Were the First Humans Savages Living in Caves?

 

   In the early 21st century, a middle school student in Turkey (or similar countries), where the overwhelming majority of the population is allegedly Muslim, would encounter a scene like this when attending history and religious studies classes:

     In a history class, the teacher would explain that early humans were savages living in caves, trying to cover themselves with untanned animal skins, discovering fire and the wheel out of necessity, and drawing pictures on cave walls. In this history lesson, the child learns that their ancestors evolved from monkeys, initially moving on all fours, but gradually learning to stand on two feet to gather fruit from trees, starting everything from scratch. They learn about a period called "Prehistory," a time before writing, and that this prehistoric era is divided into various sub-periods. The student understands that during the "Stone Age," which they saw depicted in cartoons as a child, "ape-like" humans, with no skills beyond "hunter" and "gatherer," tried to chip and shape stones to protect themselves from wild animals and to benefit from their meat. The history teacher would even confidently instill in the children's impressionable minds that humanity's first beliefs, their initial pagan stirrings in the face of natural phenomena and giant creatures, began in this era, leading them to draw pictures and various shapes in caves, and to make figurines. The history lesson would then bombard young minds with a multitude of "polished" but nonsensical names—such as Paleolithic, Epipaleolithic, Old Stone Age, Chipped Stone Age, Rough Stone Age, Copper Age, Chalcolithic Age, Metal Age, Bronze Age, etc.—as if to say, "We classified these for ignoramuses like you, so appreciate it." As it stands, the "history" lessons the child receives directly overlaps with the "history" taught during the Soviet Socialist Republics era, a system we are supposedly diametrically opposed to in ideology.

     The student's next stop after this lesson is the "Religious Culture and Ethics" class. Here, the Religious Studies teacher, as if in defiance of the history lesson described above, explains that the first human was also the first prophet, that Hazrat Adam and his children were literate, lived in settlements, and possessed skills like weaving and farming. The teacher also states that 50 scrolls (small books apart from the four major ones) were sent to Him.

     Now, if this student accepts the depiction of early humans from the history class, they would clearly be contradicting the Islamic faith they claim to belong to. If they believe the religious studies class, they would be considered "narrow-minded" and "reactionary." Just look at this insoluble dilemma encountered at such a tender age!

     So, what's behind all this? Which ideology and which force, so to speak, is "selling snails in a Muslim neighborhood"? Let's examine that.

     It all began, as stated in the article "Islam's View on the Theory of Evolution," when circles with imaginations as inflated as their pockets, whose ears smoke at the mention of the word "religion," and who quickly organize and pour their wealth into the cause when it comes to opposing religion, heard about something called "Evolution."

     The claims of French biologist Jean Baptiste Lamarck, followed by the works of English amateur biologist Charles Darwin, who laid the groundwork for this ideology, quickly bore fruit thanks to the well-organized and diligent efforts of those circles who weren't fond of Abrahamic religions (some of their characteristics listed above). This found its legal platform in the early 20th century with the emergence of Marxist-based, socialist or communist-looking atheistic movements.

     Now, in "secularized" schools, students were taught that early humans descended from monkeys, or at least from a common ancestor shared with monkeys, that semi-ape, semi-human creatures evolved over time, and that religions, too, evolved from the idolatry of these humanoids in the face of natural forces to monotheistic religions. In simpler terms, they taught that "there is no such thing as creation," "the belief in the first human as the first prophet is a fallacy," and therefore, "the concept of a Creator" is an empty superstition.

     However, Islam, as repeatedly stated in the Al-Quran Al-Kareem and Hadith, definitively states that the first human was created from clay (or mud), meaning from nothing. The first human was also the first Prophet, and all names were taught to him; his lineage knew how to read and write; there was no "Prehistory" devoid of "writing."

     From all this information and the reports of Islamic scholars, it is understood that civilization or progress has not shown a continuous upward trend. Some civilizations developed under the leadership of the Prophet of their time and then faded (which is indeed proven by very ancient civilization ruins found in various parts of the world, astonishing modern people who think they perform wonders with their tablets or "smart" cell phones). Some regions have never developed. Even now, there are still many places in Papua or the untouched Amazon Rainforest, where people live in the jungle, unaware of clothing, and showing no signs of development. Can the existence of such places and the "savage" life led by their inhabitants be considered a parameter of underdevelopment for the civilized world? Does the continued existence of these "savages" mean that today's world should be called the "Early Age" or the "Stone Age"? Absolutely not.

There's even a video of it!