I've been wondering on something, what if during the Medieval Ages, someone of the Arab scholars would have written a work similar to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"? I mean, the Arabs seafarers did travel a lot in the Indian Ocean, they could see different faunas at the various places, I'd think it's not too far fetched that something amounting to Darwin's work could have been written there. The question is, what would have been the consequences of this, both for the Islamic world and for the West?
An Islamic "On the Origin of Species"
- Thread starter Emperor Qianlong
- Start date
Yeah, even people who has a Holy Book which says that life began at sea would still definitely JUST do such things.
IIRC the Qur'an refers to a Creation, but never entirely spells it out in detail. While a lot of clerics might well consider such thoughts improper, even heretical, but I can't see any major theological hangups as long as they don't posit that God is not part of the process. An idea of evolution as applied to human societies existed in medieval islamic philosophy, and their agronomists had enough experience breeding for certain characteristics that the concept wouldn't seem entirely alien.
However, I think for the concept of evolution to take root you'd need some kind of Linnean species classification system to spur the meticulous and precise observations that naturalists made ion the 19th century. It would also help if geologists came up with some kind of idea of the age of earth.
However, I think for the concept of evolution to take root you'd need some kind of Linnean species classification system to spur the meticulous and precise observations that naturalists made ion the 19th century. It would also help if geologists came up with some kind of idea of the age of earth.
Max Sinister
Banned
Such a classification system could come up earlier in a more progressed Islamic world. If there hadn't been the Mongols...
Or is Europe advantaged in this way, because there are more species in the forests of Europe than in the deserts of the Middle East?
Or is Europe advantaged in this way, because there are more species in the forests of Europe than in the deserts of the Middle East?
Grey Wolf
Donor
I knew a devout Muslim when I worked at the bank - his view was that Evolution is bollocks and Islam means Science and that if its not in the Koran its not true
So, I am thinking that any Islamic scientist trying to come up with this is going to have to fight, or find a way round, the religious authorities
Of course, perhaps someone in Muslim Spain could have done this more easily ?
Or how about a longer-lived Sokoto Caliphate - could it have developed more liberal Islamic views ? Considering the current state of Northern Nigeria and their hardline Sharia I would lean towards 'no', but this could be a modern reaction, whilst the Caliphate when it was there might have developed in a different way ?
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
So, I am thinking that any Islamic scientist trying to come up with this is going to have to fight, or find a way round, the religious authorities
Of course, perhaps someone in Muslim Spain could have done this more easily ?
Or how about a longer-lived Sokoto Caliphate - could it have developed more liberal Islamic views ? Considering the current state of Northern Nigeria and their hardline Sharia I would lean towards 'no', but this could be a modern reaction, whilst the Caliphate when it was there might have developed in a different way ?
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Keenir
Banned
if memory serves, it was something along the lines of "I have created you in varying degrees".
As far as I know, what Islam says about the process of the creation of the world is basically the same as what the Bible has to say about it.
Islamic creationism, as defined by writers like Harun Yahya, is pretty much identical to Christian creationism. Consequently, I think it's safe to assume that this would not have been possible if there would not have been a great similarity between what the book of Genesis and the Qur'an have to say about the process of creation.
..
And about how the Muslim community would respond to a theory of evolution: a number of scholars would regard it as an interesting possebility, whereas many of the more conservative scholars would object to it, and would create a more litteral interpretation of the Islamic teachings about the creation in response.
And there certainly were quite conservative philosophies and movements in late Medieval Islam. Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, who has written several articles and at least one book about the decline of Islamic civilisation, blames the Asharite doctrine, which appearantly became more and more important in the Muslim world during the late Medieval Ages and afterwards.
As he puts it in his own words:
[link]
Now, I'm not quite sure of wether preventing the Mongol invasions would prevent or diminish the rise of the Asharites, but it seems pretty likely that scholars who adhere the Asharite doctrine and/or similarly conservative doctrines would propably reject a theory of evolution.
ninebucks
Banned
That is very much a reactionary view, i.e. a view forged in reaction to a more powerful ideology of secular materialism. In the Golden Age of Islam, there was no more powerful alien ideology to react against, and, as such, Islamic thought was much more moderate.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
That's a pretty fundamentalist POV and would in itself have been considered heretical throughout most of Islamic history.
A theory like that would probably just be laughed away that early - there just isn't enough scientific "backstory" to support it that far in the past.
Why on earth do you think the Sokoto Caliphate would have developed more "liberal" Islamic views? It was created by a radical Jihad!
Probably any Hanafite Sunni land would have been the best bet, like Central Asia, India, and Anatolia/Balkans.
A theory like that would probably just be laughed away that early - there just isn't enough scientific "backstory" to support it that far in the past.
Why on earth do you think the Sokoto Caliphate would have developed more "liberal" Islamic views? It was created by a radical Jihad!
Probably any Hanafite Sunni land would have been the best bet, like Central Asia, India, and Anatolia/Balkans.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
That's a fairly extreme oversimplification. Again, Islamic societies were in different states of intellectual flexibility in different places at different times, just like is the case in all other cultures.
I want a full name like that. Doctor Pervez Hoodbhoy?
Me too.
Maybe if the Mu'tazili school survived (or a offshoot or descendant school)
Ibn Warraq
Banned
I think any Muslim scientist who came up with such a theory would probably face as much hostility as Darwin, though I doubt he'd be "burned as a heretic" if for no other reason than Islam doesn't burn heretics at the stake.
However, the Quran is quite clear, Allah formed Adam, the first man, out of clay gathered from the four corners of the earth. The idea that humans descended from lesser animals, animals which presumably didn't have souls, directly contradicts this part of the Quran. Now, many Christians believe that the Bible is a book written by prophets who were "inspired" by God and therefore not every word in it should be taken literally, but this is not true of Muslims. To Muslims, the Quran is an exact, error-free transcript of what God said to Muhammad in the 7th century. In fact, Muslims feel so strongly about the Quran being perfect that in the Islamic world, it is almost impossible to get a copy of it in any language other than Arabic, even though only about 10% of all Muslims speak Arabic.
Now, obviously if Darwin was right, then that means that at least one particular passage in the Quran is at the very least flawed and Muslim scholars would find that incredibly troubling. In fact, Muslim scholars today consider it troublesome. Some Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia and Sudan, ban the teaching the evolution, though most don't. However, even in Muslim countries not governed by Fundamentalist theocrats, there is a tremendous amount of resistance to the teaching and study of evolutionary biology. A recent issue of Discover had a good article on it.
In particular, I remember an interview it had with a Chemistry professor, Dr. Badawi, who though not a fundamentalist explained that humans couldn't have evolved from lesser animals because the Quran makes it clear that this didn't happen.
There is also a creationist movement in the Islamic world though I don't think it's ever gotten the publicity of the American one.
To be fair, Orthodox Jews also tend to be quite hostile to the idea of evolution as well. In fact, about 15 years ago members of the Israeli Knesset tried to ban the movie Jurassic Park because of it's "pro-evolution" message and in the mid-90s, the Israeli Education Minister under Rabin was forced to resign because she said "the Earth PROBABLY was not created in seven days" even though she recanted her statement and publicly apologized.
To be fair, I should add that Muslim scholars never had problems accepting the idea that the Earth was round despite references to "the four corners" of the Earth in various sacred scriptures and, to the best of my knowledge, never showed the resistance to the idea of a heliocentric universe that their Christian counterparts did, despite the fact that to this day Muslims in Mecca walk around the Kaaba seven times to imitate the way the SUN rotates around the EARTH each week.
Islam also tends to be a fairly practical religion and if some scientist had managed to make a really convincing case, I guess the Muslim religious authorities would have simply ignored the fact that this contradicts the story of Adam, but I honestly doubt they would have been anymore openminded then Christian or Orthodox Jewish religious authorites.
However, the Quran is quite clear, Allah formed Adam, the first man, out of clay gathered from the four corners of the earth. The idea that humans descended from lesser animals, animals which presumably didn't have souls, directly contradicts this part of the Quran. Now, many Christians believe that the Bible is a book written by prophets who were "inspired" by God and therefore not every word in it should be taken literally, but this is not true of Muslims. To Muslims, the Quran is an exact, error-free transcript of what God said to Muhammad in the 7th century. In fact, Muslims feel so strongly about the Quran being perfect that in the Islamic world, it is almost impossible to get a copy of it in any language other than Arabic, even though only about 10% of all Muslims speak Arabic.
Now, obviously if Darwin was right, then that means that at least one particular passage in the Quran is at the very least flawed and Muslim scholars would find that incredibly troubling. In fact, Muslim scholars today consider it troublesome. Some Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia and Sudan, ban the teaching the evolution, though most don't. However, even in Muslim countries not governed by Fundamentalist theocrats, there is a tremendous amount of resistance to the teaching and study of evolutionary biology. A recent issue of Discover had a good article on it.
In particular, I remember an interview it had with a Chemistry professor, Dr. Badawi, who though not a fundamentalist explained that humans couldn't have evolved from lesser animals because the Quran makes it clear that this didn't happen.
There is also a creationist movement in the Islamic world though I don't think it's ever gotten the publicity of the American one.
To be fair, Orthodox Jews also tend to be quite hostile to the idea of evolution as well. In fact, about 15 years ago members of the Israeli Knesset tried to ban the movie Jurassic Park because of it's "pro-evolution" message and in the mid-90s, the Israeli Education Minister under Rabin was forced to resign because she said "the Earth PROBABLY was not created in seven days" even though she recanted her statement and publicly apologized.
To be fair, I should add that Muslim scholars never had problems accepting the idea that the Earth was round despite references to "the four corners" of the Earth in various sacred scriptures and, to the best of my knowledge, never showed the resistance to the idea of a heliocentric universe that their Christian counterparts did, despite the fact that to this day Muslims in Mecca walk around the Kaaba seven times to imitate the way the SUN rotates around the EARTH each week.
Islam also tends to be a fairly practical religion and if some scientist had managed to make a really convincing case, I guess the Muslim religious authorities would have simply ignored the fact that this contradicts the story of Adam, but I honestly doubt they would have been anymore openminded then Christian or Orthodox Jewish religious authorites.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Now you are turning into a fundamentalist?
The Quran is written by God in Islamic belief, but that doesn't mean it's all literal, nor are Muslims expected to believe that is the case. It's all about interpretation. God created Adam, but the Quran doesn't say he didn't take his time about it. The sun appears to rotate around the earth, but that doesn't mean it does - as people in Muhammad's day were well aware. "Four corners of the earth" is alliterative, but nobody believed the earth had corners even when people though it was flat. And if the seven rounds of the Kaaba ever had anything to do with the sun and days of the week, it's lost in obscurity along with paganism. The purpose of it now is to symbolize Muhammad's 7 circuits and the unity and harmony of Islam.
And frankly, I think Muslim authorities have proven that they were more open-minded for having neglected to BURN AT THE STAKE everyone who came up with a scientific theory. Islam is simply not dogmatic in the way Christianity was. The Church required everyone, everywhere, to believe the same thing about everything, upon pain of death. Islam never had a hierarchy of that sort, and that is the reason this never happened. Actually, Darwin had a huge impact on Ottoman thinkers - you can see it in all their writings.
Opposing the teaching of evolution is a result of modern fundamentalism, which as I said above would be considered heretical throughout almost all the history of Islam.
The Quran is written by God in Islamic belief, but that doesn't mean it's all literal, nor are Muslims expected to believe that is the case. It's all about interpretation. God created Adam, but the Quran doesn't say he didn't take his time about it. The sun appears to rotate around the earth, but that doesn't mean it does - as people in Muhammad's day were well aware. "Four corners of the earth" is alliterative, but nobody believed the earth had corners even when people though it was flat. And if the seven rounds of the Kaaba ever had anything to do with the sun and days of the week, it's lost in obscurity along with paganism. The purpose of it now is to symbolize Muhammad's 7 circuits and the unity and harmony of Islam.
And frankly, I think Muslim authorities have proven that they were more open-minded for having neglected to BURN AT THE STAKE everyone who came up with a scientific theory. Islam is simply not dogmatic in the way Christianity was. The Church required everyone, everywhere, to believe the same thing about everything, upon pain of death. Islam never had a hierarchy of that sort, and that is the reason this never happened. Actually, Darwin had a huge impact on Ottoman thinkers - you can see it in all their writings.
Opposing the teaching of evolution is a result of modern fundamentalism, which as I said above would be considered heretical throughout almost all the history of Islam.
Ibn Warraq
Banned
Well, I certainly hope I'm not turning into a fundamentalist, I look awful with a beard.
On a more serious note, I think you've gotten the wrong impression. I certainly thought I made it clear when mentioning that Muslims don't burn heretics at the stake and commenting on how practical Islam was that Islam during the middle ages wasn't nearly as dogmatic as the Catholic church.
However, I think you're unintentionally using a Christian viewpoint when discussing the idea of whether or not the Quran is "literal" or not. Whenever I've read Islamic clerics like Khaleel Muhammad or Khaled Abu El Fadl criticizing Salafi clerics I've never heard them complain "you're taking this literally, these are meant to be allegories" the way liberal Christians argue with Fundamentalist Christians.
Instead, El Fadl and co. tend to come across more like liberal law professors, like Alan Dershowitz, argueing against conservative supporters of "original intent" such as Robert Bork. Dershowitz never argues that the Constitution shouldn't be taken literally, just that Bork is interpreting it incorrectly. In fact, I think one could make a very compelling arguement that throughout history most scholars attitudes towards the Quran and the hadith have been comparable to how legal followers of the concept of "a living constitution" have viewed the US constitution. An obvious corrolary to this would be to suggest that the Salafists who want to ignore every "innovation" in Islam since the third generation after Muhammad are similar to followers of the Federalist society, something which I don't think either Scalia or Alito would find terribly amusing.
My point is that Alan Dershowitz and Antonia Scalia don't argue over whether the Constitution is to be taken literally or not, they just argue over how to interpret it, and numerous legal opinions and Supreme Court decisions have proven that it's very easy for legal scholars to come up with many dramatically different interpretations of the same few sentences.
My understanding is that it is the same for Muslim scholars.
However, keep in mind that during the Middle Ages while Islamic scholars had more room to maneuver than Christian theologians they still had limits on what they could do. Remember, Ijtihad was largely crushed, or at least crushed among Sunnis, for a reason.
Moreover, I've never heard of any Islamic scholar, not even the most liberal ones, saying they thought the story of Adam was meant as a fable, whereas lots of Christian theologians think that, and I think the story of Adam is incompatible with evolution.
My own personal belief is that most Muslims and Muslim scholars have simply learned to ignore the fact that the two are incompatible because Islam is a fairly practical religion and that's why as I stated previously, most Muslim governments do teach evolution.
However, I still maintane that medieval Islamic scholars would have been troubled by something that so completely contradicted a passage in the Quran.
Oh, and my mention of the four corners was meant to be more as a joke though, my understanding was, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that most early Christains, Muslims and Jews accepted the idea that the Earth was flat and had four corners.
As to the circling of the Kaaba, thanks for the correction, I should have known better than to trust Karen Armstrong.
Keenir
Banned
Well, I certainly hope I'm not turning into a fundamentalist, I look awful with a beard.
as do 99% of all fundamentalists of any faith.
...actually, 99% of all humans.
but it survived among Shia, right?
if I may ask, what about that passage about God having "created them each in their own degree" or words to that effect.
*goes digging for the quote*
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
My point was that there was not One True Path for interpretation like there is in the Church.
Ijtihad doesn't mean you can't make big leaps of interpretation; it means making rulings based on no precedent at all. You can't do that in our legal system either.
It also has little to do with the Quran - it's really just a legal principle.
Ijtihad doesn't mean you can't make big leaps of interpretation; it means making rulings based on no precedent at all. You can't do that in our legal system either.
It also has little to do with the Quran - it's really just a legal principle.
Well, I certainly hope I'm not turning into a fundamentalist, I look awful with a beard.
On a more serious note, I think you've gotten the wrong impression. I certainly thought I made it clear when mentioning that Muslims don't burn heretics at the stake and commenting on how practical Islam was that Islam during the middle ages wasn't nearly as dogmatic as the Catholic church.
However, I think you're unintentionally using a Christian viewpoint when discussing the idea of whether or not the Quran is "literal" or not. Whenever I've read Islamic clerics like Khaleel Muhammad or Khaled Abu El Fadl criticizing Salafi clerics I've never heard them complain "you're taking this literally, these are meant to be allegories" the way liberal Christians argue with Fundamentalist Christians.
Instead, El Fadl and co. tend to come across more like liberal law professors, like Alan Dershowitz, argueing against conservative supporters of "original intent" such as Robert Bork. Dershowitz never argues that the Constitution shouldn't be taken literally, just that Bork is interpreting it incorrectly. In fact, I think one could make a very compelling arguement that throughout history most scholars attitudes towards the Quran and the hadith have been comparable to how legal followers of the concept of "a living constitution" have viewed the US constitution. An obvious corrolary to this would be to suggest that the Salafists who want to ignore every "innovation" in Islam since the third generation after Muhammad are similar to followers of the Federalist society, something which I don't think either Scalia or Alito would find terribly amusing.
My point is that Alan Dershowitz and Antonia Scalia don't argue over whether the Constitution is to be taken literally or not, they just argue over how to interpret it, and numerous legal opinions and Supreme Court decisions have proven that it's very easy for legal scholars to come up with many dramatically different interpretations of the same few sentences.
My understanding is that it is the same for Muslim scholars.
However, keep in mind that during the Middle Ages while Islamic scholars had more room to maneuver than Christian theologians they still had limits on what they could do. Remember, Ijtihad was largely crushed, or at least crushed among Sunnis, for a reason.
Moreover, I've never heard of any Islamic scholar, not even the most liberal ones, saying they thought the story of Adam was meant as a fable, whereas lots of Christian theologians think that, and I think the story of Adam is incompatible with evolution.
My own personal belief is that most Muslims and Muslim scholars have simply learned to ignore the fact that the two are incompatible because Islam is a fairly practical religion and that's why as I stated previously, most Muslim governments do teach evolution.
However, I still maintane that medieval Islamic scholars would have been troubled by something that so completely contradicted a passage in the Quran.
Oh, and my mention of the four corners was meant to be more as a joke though, my understanding was, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that most early Christains, Muslims and Jews accepted the idea that the Earth was flat and had four corners.
As to the circling of the Kaaba, thanks for the correction, I should have known better than to trust Karen Armstrong.