
  5. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/dr-david-solomon-jalajel/tawaqquf-and-acceptance-of-human-evolution
  6. Michael Denton: Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler Publishers 1986, p. 358.
  7. Gould, Stephen, Natural History, V 86, May 1987
  8. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (2002), p. 38.
  9. James Shapiro, Scientific Alternatives to Darwinism: Is there a Role for Cellular Information Processing in Evolution,” Boston Review, February/March 1997.
  10. Michael Denton: Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, p. 308.
  11. Jalajel, Islam and Biological Evolution (2009), p. 117.
  12. Michael Denton: Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler Publishers 1986, p. 358, 359.
  13. Reproduced from: Johnson, Phillip E; Objection Sustained; IVP, 1998.
  14. Daniel Varisco, “Darwin and Dunya: Muslim Responses to Darwinian Evolution”, Journal of International and Global Studies, Volume 9, Number 2, p. 22.
  15. Muzaffar Iqbal, Darwin’s Shadow: Evolution in an Islamic Mirror, p. 14.
  16. Muzaffar Iqbal, Darwin’s Shadow: Evolution in an Islamic Mirror, p. 27.
  17. Shoaib Malik, Islam and Evolution: al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, Routeledge Science and Religion Series, p. 130.
  18. Shoaib Malik, Islam and Evolution: al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, p. 341.
  19. David Solomon Jalajel. 2009. Islam and Biological Evolution: Exploring Classical Sources and Methodologies. Western Cape, South Africa: University of the Western Cape.
  20. David Solomon Jalajel. 2018. “Tawaqquf and Acceptance of Human Evolution.” Yaqeen Institute. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/dr-david-solomon-jalajel/tawaqquf-and-acceptance-of-human-evolution/
  21. https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-the-basic-assumptions-of-evolution/
  22. http://www.ch.unich.it/progettistisidiventa/REPRINT-INEDITI/Hameed-ISLAMIC-CREATIONISM.pdf
  23. قال الأشعريُّ في الإبانة عن أصول الديانة (ص 14) : “فإن كثيرًا من الزائغين عن الحقِّ من المعتزلة وأهل القدر مالت بهم أهواؤهم إلى تقليد رؤسائهم ومَن مضَى من أسلافهم، فتأوَّلوا القرآن على آرائهم تأويلً لم يُنزِّل به الله سلطانًا، ولا أَوْضَح به برهانًا، ولا نقلوه عن رسول رب العالمين، ولا عن السَّلَف المتقدِّمين”. وذكر الشاطبي أن من طرق التفسير التفسير الجاري على موافقة العربية وقواعد الشريعة ودلالات الكتاب والسُّنة. انظر: المواقفات للشاطبي (4/277-280). وقال ابن تيمية في أصول التفسير (ص 38): “فإن الصحابة والتابعين والأئمة إذا كان لهم في تفسير الآية قولٌ، وجاء قوم فسَّروا الآية بقول آخَر؛ لأجل مذهب اعتقدوه، وذلك المذهب ليس من مذاهب الصحابة والتابعين لهم بإحسان -صاروا مشاركين للمعتزلة وغيرهم من أهل البدع في مثل هذا. وفي الجملة مَنْ عدَل عن مذاهب الصحابة والتابعين وتفسيرهم إلى ما يُخالِف ذلك كان مخطئًا في ذلك، بل مبتدعًا”. وقال في مجموع الفتاوى (7/119): “تَجِدُ المعتزلة والمرجئة والرافضة وغيرهم من أهل البدع يفسرون القرآن برأيهم ومعقولهم وما تأوَّلوه من اللغة؛ ولهذا تجدهم لا يعتمدون على أحاديث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والصحابة، والتابعين، وأئمة المسلمين؛ فلا يعتمدون لا على السُّنة ولا على إجماع السلف وآثارهم؛ وإنما يعتمدون على العقل واللغة”.
  24. أول من قرر أن الإلمام باللغة كاف لفهم نصوص القرآن القاضي عبد الجبار المعتزلي (ت 415 ه) في كتابه المغني، فقد أفرَد فصلا بعنوان: فصلٌ في أنّ مراد الله تعالى بالقرآن لا يَختَصُّ بمَعرِفته الرسول ولا السَّلَف. انظر: المغني في أبواب التوحيد والعدل، القاضي عبد الجبار ( 16 / 361 ).
  25. قال في مجموع الفتاوى (13/243): “مَن فسَّر القرآن أو الحديث وتأوَّله على غير التفسير المعروف عن الصحابة والتابعين فهو مُفتر على الله، ملحدٌ في آيات الله، محرِّفٌ للكلِم عن مواضعه، وهذا فتحٌ لباب الزندقة والإلحاد، وهو معلوم البطلان -بالاضطرار- من دين الإسلام”. وقال في جواب الاعتراضات المصرية (ص 19): “فيكون أحد الأمرين لازمًا له: إمَّا أن يَستبدل الذي هو أدنى بالذي هو خير، ويَعدِل عن الطريق التي فيها من العلوم اليقينية والأمور الإيمانية والاعتقادات الراجحة والظنون الغالبة ما لا يوجد في غيرها إلى ما هو دُوْنها في ذلك كلِّه، بل يَستبدِل باليقين شكًّا وبالظنِّ الراجح وَهْمًا، ويَستبدِل بالإيمان كفرًا وبالهدَى ضلالة، وبالعلم جهلً، وبالبيان عِيًّا، وبالعدل ظلمًا، وبالصدق كذبًا، وبالإيمان بكتب الله وبكلماتِه تحريفًا عن مواضعها. وإمَّا أن يُعرِضَ عن ذلك كلِّه، ولا يجعلَ للقرآن معنًى مفهومًا”.
  26. لا بدَّ من التنبيه على أن جماعة من العلماء ذكَروا أن الاختلاف الوارد عن السَّلَف في التفسير هو في كثير منه من باب اختلاف التنوُّع؛ لأمور ذكَروها، وإن كانوا لم يَنفوا وقوع اختلاف التضاد، ولكنه قليل. قال ابن القيم في الصواعق المرسلة (2/654): “المفسرون فسروا القرآن واتفقوا على المراد منه في غالب القرآن ونزاعهم في ذلك قليل وأكثره عند التحقيق ليس نزاعا في نفس الأمر بل هو اختلاف في التعبير واختلاف تمثيل وتنويع لا اختلاف تناقض ولا تضاد”. وانظر: مقدمة في أصول التفسير (ص 11)، والبرهان في علوم القرآن للزركشي (2/ 159)، والإتقان في علوم القرآن للسيوطي (4/ 203) .
  27. قال في مفاتيح الغيب (26/227): “خطاب مع الناس، وهم (أي: الناس) أولاد آدم”.
  28. انظر: نزهة الأعين النواظر في علم الوجوه والنظائر (ص 177).
  29. قال الشهاب في عنايه القاضي وكفاية الراضي (3/ 94): “بني آدم له استعمالات الأوّل يطلق على جنس البشر فيشمل آدم وحوّاء وسائر الذكور والإناث والناس مثله في العموم، والثاني يطلق على نسله ذكورا وإناثا تغليبا فيشمل ما عدا آدم وحوّاء، والثالث أن يراد ما تفرع عنه فيشمل ما سواه بناء على أن حواء خلقت من ضلع من أضلاعه، كما ورد في الحديث الصحيح وهو القول المرضي، وقيل إنها خلقت من فضل طينته، والرابع أن يراد ذكور بني آدم وهو معناه الحقيقي، وله معنى خامس شاع في غير لغة العرب وهو أن يستعمل بمعنى إنسان”.
  30. قال إمام الحرمين في التلخيص في أصول الفقه (1/ 274): “لو قال لعبده: رأيت إنسانا، لم يحسن منه أن يقول مستفسرا: تعني به شخصا من بني آدم أم حمارا؟ لأن اللفظة إنباء عن جنس بني آدم فلم يحسن الاستفصال فيه”.
  31. ميزان الأصول في نتائج العقول (1/520- 521): “العلماء يحتجون بالقول المنتشر في كل عصر إذا لم يعرف له مخالف. وإجماع الأمة حجة، فعرفنا بإجماعهم على الاحتجاج بمثل هذا، على أنه حجة، وإن لم يكن إجماعًا، كما أجمع السلف على الاحتجاج بخبر الواحد فيكون حجة، وإن لم يثبت كونه خبر الرسول ﷺ قطعًا. وجه قول من قال إنه إجماع – دلالة إجماع أهل اللسان، والمعقول: أما الأول، فلأن أسماء الأجناس والأنواع والأعيان بلغت إلينا من أهل اللغة بالقول المنتشر والسكوت من الباقين، لا بالنطق من واحد منهم حقيقة، وهو اسم الإنسان لبني آدم”.
  32. قال في الفروق اللغوية (ص: 282): “إن قولنا: هو ابن فلان، يقتضي أنه منسوب إليه، ولهذا يقال: الناس بنو آدم؛ لأنهم منسوبون إليه، وكذلك بنو إسرائيل”.
  33. قال في المخصص (1/ 34) : فكأنهم جاؤا إلى واحد من بني آدم، فأمؤوا إليه، فقالوا: إنسان، فأي وقت سمع هذا اللفظ علم أن المراد به هذا النوع من الجنس المخلوق”. وانظر: المزهر في علوم اللغة وأنواعها (1/ 15).
  34. قال في فقه اللغة وسر العربية (ص: 107): ” البشر بنو آدم”.
  35. قال في شمس العلوم ودواء كلام العرب من الكلوم (10/6792): “الناس: بنو آدم”.
  36. قال في النهاية في غريب الحديث والأثر(1/75): “الإنس وهم بنو آدم”.
  37. قال في “إكمال الإعلام بتثليث الكلام” (1/ 54): “الإنس: بنو آدم”.
  38. قال في لسان العرب (6/ 13): “الإنس، وهم بنو آدم”.
  39. قال الجرجاني في شرح المواقف: “كرم بني آدم نوع الإنسان على غيره بالعقل الغريزي”. قال السيالكوتي في شرحه (1/14): “فسر (أي: الجرجاني) بني آدم بنوع الإنسان”.
  40. قال الزروق في شرحه على عقيدة الغزالي (ص 133): “الإنس، أي: بنو آدم من أولهم إلى آخرهم”.
  41. قال في عمدة المريد (1/158): “الإنس أولاد آدم”.
  42. قال في لوامع الأنوار البهية (2/ 218): “كل إنسان (أي:) من بني آدم، فالإنس والإنسان من البشر، والواحد إنسي وأنسي، والجمع أناسي والمرأة إنسان”.
  43. قال في بريقة محمودية (1/ 25): “إنسان، وهو الواحد من بني آدم ذكرا أو أنثى”.
  44. https://themuslim500.com/guest-contributions-2021/islam-and-evolution-the-curious-case-of-david-solomon-jalajel/
  45. قال رشيد رضا في تفسير المنار (1/ 215): ثم إن للمفسرين في (الخليفة) مذهبين: ذهب بعضهم إلى أن هذا اللفظ يشعر بأنه كان في الأرض صنف أو أكثر من نوع الحيوان الناطق وأنه انقرض، وأن هذا الصنف الذي أخبر الله الملائكة بأن سيجعله خليفة في الأرض سيحل محله ويخلفه، كما قال – تعالى – بعد ذكر إهلاك القرون: (ثم جعلناكم خلائف في الأرض من بعدهم) (10: 14) وقالوا: إن ذلك الصنف البائد قد أفسد في الأرض وسفك الدماء، وأن الملائكة استنبطوا سؤالهم بالقياس عليه؛ لأن الخليفة لا بد أن يناسب من يخلفه ويكون من قبيله كما يتبادر إلى الفهم، ولكن لما لم يكن دليل على أنه يكون مثله من كل وجه وليس ذلك من مقتضى الخلافة، أجاب الله الملائكة بأنه يعلم ما لا يعلمون مما يمتاز به هذا الخليفة على من قبله، وماله سبحانه في ذلك من الحكمة البالغة. قال الأستاذ: وإذا صح هذا القول فليس آدم أول الصنف العاقل من الحيوان على هذه الأرض، وإنما كان أول طائفة جديدة من الحيوان الناطق تماثل الطائفة أو الطوائف البائدة منه في الذات والمادة، وتخالفها في بعض الأخلاق والسجايا. هذا أحسن ما يجلى فيه هذا المذهب، وأكثر ما قالوه فيه قد سرى إلى المسلمين من أساطير الفرس وخرافاتهم، ومنه أنه كان في الأرض قبل آدم خلق يسمون بالحن والبن، أو الطم والرم، والأكثرون على أن الخلق الذين كانوا في الأرض قبل آدم مباشرة كانوا يسمون الجن، والقائلون منهم بالحن (بالمهملة) والبن قالوا: إنهم كانوا قبل الجن، وقالوا: إن هؤلاء عاثوا في الأرض فسادا، فأبادهم الله (كما تقدم آنفا) وقالوا: إن الله – تعالى – أرسل إليهم إبليس في جند من الملائكة فحارب الجن فدحرهم وفرقهم في الجزائر والبحار. وليس لهم في الإسلام سند يحتج به على هذه القصص، ولكن تقاليد الأمم الموروثة في هذه المسألة تنبئ بأمر ذي بال، وهي متفقة فيه بالإجمال، ألا وهو ما قلناه من أن آدم ليس أول الأحياء العاقلة التي سكنت الأرض”.
    وقال المراغي في تفسيره (4/ 175): وجمهرة العلماء على أن المراد بالنفس الواحدة هنا آدم، وهم لم يأخذوا هذا من نص الآية، بل أخذوه تسليما وهو أن آدم أبو البشر. وقال بعض العلماء أبهم الله تعالى أمر النفس التي خلق الناس منها، فلندعها على إبهامها، فإذا ثبت ما يقوله الباحثون من أن لكل صنف من أصناف البشر أبا كان ذلك غير مخالف لكتابنا، كما هو مخالف للتوراة التي نصت صراحة على أن آدم أبو البشر فحمل ذلك بعض الناس على الطعن فى كونها من عند الله ووحيه. وقال الأستاذ الإمام: إن ظاهر الآية يأبى أن يكون المراد بالنفس الواحدة آدم لوجهين:(1) البحث العلمي والتاريخي المعارض لذلك.(2) إنه قال رجالا كثيرا ونساء، ولم يقل الرجال والنساء، ولكن ليس فى القرآن ما ينفى هذا الاعتقاد ولا ما يثبته إثباتا قاطعا لا يحتمل التأويل اه.وما جاء من مخاطبة الناس بقوله: «يا بَنِي آدَمَ» لا يعد نصّا فى كون جميع البشر من أبنائه إذ يكفى فى صحة هذا الخطاب أن يكون من وجّه إليهم فى زمن التنزيل من أولاد آدم.
  46. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_views_on_evolution#Adam_and_Eve
  47. https://www.alislam.org/articles/man-lived-on-earth-even-before-advent-of-adam/
  48. Unless he’s alluding to the aforementioned classical theologians when he says this is “an assumption people read into the texts.”
  49. انظر: جامع البيان (7/ 514) و(11/562).
  50. انظر: تفسير ابن أبي حاتم (5/ 1630).
  51. انظر: تفسير السمعاني (2/240).
  52. قال الراغب الأصفهاني في تفسيره (3/1072): “ذكر عامة المفسرين أنه عنى بالنفس: آدم”.
  53. قال في المحرر الوجيز (2/557): “قال جمهور المفسرين: المراد بالنفس الواحدة آدم عليه السلام”.
  54. قال في لجامع لأحكام القرآن (7/337): “قال جمهور المفسرين : المراد بالنفس الواحدة آدم”.
  55. البحر المحيط (5/244): “والجمهور على أن المراد بقوله: من نفس واحدة، آدم عليه السلام”.
  56. قال في الجواهر الحسان في تفسير القرآن (3/101): “قال جمهور المفسرين: المراد بالنفس الواحدة: آدم عليه السلام”.
  57. قال الرازي في تفسيره (9/ 477): “المسألة الرابعة: أجمع المسلمون على أن المراد بالنفس الواحدة هاهنا هو آدم عليه السلام”.
  58. روى البخاري في صحيحه (3400)، عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه، قال: كنا مع النبيﷺ…، إلى أن قال ﷺ: “أنا سيد القوم يوم القيامة، هل تدرون بم؟ يجمع الله الأولين والآخرين في صعيد واحد، فيبصرهم الناظر ويسمعهم [ص:135] الداعي، وتدنو منهم الشمس، فيقول بعض الناس: ألا ترون إلى ما أنتم فيه، إلى ما بلغكم؟ ألا تنظرون إلى من يشفع لكم إلى ربكم، فيقول بعض الناس: أبوكم آدم فيأتونه فيقولون: يا آدم أنت أبو البشر”.
  59. روى مسلم (193): “فيقولون: أنت آدم، أبو الخلق”.
  60. في البخاري (4476): “فيقولون: أنت أبو الناس”.
  61. روى الترمذي في سننه (3956)، عن أبي هريرة، أن رسول الله ﷺ قال: “…، والناس بنو آدم وآدم من تراب”. هذا حديث حسن صحيح. ومثله في مسند أحمد(8721) بإسناده صحيح. وروى البيهقي في شعب الإيمان (4767) عن ابن عمر قال: خطب رسول الله ﷺ يوم فتح مكة، فقال: “…، والناس كلهم بنو آدم، وخلق الله آدم من تراب”.
  62. روى الحاكم في المستدرك على الصحيحين (2/ 354)، برقم (3257) عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه، قال: قال رسول الله ﷺ: “لما خلق الله آدم مسح ظهره، فسقط من ظهره كل نسمة هو خالقها إلى يوم القيامة، أمثال الذر”. قال الحاكم: هذا حديث صحيح على شرط مسلم ولم يخرجاه. وقال الذهبي: على شرط مسلم.
  63. روى الحاكم في المستدرك (2/593)، برقم (4000)، عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: ” أخذ الله الميثاق من ظهر آدم بنعمان، يعني بعرفة، فأخرج من صلبه كل ذرية ذرأها فنثرهم بين يديه كالذر، ثم كلمهم قبلا وقال: {ألست بربكم قالوا بلى شهدنا أن تقولوا يوم القيامة} [الأعراف: 172] إلى قوله {بما فعل المبطلون} [الأعراف: 173]. وقال: هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ولم يخرجاه. ووافقه الذهبي.
  64. رواه الروياني في مسنده، برقم (207)، عن عقبة بن عامر الجهني، عن رسول الله ﷺ، قال: “الناس لآدم وحواء كطف الصاع لم يملؤوه، وإن الله لا يسألكم عن أحسابكم ولا عن أنسابكم، أكرمكم عند الله أتقاكم”. ورواه أبو الشيخ الأصبهاني في أمثال الحديث، برقم (161)، عن عقبة بن عامر، قال: قال النبي ﷺ: “الناس لآدم وحواء كطف الصاع لن تملأه، إن الله لا يسأل عن أجسادكم ولا أنسابكم يوم القيامة، أكرمكم عند الله أتقاكم”.
  65. روى الإمام أحمد في مسنده برقم (17446): عن عقبة بن عامر الجهني، قال: قال رسول اللهﷺ: “إن أنسابكم هذه ليست بمسبة على أحد، كلكم بنو آدم، طف الصاع لم تملئوه، ليس لأحد على أحد (1) فضل إلا بدين أو تقوى، وكفى بالرجل أن يكون بذيا بخيلا فاحشا”.
  66. قال في النهاية في غريب الحديث والأثر (3/ 129): “المعنى كلكم في الانتساب إلى أب واحد بمنزلة واحدة في النقص والتقاصر عن غاية التمام. وشبههم في نقصانهم بالمكيل الذي لم يبلغ أن يملأ المكيال، ثم أعلمهم أن التفاضل ليس بالنسب ولكن بالتقوى”.
  67. روى ابن أبي حاتم ف تفسيره (5/ 1614)، برقم (8536) عن ابن عباس: قوله: وإذ أخذ ربك من بني آدم من ظهورهم ذريتهم، قال: إن الله خلق آدم ثم أخرج ذريته من صلبه مثل الذر فقال لهم: من ربكم؟ قالوا الله ربنا، ثم أعادهم في صلبه حتى يولد كل من أخذ ميثاقه، لا يزاد فيهم ولا ينقص منهم إلى أن تقوم الساعة.
  68. روى ابن أبي حاتم في تفسيره (5/ 1459)، برقم (8344)، عن عبد الرحمن بن معقل قال: ذكر الجد عند ابن عباس: فقال: أي أب لكم أكبر؟ فقال: “آدم، قال: فإن الله يقول: يا بني آدم”.
  69. روى الطبري في جامع البيان (1/506)، برقم (696)، قال: حدثنا به محمد بن بشار، قال: حدثنا ابن أبي عدي، عن عوف، عن الحسن، قال: “ما كان إبليس من الملائكة طرفة عين قط، وإنه لأصل الجن، كما أن آدم أصل الإنس”. قال ابن كثير في تفسيره (5/ 167): “قال الحسن البصري: ما كان إبليس من الملائكة طرفة عين قط، وإنه لأصل الجن، كما أن آدم، عليه السلام، أصل البشر. رواه ابن جرير بإسناد صحيح عنه”.
  70. رواه الدولابي في الكنى والأسماء، برقم (704)، قال: حدثنا عمران بن بكار، قال ثنا أبو المغيرة عبد القدوس بن الحجاج، قال ثنا صفوان بن عمرو، قال، ثنا أبو حسبة مسلم بن أكيس أن رجلا جاء إلى أبي بشر عبيد بن يزيد الوهبي فقال له: يا أبا بشر إن فلانا دعاني هجينا. فقال أبو بشر: “ليس من ولد آدم هجين، كلهم لآدم وحواء، ولكن سأخبركم بالهجين منكم: الذين أجسادهم أجساد بني آدم وقلوبهم قلوب الشياطين”.
  71. قال في الوجيز (ص: 728): “{فإنا خلقناكم} خلقنا أباكم الذي هو أصل البشر”.
  72. زاد المسير في علم التفسير (3/ 420): “قوله تعالى: وَمِنْ آياتِهِ أي: من دلائل قدرته أَنْ خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ تُرابٍ يعني آدم لأنه أصل البشر”.
  73. مفاتيح الغيب (14/ 206): “إن آدم عليه السلام أصل البشر”.
  74. الجامع لأحكام القرآن (12/ 6): “{فَإِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ} أي: خلقنا أباكم الذي هو أصل البشر، يعني آدم عليه السلام”.
  75. حاشيه الشهاب علي تفسير البيضاوي (4/ 152): “ابتداء خلق كل جنس بإيجاد أوّل أفراده، وهو آدم، الذي هو أصل البشر”.
  76. فتح القدير (1/ 81): “لأنهما (أي: آدم وحواء) لما كانا أصل هذا النوع الإنساني جعلا بمنزلته”.
  77. روح المعاني (6/ 286): “هُوَ أَنْشَأَكُمْ مِنَ الْأَرْضِ، أي: ابتدأ خلقكم منها فإنها المادة الأولى، وآدم الذي هو أصل البشر خلق منها”.
  78. قال في البحر المحيط (5/81): “مبدأ الخلق الإنساني وهو آدم عليه السلام”.
  79. قال في البحر المحيط (9/ 172): “آدم، لأنه أول البشر خلقا”.
  80. روح المعاني (9/ 216): “خلق جنس الإنسان مما ذكر باعتبار خلق أول الأفراد وأصل النوع وهو آدم عليه السلام منه فيكون الكل مخلوقا من ذلك خلقا إجماليا في ضمن خلقه”. وقال في (11/ 273): “آدم كان أول أفراد الجنس ومبدأ سلسلتها”. وقال في (2/ 126): “وبدأ بآدم عليه الصلاة والسلام لأنه أول النوع”.
  81. قال الطبري في جامع البيان (7/ 512): “وصف تعالى ذكره نفسه بأنه المتوحد بخلق جميع الأنام من شخص واحد، معرفا عباده كيف كان مبتدأ إنشائه ذلك من النفس الواحدة، ومنبههم بذلك على أن جميعهم بنو رجل واحد وأم واحدة، وأن بعضهم من بعض، وأن حق بعضهم على بعض واجب وجوب حق الأخ على أخيه، لاجتماعهم في النسب إلى أب واحد وأم واحدة”.
  82. قال الطبري في جامع البيان (11/ 562): قال أبو جعفر: يقول تعالى ذكره: وإلهكم، أيها العادلون بالله غيره، “الذي أنشأكم”، يعني: الذي ابتدأ خلقكم من غير شيء، فأوجدكم بعد أن لم تكونوا شيئا، “من نفس واحدة”، يعني: من آدم”.
  83. قال في تأويلات أهل السنة (4/185): “أخبر أنه خلق البشر كله من نفس واحدة”. وقال في (5/114): “في قوله: (خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ) دلالة أن ليس لأحد من البشر على آخر فضل من جهة الخلقة والنسبة؛ إذ كلهم إنما خلقوا من نفس واحدة”.
  84. قال في تأويلات أهل السنة (4/180): “(خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ) منذ ما خلق ما في الدنيا من البشر”.
  85. قال في تأويلات أهل السنة (8/ 659): “قال عز وجل: (خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ ثُمَّ جَعَلَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا)، أي: قدركم جميعًا على كثرتكم من أول ما أنشأكم إلى آخر ما ينشئكم من تلك النفس الواحدة منها قدرنا”.
  86. قال في مفاتيح الغيب (13/ 80): “قوله تعالى: وهو الذي أنشأكم من نفس واحدة] هذا نوع رابع من دلائل وجود الإله وكمال قدرته وعلمه، وهو الاستدلال بأحوال الإنسان فنقول: لا شبهة في أن النفس الواحدة هي آدم عليه السلام، وهي نفس واحدة، وحواء مخلوقة من ضلع من أضلاعه، فصار كل الناس من نفس واحدة، وهي آدم”.
  87. قال في مفاتيح الغيب (9/ 476): “خلق جميع الأشخاص الإنسانية من الإنسان الواحد أدل على كمال القدرة”.
  88. قال في مفاتيح الغيب (8/ 199): “وأما الإنس فلا شك أن لهم والدا هو والدهم الأول، وإلا لذهب إلى ما لا نهاية، والقرآن دل على أن ذلك الأول هو آدم صلى الله عليه وسلم، على ما قال تعالى في هذه السورة: إن مثل عيسى عند الله كمثل آدم خلقه من تراب ثم قال له كن فيكون [آل عمران: 59]، وقال: يا أيها الناس اتقوا ربكم الذي خلقكم من نفس واحدة وخلق منها زوجها [النساء: 1]”.
  89. قال في مفاتيح الغيب (8/243): “اعلم أن العقل دل على أنه لا بد للناس من والد أول، وإلا لزم أن يكون كل ولد مسبوق بوالد لا إلى أول وهو محال، والقرآن دل على أن ذلك الوالد الأول هو آدم عليه السلام كما في هذه الآية، وقال: يا أيها الناس اتقوا ربكم الذي خلقكم من نفس واحدة وخلق منها زوجها [النساء: 1] وقال: هو الذي خلقكم من نفس واحدة وجعل منها زوجها [الأعراف: 189]”.
  90. قال في مفاتيح الغيب (19/ 137): “لا بد من انتهاء الناس إلى إنسان هو أول الناس، وإذا كان كذلك فذلك الإنسان الأول غير مخلوق مع الأبوين فيكون مخلوقا لا محالة بقدرة الله تعالى. فقوله: ولقد خلقنا الإنسان، إشارة إلى ذلك الإنسان الأول، والمفسرون أجمعوا على أن المراد منه هو آدم عليه السلام”.
  91. Genus here refers to a class of things that have common characteristics and that can be divided into subordinate kinds.
  92. قال في روح المعاني (4/ 327): “المراد ابتدأنا خلقكم ثم تصويركم بأن خلقنا آدم ثم صورناه، ويعود هذا إلى ابتداء خلق الجنس وابتداء خلق كل جنس بإيجاد أول أفراده”.
  93. قال في الكشاف (1/ 461): “شعبكم من نفس واحدة هذه صفتها، وهي أنه أنشأها من تراب وخلق زوجها حواء من ضلع من أضلاعها وبث منهما نوعي جنس الإنس وهما الذكور والإناث”.
  94. قال في البحر المحيط (3/ 492): “نبه تعالى في أول هذه السورة على إيجاد الأصل، وتفرع العالم الإنساني منه”.
  95. قال في تفسيره (2/ 206): “ذكر تعالى أن أصل الخلق من أب واحد وأم واحدة”.
  96. قال في تفسيره (7/ 86): “{خلقكم من نفس واحدة} أي: خلقكم مع اختلاف أجناسكم وأصنافكم وألسنتكم وألوانكم من نفس واحدة، وهو آدم عليه السلام”.
  97. قال في مختصر الصواعق المرسلة على الجهمية والمعطلة (ص: 374): “{ولقد خلقناكم ثم صورناكم} [الأعراف: 11] فهو خلق أصل البشر وأبيهم، وجعله سبحانه خلقا لهم وتصويرا إذ هو أصلهم وهم فرعه، وبهذا فسرها السلف”.
  98. قال في البرهان المؤيد (ص: 190): “فهذان أصلان كليان للعالم الإنساني أبا وأما آدم وحواء وبث منهما رجالا كثيرا ونساء، جزأ أولادهم فالإنس إلى آدم وحواء مجتمعون وإليهما ينتسبون”.
  99. قال في التحرير والتنوير (3/ 229): “فأما آدم، فهو أبو البشر باتفاق الأمم كلها إلا شذوذا من أصحاب النزعات الإلحادية الذين ظهروا في أوروبا واخترعوا نظرية تسلسل أنواع الحيوان بعضها من بعض وهي نظرية فائلة”.
  100. https://themuslim500.com/guest-contributions-2021/islam-and-evolution-the-curious-case-of-david-solomon-jalajel/
  101. Singular nouns can be generic and non generic. Both indicate and universality when preceded by lām al-jins, as mentioned by al-Zarkashī in Tashnīf al-Masāmiʿ (2/670)”. .قال: “ولا أثر له بالنسبة إلى العموم، فإن عمومها استغراقي باعتبار الألف واللام
  102. Provided that the speaker is not referring to someone specific in his knowledge.
  103. قال البخاري في كشف الأسرار (2/14): “بعضهم سماها لام التجنيس، وبعضهم سماها لام الاستغراق”. وقال السبكي في الأشباه والنظائر (2/ 118): “الثاني: الاستغراقية. وهي التي يقصر عليها النحاة اسم الجنسية وهي ضربان: أحدهما حقيقي، وهي التي تشمل الأفراد نحو: {إِنَّ الإِنْسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ، إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا}”.
  104. اللام التي لاستغراق أفراد الجنس كلهم حقيقة وعرفًا، وهي التي تدل على ما تدل عليه لفظة (كل) لو كانت بدلها. انظر: البلاغة العربية للميداني (1/443-444).
  105. البحر المحيط في أصول الفقه (4/ 198): المفرد المحلى بالألف واللام إذا جعلناه للعموم، فالعموم فيه من حيث المعنى على أصح الوجهين عند ابن السمعاني؛ لأن الألف واللام لا بد أن تفيد التعريف، وليس التعريف إلا تعريف الجنس، وإذا قلنا: إن اللفظ يفيد واحدا خرج الألف واللام عن كونهما للجنس، ولم يبق لهما فائدة، وإذا ثبت أنهما للجنس ثبت الاستغراق، لأنه إذا قال ” الإنسان ” أفاد دخول كل من كان من جنس الإنسان في اللفظ“.
  106. قال في التحرير والتنوير (15/ 160): “التعريف في الإنسان تعريف الجنس وهو مفيد للاستغراق”.
  107. قال في المنخول (ص: 216): “اسم الفرد اذا اتصل به الألف واللام اقتضى الاستغراق، كقولهم: الدينار افضل من الدرهم”.
  108. قال في قواطع الأدلة في الأصول (1/167): “الأسماء التى يدخلها الألف واللام للجنس، كقولك: الحيوان والنبات والجماد، يراد بها تعميم هذه الأجناس، ومن هذا الباب قوله تعالى: {وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ} [المائدة: 38] : {الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي} [النور: 2]، فلا سارق إلا وعليه القطع بالآية، ولا زانى إلا وعليه الجلد بالآية، وقد قال بعضهم: مثل هذا اللفظ لا يكون للعموم، وإنما يكون للعهد قال أبو هاشم يفيد الجنس دون الاستغراق. وأما عندنا، هو العموم؛ لأن نفس اللفظ وإن كان لفظا مفردا ولا يدل على العموم، ولكن دخل عليه ما يوجب عمومه، وهو لام الجنس، وهذا لأنه لو لم يستغرق قولنا: الإنسان، جميع الجنس: لأفاد واحدا غيره يقينا، وإذا قلتم بهذا فقد كان هذا مستفادا بالاسم قبل دخول الألف واللام عليه، فلا يبقى لدخول الألف واللام فائدة فدل أن فائدتهما الاستغراق”.
  109. قال في التمهيد في أصول الفقه (2/ 53): “مسألة: إذا دخل الألف واللام على الاسم المفرد كقوله: السارق، والزاني، والقاتل، فإنه يقتضي الاستغراق”.
  110. قال في الجمع الجوامع (ص 45): “والمفرد المحلى مثله”، أي: مثل الجمع المعرف بها في أنه للعموم ما لم يتحقق عهد؛ لتبادره إلى الذهن
  111. قال في التمهيد في تخريج الفروع على الأصول (ص: 327): “المفرد المحلى بأل أو المضاف للعموم على الراجح”.
  112. قال في التلويح على التوضيح (1/ 101): “المفرد المحلى باللام: قد سبق أن المعرف باللام إذا لم يكن للعهد الخارجي فهو للاستغراق”.
  113. قال في التحرير مع التقرير والتحبير (1/ 192): “عام (بمعناه) فقط، بأن يكون اللفظ مفردا مستوعبا لكل ما يتناوله (وهو المفرد المحلى، كالرجل)”.
  114. قال في البحر المحيط (4/ 132): اسم الجنس…، إن لم يرد به معهود، فاختلفوا فيه على أقوال: أحدها: أنه يفيد استغراق الجنس، ونقل عن نص الشافعي في ” الرسالة ” و “البويطي” ونقله أصحابه عنه في قوله تعالى: {وأحل الله البيع} [البقرة: 275] ، وهو كذلك في ” الأم ” من رواية الربيع، ويدل عليه قوله تعالى: {ولله العزة ولرسوله وللمؤمنين} [المنافقون: 8] إنكارا على قول عبد الله بن أبي (ليخرجن الأعز منها الأذل) فدل على أن اسم الجنس المعرف يعم، ولولا ذلك لما تطابق…، وهو الحق”.
  115. قال في الإحكام في أصول الأحكام (1/ 214): “قوله تعالى: {كنتم خير أمة أخرجت للناس تأمرون بالمعروف وتنهون عن المنكر}، والألف واللام إذا دخلت على اسم الجنس عمت على ما سيأتي، ومقتضى صدق الخبر بذلك أمرهم بكل معروف ونهيهم عن كل منكر”.
  116. قال في المحصول (4/ 73): “المسلك الثالث: قوله تعالى: {كنتم خير أمة أخرجت للناس تأمرون بالمعروف وتنهون عن المنكر}، ولام الجنس تقتضي الاستغراق، فدل على أنهم أمروا بكل معروف ونهوا عن كل منكر”.
  117. قال ابن عقيل في الواضح في أصول الفقه (3/ 354-355): “الاسم المفرد إذا دخلَ عليه الألفُ واللامُ : مثل: الإنسان، والدِرهمِ، والدينارِ، والكافرِ، والزاني، والسارقِ، فهو واقعٌ على جنسِ ما دخل عليه واستغراقه…، فصل في أدلتنا على أنهما يدخلان للجنس: فمنها: أن الله سبحانه ما أدخلَ الألفَ واللامَ على الاسمِ المفردِ إلا وأراد به الجنسَ؛ من ذلك قوله تعالى: {كَلَّا إِنَّ الْإِنْسَانَ لَيَطْغَى} [العلق: 6]، {إِنَّ الْإِنْسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ} [العصر 2]، {وَخُلِقَ الْإِنْسَانُ ضَعِيفًا} [النساء: 28]، {حَمَلَهَا الْإِنْسَانُ إِنَّهُ كَانَ ظَلُومًا جَهُولًا} [الأحزاب: 72]، {الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي} [النور 2]، ثم عطف عليه ما دلّ على أن المرادَ به الجنسُ، وهو قوله: {إِنَّ الْإِنْسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ (2) إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا} [العصر 3]، والذين اسم جماعة، والجماعةُ لا تُستثنى من واحدٍ، فدل ذلكَ على أنَه أراد بالإنسانِ: الجنسَ، فكذلك صحَ أن يستثني منه جماعةً”.
  118. قال في التبصرة في أصول الفقه (ص: 116): “الألف واللام لا يدخل على الاسم إلا للجنس ولهذا قال الله تعالى: {قتل الإنسان ما أكفره}، وقال: {وخلق الإنسان ضعيفا}، {وحملها الإنسان إنه كان ظلوما جهولا} وقال تعالى: {كلا إن الإنسان ليطغى}، وأراد في هذا كله الجنس، ويقال: أهلك الناس الدينار والدرهم وملك الشاء والبعير ويراد به الجنس فدل على أنه موضوع له، ولأنه يحسن فيه الاستثناء بلفظ الجمع كما قال تعالى {والعصر إن الإنسان لفي خسر إلا الذين آمنوا وعملوا الصالحات} فاقتضى الجنس”.
  119. أي خلق كل فرد من أفراد جنس الإنسان ضعيفًا. انظر: البلاغة العربية للميداني (1/ 443 – 444).
  120. قال في كشف الأسرار (2/ 14): “ذهب جمهور الأصوليين وعامة مشايخنا وعامة أهل اللغة إلى أن موجبه (أي: اسم الجنس إذا دخلته لام التعريف لا للعهد) العموم والاستغراق؛ لأن العلماء أجمعوا على إجراء قوله تعالى: {والسارق والسارقة فاقطعوا أيديهما} [المائدة: 38]، وقوله عز اسمه: {الزانية والزاني} [النور: 2] على العموم، واستدلوا باستغراقهما من غير نكير”.
  121. قال في البحر المحيط (4/ 132): “والفقهاء كالمجمعين عليه في استدلالهم بنحو {والسارق والسارقة} [المائدة: 38] {الزانية والزاني} [النور: 2] وهو الحق؛ لأن الجنس معلوم قبل دخول الألف واللام، فإذا دخلتا ولا معهود، فلو لم يجعله للاستغراق لم يفد شيئا جديدا”.
  122. قال في كشف الأسرار (2/ 14): “وكذا أريد من قوله تعالى. {والنخل باسقات} [ق: 10] . {والخيل والبغال والحمير} [النحل: 8] . {هو الذي جعل لكم الليل لتسكنوا فيه والنهار مبصرا} [يونس: 67] . {يا أيها الناس} [البقرة: 21] . {والعصر إن الإنسان لفي خسر} [العصر: 1-2] كل الجنس، لا فرد مخصوص. ونص الزجاج أن الإنسان في قوله تعالى: {إن الإنسان لفي خسر} [العصر: 2] بمنزلة قوله: الناس. وكذا يقال: الفرس أعدى من الحمار، والأسد أقوى من الذئب، ويراد به كل الجنس، لا الفرد. وقد انعقد عليه إجماع أهل اللغة أيضا…، حتى قال أهل السنة بأجمعهم: إن اللام في قوله تعالى {الحمد لله} [الفاتحة: 2] لاستغراق الجنس، فقالوا: معناه جميع المحامد لله تعالى”.
  123. ذكر في ميزان الأصول في نتائج العقول (1/ 265) أنه قول العامة، واحتج له باستعمال أهل اللغة، وبإجماع أئمة اللغة، وبالمعقول اللغوي.
  124. قال في التحرير والتنوير (21/216): “الإنسان أريد به الجنس، وبدء خلقه هو خلق أصله آدم كما في قوله تعالى: ولقد خلقناكم ثم صورناكم ثم قلنا للملائكة اسجدوا لآدم [الأعراف: 11] ، أي: خلقنا أباكم ثم صورناه ثم قلنا للملائكة اسجدوا لآدم. ويدل على هذا المعنى هنا قوله: ثم جعل نسله من سلالة فإن ذلك بدىء من أول نسل لآدم وحواء”.
  125. قال في الكشاف (4/735): “توصية الإنسان بالنظر في أول أمره ونشأته الأولى”. وقال في المحرر الوجيز (5/ 437): “توقيف لمنكري البعث على أصل الخلقة”. وقال القرطبي في الجامع لأحكام القرآن (20/ 4): “{فَلْيَنْظُرِ الْأِنْسَانُ} أي ابن آدم {مِمَّ خُلِقَ} وجه الاتصال بما قبله توصية الإنسان بالنظر في أول أمره”. وفي تفسير البيضاوي (5/303): “في مبدأ أمره”، ومثله في تفسير النسفي (3/628)، وفي البحر المحيط (10/ 451): “أتبع ذلك بوصية الإنسان بالنظر في أول نشأته الأولى”، وفي روح المعاني (15/ 307): “مبدأ خلقه”.
  126. قال في مفاتيح الغيب (21/ 374): “من تمام كرامته على الله تعالى أنه تعالى لما خلقه في أول الأمر وصف نفسه بأنه أكرم فقال: اقرأ باسم ربك الذي خلق خلق الإنسان من علق اقرأ وربك الأكرم الذي علم بالقلم [العلق: 1- 4]”
  127. قال ابن كثير في تفسيره (8/ 437): “وفيها التنبيه على ابتداء خلق الإنسان”.
  128. قال أبو منصور الماتريدي في تأويلات أهل السنة (10/ 577): “قوله: (خَلَقَ الْإِنْسَانَ مِنْ عَلَقٍ)، أراد به كل إنسان، و (عَلَّمَ الْإِنْسَانَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ) كذلك؛ ليعلم أن الاسم الفرد إذا دخله لام التعريف أريد به العموم، وهو كقوله – تعالى -: (إِنَّ الْإِنْسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ)”. وقال ابن عطية في المحرر الوجيز (5/ 473): “والإنسان هنا اسم الجنس، ويمشي الذهن معه الى جميع الحيوان، وليست الاشارة الى آدم لأنه مخلوق من طين ولم يكن ذلك متقررا عند الكفار المخاطبين بهذه الآية فلذلك ترك أصل الخلقة وسيق لهم الفرع الذي هم به مقرون تقريبا لأفهامهم”. وقال أبو حيان في البحر المحيط (10/ 507): “الإنسان هنا اسم جنس”. وقال الثعالبي في الجواهر الحسان (5/ 608): “والإنسان هنا اسم جنس”. وقال البقاعي في نظم الدرر (22/ 155): “{خلق الإنسان} أي هذا الجنس”. وقال في تفسير الجلالين (ص: 814): “{خلق الإنسان} الجنس {من علق}”.
  129. قال في الهداية الى بلوغ النهاية (12/ 7903): “الإنسان الثاني فهو للجنس بلا خلاف”. وفي الكشاف (4/ 665): “المراد بالإنسان: جنس بنى آدم”. وفي المحرر الوجيز (5/ 380): “قوله تعالى ” إنا خلقنا الإنسان ” هو هنا اسم الجنس بلا خلاف”. وفي أنوار التنزيل (5/ 269): “المراد بالإنسان الجنس”. وفي “البحر المحيط” (10/ 358): “إنا خلقنا الإنسان: هو جنس بني آدم لأن آدم لم يخلق من نطفة أمشاج”. وفي الجواهر الحسان (5/ 527): “الإنسان هنا: اسم جنس بلا خلاف”. وفي الجلالين (ص: 781): “{إنا خلقنا الإنسان} الجنس {من نطفة أمشاج}”.
  130. قال الواحدي في التفسير الوسيط (3/ 285): “المراد بالإنسان ولد آدم، وهو اسم الجنس يقع على الجميع”. وفي تفسير البغوي (5/ 411): “و”الإنسان” اسم الجنس، يقع على الواحد والجمع”. وفي تفسير البيضاوي (4/ 83): “الإنسان آدم عليه السلام خلق من صفوة سلت من الطين، أو الجنس فإنهم خلقوا من سلالات جعلت نطفا بعد أدوار”. وفي تفسير ابن كثير (3/ 391-392): “{ولقد خلقنا الإنسان من سلالة من طين [ثم جعلناه نطفة في قرار مكين] } (6) [المؤمنون: 12 -13] فإن المراد منه آدم المخلوق من السلالة وذريته مخلوقون من نطفة، وصح هذا لأن المراد من “خلقنا الإنسان” الجنس، لا معينا، والله أعلم”. وفي تفسير أبي السعود (6/ 126): “والمراد بالإنسان الجنس أي وبالله لقد خلقنا جنس الإنسان في ضمن خلق آدم عليه السلام خلقا إجماليا حسبما تحققته في سورة الحج…، {ثم جعلناه} أي الجنس باعتبار أفراده”.
  131. قال في الكشاف (4/ 665): “المراد بالإنسان: جنس بنى آدم”. وفي تفسير العز بن عبد السلام (3/ 398): “{خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَانَ} كل بني آدم اتفاقاً”. وفي البحر المحيط (10/ 358): “إنا خلقنا الإنسان: هو جنس بني آدم”.
  132. قال الطبري في جامع البيان (17/ 466): “الذي خلقكم إنسا من غير شيء أول مرة”.
  133. قال الطبري في جامع البيان (21/453): “(وهو خلقكم أول مرة) يقول تعالى ذكره: والله خلقكم الخلق الأول ولم تكونوا شيئا”.
  134. قال الطبري في جامع البيان (20/55): “(يحييها الذي أنشأها أول مرة) يقول: يحييها الذي ابتدع خلقها أول مرة ولم تكن شيئا”.
  135. Lane’s Lexicon, root word بدع, (pg 166).
  136. قال البيضاوي في أنوار التنزيل (3/258): “فسيقولون من يعيدنا قل الذي فطركم أول مرة وكنتم ترابا”.
  137. قال الألوسي في روح المعاني (8/88): ” فَسَيَقُولُونَ لك: مَنْ يُعِيدُنا مع ما بيننا وبين الإعادة من مثل هذه المباعدة والمباينة قُلِ لهم تحقيقا للحق وإزاحة للاستبعاد وإرشادا إلى طريقة الاستدلال الَّذِي فَطَرَكُمْ أي القادر العظيم الذي اخترعكم أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ من غير مثال يحتذيه ولا أسلوب ينتحيه وكنتم ترابا”.
  138. قال في تأويلات أهل السنة (8/539): “أي: فلير الإنسان ولينظر أن من قدر على خلق الإنسان مبتدأ من نطفة لقادر على إعادته”.
  139. قال ابن كثير في تفسيره (6/594): ” أي: أولم يستدل من أنكر البعث بالبدء على الإعادة، فإن الله ابتدأ خلق الإنسان من سلالة من ماء مهين، فخلقه من شيء حقير ضعيف مهين…، فالذي خلقه من هذه النطفة الضعيفة أليس بقادر على إعادته بعد موته؟ كما قال الإمام أحمد في مسنده: …، عن بسر بن جحاش؛ أن رسول الله ﷺ بصق يوما في كفه، فوضع عليها أصبعه، ثم قال: “قال الله تعالى: ابن آدم، أنى تعجزني وقد خلقتك من مثل هذه، حتى إذا سويتك وعدلتك، مشيت بين برديك وللأرض منك وئيد، فجمعت ومنعت، حتى إذا بلغت التراقي قلت: أتصدق وأنى أوان الصدقة؟”.
  140. قال في التحرير والتنوير (30/122): “أي: كما كان خلق الإنسان أول مرة من نطفة يكون خلقه ثاني مرة من كائن ما”.
  141. قال الطبري في جامع البيان (18/ 544): “معنى الكلام: نعيد الخلق عراة حفاة غرلا يوم القيامة، كما بدأناهم أول مرة في حال خلقناهم في بطون أمهاتهم”. وقال الواحدي في التفسير الوسيط (3/ 254): “قوله: {كما بدأنا أول خلق نعيده} [الأنبياء: 104] كما بدأناهم في بطون أمهاتهم حفاة عراة غرلا، كذلك نعيدهم يوم أول”.
  142. رواه البخاري في صحيحه (5626)، عن ابن عباس، قال: قام فينا النبي ﷺ يخطب، فقال: “إنكم محشورون حفاة عراة غرلا: {كما بدأنا أول خلق نعيده} [الأنبياء: 104] الآية”.
  143. قال في التحرير والتنوير (22/ 276) في تفسير قوله تعالى: “والله خلقكم من تراب ثم من نطفة ثم جعلكم أزواجا” : “فابتدأهم بتذكيرهم بأصل التكوين الأول من تراب وهو ما تقرر علمه لدى جميع البشر من أن أصلهم وهو البشر الأول، خلق من طين فصار ذلك حقيقة مقررة في علم البشر وهي مما يعبر عنه في المنطق «بالأصول الموضوعة» القائمة مقام المحسوسات. ثم استدرجهم إلى التكوين الثاني بدلالة خلق النسل من نطفة وذلك علم مستقر في النفوس بمشاهدة الحاضر وقياس الغائب على المشاهد، فكما يجزم المرء بأن نسله خلق من نطفته يجزم بأنه خلق من نطفة أبويه، وهكذا يصعد إلى تخلق أبناء آدم وحواء”.
  144. قال في مفاتيح الغيب (31/ 128): “أثنى على نفسه بسبب خلقه إياه، فقال: فتبارك الله أحسن الخالقين”.
  145. الهداية الى بلوغ النهاية (6/ 4038): “يعني: آدم خلقه في أحسن صورة”.
  146. قال في جامع البيان (24/ 508): “أولى الأقوال في ذلك بالصواب: أن يقال: إن معنى ذلك: لقد خلقنا الإنسان في أحسن صورة وأعدلها”. وفي الهداية إلى بلوغ النهاية (12/ 8342): “والمعنى: لقد خلقنا الإنسان في أعدل خلق وأحسن صورة”. وفي الوجيز (ص 1214): “أحسن تقويم، صورةٍ لأنَّه معتدل القامة يتناول مأكوله بيده”. وفي تفسير السمعاني (6/ 253): “قال مجاهد وإبراهيم وجماعة: في أحسن تقويم أي: في أحسن صورة”. وفي غرائب التفسير (2/ 1359): “قوله: فِي أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِيمٍ، أي في تقويم، معتدل القامة منتصبيها يتناول مأكوله بيده”. وفي تفسير البغوي (8/ 472): “{لقد خلقنا الإنسان في أحسن تقويم} أي: أعدل قامة وأحسن صورة، وذلك أنه خلق كل حيوان منكبا على وجهه إلا الإنسان خلقه مديد القامة، يتناول مأكوله بيده، مزينا بالعقل والتمييز”. وفي الكشاف (4/ 774): في أحسن تقويم: في أحسن تعديل لشكله وصورته وتسوية لأعضائه”. وفي مفاتيح الغيب (32/ 212): “ذكروا في شرح ذلك الحسن وجوها أحدها: أنه تعالى خلق كل ذي روح مكبا على وجهه إلا الإنسان فإنه تعالى خلقه مديد القامة يتناول مأكوله بيده وقال الأصم: في أكمل عقل وفهم وأدب وعلم وبيان، والحاصل أن القول الأول راجع إلى الصورة الظاهرة، والثاني إلى/ السيرة الباطنة”. وفي الجامع لأحكام القرآن (20/ 114): {فِي أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِيمٍ} وهو اعتداله واستواء شبابه ؛ كذا قال عامة المفسرين. وهو أحسن ما يكون ؛ لأنه خلق كل شيء منكبا عل وجهه ، وخلقه هو مستويا، وله لسان ذلق، ويد وأصابع يقبض بها. وقال أبو بكر بن طاهر : مُزيناً بالعقل ، مُؤدياً للأمر ، مَهدياً بالتمييز ، مديد القامة ؛ يتناول مأكوله بيده. ابن العربي : ليس لله تعالى خلق أحسن من الإنسان ، فإن اللّه خلقه حيا عالما ، قادرا مريدا متكلما ، سميعا بصيرا ، مدبرا حكيما. وهذه صفات الرب سبحانه”. وفي تفسير البيضاوي (5/ 323): “لقد خلقنا الإنسان يريد به الجنس. في أحسن تقويم تعديل بأن خص بانتصاب القامة وحسن الصورة واستجماع خواص الكائنات ونظائر سائر الممكنات”. وفي تفسير النسفي (3/ 660): “{لقد خلقنا الإنسان} وهو جنس {فى أحسن تقويم} في أحسن تعديل لشكله وصورته وتسوية أعضائه”. وفي البحر المحيط (10/ 503): “في أحسن تقويم، قال النخعي ومجاهد وقتادة: حسن صورته وحواسه. وقيل: انتصاب قامته. وقال أبو بكر بن طاهر: عقله وإدراكه زيناه بالتمييز. وقال عكرمة: شبابه وقوته، والأولى العموم في كل ما هو أحسن. والإنسان هنا اسم جنس”. وفي تفسير ابن كثير (8/ 435): “قوله: {لقد خلقنا الإنسان في أحسن تقويم} هذا هو المقسم عليه، وهو أنه تعالى خلق الإنسان في أحسن صورة، وشكل منتصب القامة، سوي الأعضاء حسنها”. وفي نظم الدرر (22/138- 139): “{في أحسن تقويم *} أي كائن منا روحاً وعقلاً أو أعم من ذلك بما جعلنا له من حسن الخلق والخلق بما خص به من انتصاب القامة وحسن الصورة واجتماع خواص الكائنات ونظائر سائر الممكنات بعد ما شارك فيه غيره من السمع والبصرة والذوق واللمس والشم الجوارح التي هيأته لما خلق له حتى قيل إنه العالم الأصغر”. وفي الدر المنثور (8/ 556): “{لقد خلقنا الإنسان في أحسن تقويم} قال: في أحسن صورة”. وفي تفسير أبي السعود (9/ 175): “{لقد خلقنا الإنسان} أي جنس الإنسان {فى أحسن تقويم} أي كائنا في أحسن ما يكون من التقويم والتعديل صورة ومعنى حيث برأه الله تعالى مستوي القامة متناسب الأعضاء متصفا بالحياة والعلم والقدرة والإرادة والتكلم والسمع والبصر وغير ذلك من الصفات التي هي من أنموذجات من الصفات السبحانية وآثار له”. وفي فتح القدير (5/ 567): “أي: خلقنا جنس الإنسان كائنا في أحسن تقويم وتعديل”.
  147. وفي تفسير الثعالبي (5/ 606): “وحسن التقويم يشمل جميع محاسن الإنسان الظاهرة والباطنة من حسن صورته، وانتصاب قامته، وكمال عقله، وحسن تمييزه”.
  148. قال في تأويلات أهل السنة (10/ 32): “معنى ذلك: أن الله تعالى خلق بني آدم على صورة لا يودون أن يكون صورتهم مثل صورة غيرهم من الخلائق، فثبت أن صورتهم في المنظر أحسن صورة، فذلك معنى قوله تعالى: (وصوركم فأحسن صوركم)”.
  149. قال في المحرر الوجيز (5/ 291): “وصوركم فأحسن صوركم: وهذا تعديد النعمة في حسن الخلقة لأن أعضاء ابن آدم متصرفة لجميع ما تتصرف به اعضاء الحيوان وبزيادات كثيرة فضل بها ثم هو مفضل بحسن الوجه وجمال الجوارح”.
  150. تفسير السمعاني (5/ 29): “وقوله: {وصوركم فأحسن صوركم} في التفسير: أنه لا يأكل بيده [شيء] سوى الآدميين، ولا صورة على هذه الصورة أحسن من الآدميين”.
  151. قال في غرائب التفسير وعجائب التأويل (2/ 1217): “قوله: (فَأَحْسَنَ صُوَرَكُمْ)، صورة الإنسان أحسن من صورة الحيوان ولم يشارك بني آدم في صورته وشكله غيرهم“.
  152. قال الواحدي في التفسير الوسيط (4/ 20): “قال الزجاج: خلقكم أحسن الحيوان كله”. وفي زاد المسير (4/ 292) مثله. وفي نظم الدرر (20/ 107): “{فأحسن صوركم} فجعلها أحسن صور الحيوانات كلها”.
  153. قال في الجواهر الحسان (5/ 438): “فأحسن صوركم هو تعديد نعم، والمراد الصورة الظاهرة”.
  154. قال في الكشاف (4/ 546): “فإن قلت. كيف أحسن صورهم؟ قلت: جعلهم أحسن الحيوان كله وأبهاه، بدليل أن الإنسان لا يتمنى أن تكون صورته على خلاف ما يرى من سائر الصور”.
  155. قال ابن كثير في تفسيره (7/ 156): “{وصوركم فأحسن صوركم} أي: فخلقكم في أحسن الأشكال، ومنحكم أكمل الصور في أحسن تقويم”.
  156. قال في نظم الدرر (17/ 105): “{فأحسن صوركم} على أشكال وأحوال مع أنها أحسن الصور ليس في الوجود ما يشبهها…، فثبت قطعاً أنه هو المصور سبحانه على غير مثال”.
  157. قال الطبري في جامع البيان (12/321): “قوله: (ولقد خلقناكم ثم صورناكم) ، معناه: ولقد خلقنا أباكم آدم ثم صورناه”.
  158. قال في إرشاد العقل السليم (3/ 214): “{ولقد خلقناكم ثم صورناكم} تذكير لنعمة عظيمة فائضة على آدم عليه السلام سارية إلى ذريته موجبة لشكرهم”.
  159. قال في روح المعاني (4/ 327): “المعنى خلقنا أباكم آدم عليه السلام طينا غير مصور ثم صورناه أبدع تصوير وأحسن تقويم سار ذلك إليكم.”
  160. قال في الوجيز (ص: 642): “{ولقد كرَّمنا} فضَّلنا {بني آدم} بالعقل والنُّطق والتَّمييز”.
  161. قال في تفسيره (5/97): “يخبر تعالى عن تشريفه لبني آدم، وتكريمه إياهم، في خلقه لهم على أحسن الهيئات وأكملها”.
  162. قال في تأويلات أهل السنة (7/ 86): “كرمهم بأن خلقهم في أحسن صورة؛ كقوله: (وصوركم فأحسن صوركم)، وقومهم في أحسن تقويم وأحسن قامة؛ كقوله: (لقد خلقنا الإنسان في أحسن تقويم)، وكرمهم بأن ركب فيهم العقول التي بها يعرفون الكرامات من الهوان، ويعرفون بها المحاسن من المساوي، والحكمة من السفه، والخير من الشر، وكرمهم بأن جعل لهم لسانا يتكلمون بها الحكمة وكل خير، وبها يتوصلون إلى درك الحكمة وجمعها، وكرمهم بأن جعل أرزاقهم أطيب الأرزاق وجعل لغيرهم ما خبث منها وما فضل منهم، وكرمهم بأن خلق جميع ما على وجه الأرض لهم؛ كقوله: (خلق لكم ما في الأرض جميعا)، وكرمهم بأن سخر لهم جميع الخلائق: (وسخر لكم ما في السماوات وما في الأرض جميعا منه)، وجعل بني آدم هم المقصودون بخلق جميع الخلائق ونحوه، وكرمهم حيث جعلهم بحيث يتهيأ لهم استعمال السماء والأرض، واستعمال الشمس والقمر، واستعمال البحار والبراري، وجميع الصعاب والشدائد في حوائجهم ومنافعهم ما لا يتهيأ لغيرهم من الخلائق ذلك؛ فذلك تفضيلهم”.
  163. Bracing for Islamic Creationism, Salman Hameed.
  164. قال في منهاج السنة النبوية (2/409): ” إنما كانوا يقدحون فيهم بالافتراء عليهم، كما كانوا يؤذون موسى عليه السلام”.
  165. قال في شرح المقاصد (2/ 198): “من شروط النبوة الذكورة وكمال العقل والذكاء والفطنة وقوة الرأي ولو في الصبي كعيسى ويحيى عليهما السلام والسلامة عن كل ما ينفر عنه كزنا الآباء وعهر الأمهات والغلظة والفظاظة والعيوب المنفرة كالبرص والجذام ونحو ذلك والأمور المخلة بالمروءة كالأكل على الطريق والحرف الدنيئة كالحجامة وكل ما يخل بحكم البعثة من أداء الشرايع وقبول الأمة”. وقال في لوامع الأنوار البهية (2/ 267): “والحاصل اختصاص النبوة بأشرف أفراد النوع الإنساني من كمال العقل والذكاء والفطنة وقوة الرأي ولو في الصبا كعيسى ويحيى عليهما السلام، والسلامة من كل ما نفر عن الاتباع كدناءة الآباء وعهر الأمهات والغلظة والعيوب المنفرة للطباع كالبرص والجذام، والأمور المخلة بالمروءة كأكل على الطريق، والحرف الدنية كالحجامة، وكل ما يخل بحكمة البعثة ونحو ذلك، وبالله التوفيق”.
  166. قال في جامع البيان (20/ 447): “يقول تعالى ذكره: (والله خلقكم) أيها الناس (من تراب) يعني بذلك أنه خلق أباهم آدم من تراب؛ فجعل خلق أبيهم منه لهم خلقا (ثم من نطفة) يقول: ثم خلقكم من نطفة الرجل والمرأة (ثم جعلكم أزواجا) يعني أنه زوج منهم الأنثى من الذكر”. وفي الجامع لأحكام القرآن (14/ 333): “{ وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ } قال سعيد عن قتادة قال : يعني آدم عليه السلام ، والتقدير على هذا : خلق أصلكم من تراب. { ثُمَّ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ } قال : أي التي أخرجها من ظهور آبائكم. { ثُمَّ جَعَلَكُمْ أَزْوَاجاً } قال : أي زوج بعضكم بعضا”. وفي فتح القدير (4/ 392): “قال: والله خلقكم من تراب أي: خلقكم ابتداء في ضمن خلق أبيكم آدم من تراب. وقال قتادة: يعني آدم، والتقدير على هذا: خلق أباكم الأول، وأصلكم الذي ترجعون إليه من تراب ثم من نطفة أخرجها من ظهر آبائكم ثم جعلكم أزواجا أي: زوج بعضكم ببعض، فالذكر زوج الأنثى”.
  167. قال في تفسير البغوي (6/ 266): “{ومن آياته أن خلق لكم من أنفسكم أزواجا}…، من جنسكم من بني آدم”. وفي زاد المسير (2/ 571): “«من أنفسكم» ، أي: من جنسكم من بني آدم”. وفي تفسير الخازن (5/ 206): “خلق لكم من أنفسكم أزواجاً ( أي جنسكم من بني آدم”. وفي اللباب في علوم الكتاب (15/ 396): “«مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ» يعني من بني آدم”. وفي الدر المنثور (6/ 228): “قوله {جعل لكم من أنفسكم أزواجا} الروم الآية 21 كيف يكون زوج الإنسان من نفسه إنما هي: جعل لكم أزواجا من بني آدم ولم يجعل من الإبل والبقر وكل شيء في القرآن على هذا”.
  168. تفسير السمعاني (4/ 204): “خلق من أمثالكم أزواجا لكم، والنساء من جنس الرجال؛ لأنهم جميعا من بني آدم”.
  169. قال في تفسيره (4/ 586): {والله جعل لكم من أنفسكم أزواجا وجعل لكم من أزواجكم بنين وحفدة ورزقكم من الطيبات أفبالباطل يؤمنون وبنعمة الله هم يكفرون (72) } يذكر تعالى نعمه على عبيده، بأن جعل لهم من أنفسهم أزواجا من جنسهم وشكلهم وزيهم، ولو جعل الأزواج من نوع آخر لما حصل ائتلاف ومودة ورحمة، ولكن من رحمته خلق من بني آدم ذكورا وإناثا، وجعل الإناث أزواجا للذكور.
  170. قال في تفسيره (6/ 309): “ولو أنه جعل بني آدم كلهم ذكورا وجعل إناثهم من جنس آخر من غيرهم، إما من جان أو حيوان، لما حصل هذا الائتلاف بينهم وبين الأزواج، بل كانت تحصل نفرة لو كانت الأزواج من غير الجنس”.
  171. قال في الفتاوى السراجية (ص 193): “لا يجوز المناكحة بين بني آدم والجن والإنسان المائي؛ لاختلاف الجنس”.
  172. قال في الأشباه والنظائر (ص: 257) : “ومنها: أنه لم يرد الإذن من الشرع في ذلك، فإن الله تعالى قال {فانكحوا ما طاب لكم من النساء} [النساء: 3] والنساء: اسم لإناث بني آدم خاصة، فبقي ما عداهن على التحريم ; لأن الأصل في الأبضاع الحرمة حتى يرد دليل على الحل”.
  173. قال في الأشباه والنظائر (ص: 282): “في يتيمة الدهر في فتاوى أهل العصر: سئل علي بن أحمد عن التزويج بامرأة مسلمة من الجن؛ هل يجوز إذا تصور ذلك أم يختص الجواز بالآدميين؟ فقال: يصفع هذا السائل لحماقته وجهله”.
  174. Ibn literally means son. But when the word banī is used for men and women together, as in Banī Ādam, the masculine plural is made predominant, and the meaning would be: the sons and daughters, or the children of Adam. See: Lane Lexicon, root word (بنى).
  175. قال في مفاتيح الغيب (10/ 23-24): “أما نكاح الأخوات فقد نقل أن ذلك كان مباحا في زمن آدم عليه السلام، وإنما حكم الله بإباحة ذلك على سبيل الضرورة، ورأيت بعض المشايخ أنكر ذلك، وقال: إنه تعالى كان يبعث الحواري من الجنة ليزوج بهن أبناء آدم عليه السلام وهذا بعيد، لأنه إذا كان زوجات أبنائه وأزواج بناته من أهل الجنة، فحينئذ لا يكون هذا النسل من أولاد آدم فقط، وذلك بالإجماع باطل”.
  176. قال في جامع البيان (1/ 17): “أنساب بني آدم محصورة على أحد الطرفين (أي: الآباء) دون الآخر؛ لقول الله تعالى ذكره: {ادعوهم لآبائهم هو أقسط عند الله} [سورة الأحزاب: 5]”.
  177. قال في تفسيره(6/377): “أمر الله تعالى برد نسبهم إلى آبائهم في الحقيقة، وأن هذا هو العدل والقسط”.
  178. قال في التلخيص في معرفة أسماء الأشياء (ص 130): “نَسْلُ الرجلِ: وَلَدُهُ وولَدُ ولُدِهِ، والنَّاسُ كلّهُم نَسْلُ آدمَ عليهِ السلام”.
  179. قال في الفروق اللغوية (ص: 282): “إن قولنا: هو ابن فلان، يقتضي أنه منسوب إليه، ولهذا يقال: الناس بنو آدم؛ لأنهم منسوبون إليه، وكذلك بنو إسرائيل”.
  180. قال في العين (7/ 219): “بني اسرائيل وهم بنو يعقوب بنِ إسحاق”.
  181. قال في المبسوط (9/122): “بني فلان حقيقة: أولاده لصلبه”. وقال في “المغني”: (6/470): “وإن أوصى لولد فلان أو لبني فلان ولم يكونوا قبيلة: فهو لولده لصلبه”.
  182. قال في مجموع الفتاوى (32/ 55): “أما الأولاد، فهم تبع لأمهم في الحرية والرق، وهم تبع لأبيهم في النسب والولاء باتفاق المسلمين”. وقال فيه أيضا (32/ 67): “فإن الولد يتبع أباه في النسب والحرية، ويتبع أمه في هذا باتفاق العلماء”.
  183. قال السيوطي في الحاوي (2/38-39): “وقد ذكر الفقهاء من خصائصه ﷺ: أنه ينسب إليه أولاد بناته، ولم يذكروا مثل ذلك في أولاد بنات بناته، فالخصوصية للطبقة العليا فقط، فأولاد فاطمة الأربعة ينسبون إليه، وأولاد الحسن والحسين ينسبون إليهما فينسبون إليه، وأولاد زينب وأم كلثوم [بنات فاطمة] ينسبون إلى أبيهم عمر وعبد الله، لا إلى الأم، ولا إلى أبيها ﷺ؛ لأنهم أولاد بنت بنته، لا أولاد بنته، فجرى الأمر فيهم على قاعدة الشرع في أن الولد يتبع أباه في النسب لا أمه، وإنما خرج أولاد فاطمة وحدها للخصوصية التي ورد الحديث بها، وهو مقصور على ذرية الحسن والحسين ….ولهذا جرى السلف والخلف على أن ابن الشريفة لا يكون شريفاً، ولو كانت الخصوصية عامة في أولاد بناته وإن سفلن لكان ابن كل شريفة شريفاً تحرم عليه الصدقة وإن لم يكن أبوه كذلك، كما هو معلوم”.ومثله في الفتاوى الحديثية لابن حجر الهيتمي (ص 120)، ورد المحتار (6/685).
  184. قال في الإبانة عن أصول الديانة (ص: 97-99): الباب الرابع الكلام على من توقف في القرآن وقال لا أقول إنه مخلوق ولا أنه غير مخلوق. جواب: يقال لهم: لِم زعمتم ذلك وقلتموه؟ فإن قالوا: قلنا ذلك؛ لأن الله لم يقل في كتابه إنه مخلوق، ولا قاله رسول الله ﷺ، ولا أجمع المسلمون عليه، ولم يقل في كتابه إنه غير مخلوق، ولا قال ذلك رسول الله ﷺ، ولا أجمع عليه المسلمون، فتوقفنا لذلك، ولم نقل إنه مخلوق، ولا إنه غير مخلوق. يقال لهم: فهل قال الله تعالى لكم في كتابه توقفوا فيه ولا تقولوا إنه غير مخلوق، وقال لكم رسول الله ﷺ توقفوا عن أن تقولوا إنه غير مخلوق، وهل أجمع المسلمون على التوقف عن القول إنه غير مخلوق؟ فإن قالوا: نعم، فقد بهتوا. وإن قالوا: لا، قيل لهم: فلا تقفوا عن أن تقولوا غير مخلوق بمثل الحجة التي بها ألزمتم أنفسكم التوقف. ثم يقال لهم: ولم أبيتم أن يكون في كتاب الله ما يدل على أن القرآن غير مخلوق؟ فإن قالوا: لم نجده، قيل لهم: ولم زعمتم أنكم إذا لم تجدوه في القرآن فليس بموجود فيه؟ ثم إنا نوجدهم ذلك، ونتلو عليهم الآيات التي احتججنا بها في كتابنا هذا، واستدللنا بها على أن القرآن غير مخلوق”.
  185. Jalajel, Islam and Biological Evolution (2009), p. 3.
  186. https://themuslim500.com/guest-contributions-2021/islam-and-evolution-the-curious-case-of-david-solomon-jalajel/
  187. https://themuslim500.com/guest-contributions-2021/islam-and-evolution-the-curious-case-of-david-solomon-jalajel/
  188. التحرير والتنوير (26/ 343): “واعلم أن الخرص في أصول الاعتقاد مذموم لأنها لا تبنى إلا على اليقين لخطر أمرها، وهو أصل محل الذم في هذه الآية”.
  189. قال في الهداية إلى بلوغ النهاية (10/ 6643): “{أَشَهِدُواْ خَلْقَهُمْ} هذا على التقرير والتوبيخ لهم، ومعناه: لم يشهدوا خلق الملائكة، فكيف تجرؤوا على وصفهم بالإناث. ثم قال تعالى: على التهدد والوعيد لمن فعل ذلك (ولمن يقول ذلك): {سَتُكْتَبُ شَهَادَتُهُمْ وَيُسْأَلُونَ}، أي: يسألون عن قولهم وافترائهم يوم القيامة، ولن يجدوا إلى الاعتذار من قولهم سبيلاً.”
  190. الجواهر الحسان في تفسير القرآن (3/530): “قوله سبحانه: ما أشهدتهم خلق السماوات والأرض … الآية: فتتضمن الآية الرد على طوائف من المنجمين وأهل الطبائع والمتحكمين من الأطباء، وسواهم من كل من يتخرص في هذه الأشياء”
  191. رواه البخاري في صحيحه (5590) عن أَبي عَامِرٍ ـ أَوْ أَبي مَالِكٍ ـ الأَشْعَرِيُّ أنه سَمِعَ النَّبِيَّ ﷺ يَقُولُ ‏ “‏ لَيَكُونَنَّ مِنْ أُمَّتِي أَقْوَامٌ يَسْتَحِلُّونَ الْحِرَ وَالْحَرِيرَ وَالْخَمْرَ وَالْمَعَازِفَ، وَلَيَنْزِلَنَّ أَقْوَامٌ إِلَى جَنْبِ عَلَمٍ يَرُوحُ عَلَيْهِمْ بِسَارِحَةٍ لَهُمْ، يَأْتِيهِمْ ـ يَعْنِي الْفَقِيرَ ـ لِحَاجَةٍ فَيَقُولُوا ارْجِعْ إِلَيْنَا غَدًا‏.‏ فَيُبَيِّتُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَضَعُ الْعَلَمَ، وَيَمْسَخُ آخَرِينَ قِرَدَةً وَخَنَازِيرَ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ‏”‏‏.
  192. روى مسلم في صحيحه (1951) عن أبي سعيد، أن أعرابيا أتى رسول الله ﷺ، فقال: إني في غائط مضبة، وإنه عامة طعام أهلي؟ قال: فلم يجبه، فقلنا: عاوده، فعاوده، فلم يجبه ثلاثا، ثم ناداه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في الثالثة، فقال: “يا أعرابي، إن الله لعن – أو غضب – على سبط من بني إسرائيل فمسخهم دواب، يدبون في الأرض، فلا أدري، لعل هذا منها، فلست آكلها، ولا أنهى عنها”.

 

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!

3 COMMENTS

  1. Jazak Allahu khayran❤

    I’m gonna pick up this text:
    The coming into existence of the human body is evidence of the existence of Allah, and that is because the generation of multiple organs so diverse in nature, form, and shape, from a homogenous sperm-drop is not [rationally] possible unless the Creator purposely brought those organs into existence from a state of non-existence into those specific forms and natures. So, the coming into existence of these different organs is evidence of the existence of an all-Knowing Omnipotent Creator, Who by His Mercy and Beneficence, purposely created these organs in a form adequate for our needs and conducive to our benefit.

  2. To add insult to their injury, do a part two that gives Islamic evidences that Prophet Nuh ‘alaihis salam is referred to as second Adam ‘alaihis salam. Every human alive today is a descendant of Nuh ‘alaihis salam.

    Go the extra mile and give them more heartache, above and beyond refutations.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here