By: Allama Mohammed Shihabuddin Nadvi

Islam and all other divinely revealed faiths besides acknowledging presence of an Almighty God, also recognize the fact that Adam (Pbuh) was the first human being on the earth. He was specially created by Allah. But since this belief is not compatible with the theory of evolution, a few modern intellectuals have tried to forcibly bring about compatibility. In such exercises they accepted the theory of evolution as it is but made whimsical interpretation of the verses of the holy Qur’an. As if, they could go to any length in interpreting the Qur’an but would not dare demand any amendment in the evolution hypothesis. All this, despite the fact that the theory of evolution was promoted by forces hostile to religion with active abetment of atheists, materialists, Marxists, Jews, Zionists and Freemasons.

It is rather bizarre that, the evolution hypothesis has elicited support from some innocent friends of Islam too. From the Islamic point of view, the evolution theory and the Creation of Adam cannot simultaneously be regarded as facts. One of the two has only to be taken as correct. In consideration of the vivid and cogent proofs presented in the holy Qur’an and the descriptions found in the Sahih Ahadith about the creation of the first man, namely Adam, the evolution theory has to be regarded as a mistaken and self-imposed proposition. However it is no more regarded as a mere hypothesis. It has attained the status of a Faith. Factually if one believe in it, it amounts to the negation of both Islam and the holy Qur’an. The two cannot go together and anyone who does so, cannot avoid the intellectual contradiction and consequent riddlesome situation. We have already analysed its rational basis and rejected it in the light of the holy Qur’an.

Among the Muslim intellectuals who attempted to explain the western concepts from the Qur’anic verses, a large number belongs to the category who were apologetic towards the West. But there are a few Ulama too in that group who despite their unflinching faith in Islam, could not avoid falling victims to the Western propaganda. Among the “enlightened” group of intellectuals there was a palpable tendency to dismiss the explicit verses of the holy Qur’an as mere allegory. Thus they drove parallels between some of their perceived meaning of the Qur’an and the concepts in vogue in the intellectual circles. It cannot be a service to the Qur’an. Rather, it was an opportunistic stand and was aimed at dividing the religious circles and defaming Islam. Conformity to principles of commentary are a precondition for comprehension of the Qur’an.

Some of the Muslim intellectuals indulged in exercises to project the theory of evolution to be in total conformity with Islamic ideology. But since Adam’s creation from dust is mentioned in the Qur’an, they did not hesitate to deem these verses as allegorical or just simile. They even had the temerity to question the creation of man from dust and dismiss it as unrealistic. They even had the audacity to deny the very existence of Adam, as the first representative of human race. In their scheme of interpretation, the term “Adam” stood for the whole mankind. For example Ghulam Ahmed Parvez, who was known for his opposition to Hadith, writes:

There is a general feeling among us that Adam who was expelled from the heaven was a Prophet. The Qur’an does not support this. Various references of the Qur’an to expulsion story do not mention “Adam” as a single individual but as a representative of the mankind. It is not a story of any particular human pair, but is the story of “man” in general which has been metaphorically explained by the holy Qur’an.1

Adam is not a single individual. It is a saga of the nature of man metaphorically portrayed. The Adam may have been a prominent figure among the body of man introduced in the Qur’an in the earliest group of humanity. But it certainly does not mean any individual.2

But wherever any such interpretation was not possible, reference to “Adam” was explained as some unrelated individuals as if Qur’an refers to several “Adams” e.g., the same book has this to say:

However the reference to Adam in chapter Ale Imran’s verse 32, was different from the one who was expelled from the heaven. It is possible that he was a Prophet. Qur’an does not give any description of him.3

He makes another somersault and says:
Since Adam has been mentioned along with Noah in the aforementioned verse, it seems likely that this Adam was a Prophet. However no direct or explicit verse to this effect is there in the Qur’an. It is likely that some Prophet was named Adam.4

The above references are reflective of the scepticism and consequent somersaults and turnabouts made by the modernists. The absoluteness of the Qur’anic verses contrasts with their desperation. Any study of the holy Qur’an makes it abundantly clear that none other than Prophet Adam and the father of human beings has been referred to as Adam. It seems, some people are bent upon avoiding direct interpretation of the Qur’an or they simply have neither faith in the Qur’an nor in Hadith.

Several of the contemporary modernists among the Muslims have indulged in such exercises. They include eminent persons like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Shaikh Muhammad Abduhu, Dr. Iqbal and Dr. Rafiuddin, let alone Ghulam Ahmed Parvez and Inayathulla Khan Mashriqi.5 We will make brief reference to their erroneous interpretations before continuing the discussion.

Sir Syed’s Deviation
In reality, the deviation and modernist tendencies were the result of Sir Syed Ahmed’s (1817-1898) movement to educate Muslims on modern lines. Though his effort in establishing the first Muslim college was a highly commendable step, his new interpretation of Islamic teachings began to lend a new twist to Islamic beliefs. He felt that Islamic belief impeded his propagation of modern sciences, hence the need to reinterpret Islamic teachings. In order to fulfil this need he even wrote an incomplete commentary of the Qur’an christened as Tafseerul Qur’an in Urdu. He rejected and refuted several incidents and realities while applying his rational yardstick to Islamic faith, belief and miracles.

He too deems the whole story of Adam as metaphorical and interprets the various characters and terms in the story in varied ways. He terms the angels as “angelic forces” and Satan as “evil forces”. 6

He does not recognize the physical existence of angels and Iblees.7

The story of Adam, Iblees and the angels in the reality is not a story of some happening. It is rather a metaphorical explanation of interplay of good and evil forces within man. There are several other such metaphors in the Qur’an. 8

The term Satan or Iblees in the Qur’an does not denote any essentially physical existence, but denotes evil or devilish forces concealed within man. 9

Moulana Hali, a staunch companion supporter of Sir Syed, opines about him in the following words:

He interpreted angels as forces of the world and Satan stood for evil forces in man. He denied the existence of Jinn.10

He wrote:
The term angel in the Qur’an does not denote any separate creature superior to man. It denotes the various forces with which different articles of nature have been endowed with, such as the steadfastness of mountains, flow of water, germination and growth of plants, capacity of attraction and repulsion of electricity etc.11

The general view about the Jinn that they have been created out of flame and they had both sexes, is not supported by the Qur’an.12

Everything that has appeared in the Qur’an or Hadith describing the characteristics, attributes and deeds of the Almighty Allah, is in the nature of metaphors. Similarly everything written about the life after death e.g., accountability, scale, sirat, Heaven and Hell etc., are in a metaphorical sense and not a reality.13

According to Shaikh Muhammad Ikram:
Sir Syed adopted the style of Motazila in the interpretation of Qur’anic verses. In his commentary, Sir Syed holds all the endorsements of the Qur’an as compatible with science and wisdom. Wherever he finds incompatibility, he interprets the verses on the lines of Motazila.14

It is only a fallacy that Sir Syed’s commentary of the holy Qur’an conforms to scientific and rationalistic standards. While the science is not directly related to confirming or negating the metaphysical manifestations, the rationale does not deny these manifestations of nature. A whole world of realities is yet to reveal itself before man. There are mysteries even in the world of matter, the truth of which is yet to surface. However this is a discussion by itself.

Sir Syed had started this campaign in order to fulfil the need for a new Ilmul Kalam as is evident from his speech at Madarastul Uloom in 1876 where he said:

We need a new Ilmul Kalam in order to either condemn the problems created by the modern sciences as worthless or doubtful or bring the Islamic doctrines into conformity with them.15

It is a pity that Sir Syed could neither condemn the modern concept or proved them doubtful. Instead he ended up misinterpreting the Qur’an. Had he done the earlier, it would have surely made him a successful man. We need such men even today. Presently the Islamic world is badly in need of a new Ghazzali, a new Razi and a new Ibne Taimiah.

None can deny the useful services rendered by Sir Syed in promoting modern education among Muslims. He even repulsed the malicious missionary and orientalist propaganda against Islam. He was a sincere Muslim but his commentary on Qur’an initiated new deviationist Islam which had far-reaching implications. He did not deserve this status i.e. status of a commentator. His biographer Moulana Altaf Hussain Hali admits that Sir Syed made serious lapses in making interpretations of the holy Qur’an.16

Sir Syed’s Tafseerul Qur’an was first published in 1880. 17 And it was the first “deviationist” commentary which really influenced Muslim intellectuals of Indo-Pak sub-continent. Sheikh Muhammad Ikram says:

It appears that several Muslims began to follow Sir Syed’s line. The commentary of the holy Qur’an by Moulana Muhammad Ali, the chief of Jamaat-e-Ahmedia, is a continuation of Sir Syed’s thinking. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed adopted the views of Sir Syed about Jesus Christ (Pbuh). And as is evident from Dr. Muhammad Ismail’s observations in Nizamul Mashaikh, many other Muslims concurred with his view.18

References:

1. Parvez, Ghulam Ahmed, Lughatul Qur’an, Idarae Tulu-e-Islam, Lahore, 1960, Vol. 1, P. 214.
2. Parvez, Ghulam Ahmed, Ma’ariful Qur’an, Delhi, V. 2, P. 53.
3. Parvez, Ghulam Ahmed, Lughatul Qur’an, Vol. 1, P. 215.
4. Parvez, Ghulam Ahmed, Ma’ariful Qur’an, Delhi, V. 2, P. 52.
5. Mashriqi, Inayathulla Khan, Tazkira, Matba Vakil, Amritsar, 1924.
6. Khan, Sir Syed Ahmed, Maqalate Sir Syed, Majlis Taraqqi Adab, Lahore, 1965, Vol. 14, P. 8.
7. Ikram, Shaikh Muhammad, Mauje Kausar, Lahore, 1979, P. 159.
8. Hali, Altaf Hussain, Hayate Javeed, Taraqqi Urdu Board, New Delhi, 1979, P. 526.
9. Ibid., P. 525. 10. Ibid., P. 530.
10. Ibid., P. 526. 12. Ibid., P. 529.
11. Ibid., P. 527.
12. Ikram, Shaikh Muhammad, Mauje Kausar, Lahore, 1979, P. 159.
13. Hali, Altaf Hussain, Hayate Javed, Delhi, 1979, P. 216.
14. Ibid., P. 220. 17. Ibid., P. 487.
15. Ikram, Shaikh Muhammad, Mauje Kausar, Lahore, 1979, P. 160.