The Theory of Evolution and Islam

     One of the topics that enemies of religion have relied on most, especially in the last hundred years, is Evolution. Led by a few amateurs and individuals far removed from scientific approaches, the Industrial Revolution, the withdrawal of Christianity from Western life (leading to the rise of Atheism), the emergence of various Materialist philosophies finding suitable ground, and these movements largely following the same path, all contributed to the flourishing of the theory of evolution.

     Evolution, as explained in the modern online encyclopedia Wikipedia, is "the process by which living species undergo hereditary changes from generation to generation, acquiring characteristics different from their original state." It continues, "According to this theory, the origin of animals, plants, and all other living things on Earth lies in species that lived before them, and distinguishable differences are the result of genetic changes that occurred in successful generations." Let's delve into the background of this seemingly innocent explanation:

A Brief History of Evolutionary Thought

     At the beginning of the 19th century, the French doctor Lamarck wrote that living organisms might have originated from a single species and that they change from simple to perfect. Later, in 1859, the amateur biologist Charles Darwin, in his book "On the Origin of Species," wrote that living things struggle to adapt to their environment, and in this struggle, the strong survive while the weak perish (natural selection). He stated that all living things, including humans, might have originated from one or a few common ancestors. Claims emerged that humans and monkeys came from the same ancestor (primate). Following these, the Dutch botanist and biologist Hugo de Vries introduced the "mutation theory" at the beginning of the 20th century. This was a perfect "pass" for bigoted individuals, disguised as "scientists," who disliked Abrahamic religions, were particularly fed up with Christianity, and sought revenge! They eagerly embraced this "pass" to "score a goal"... but not for science, rather for their fantasy worlds!

     Funds, institutes, and laboratories were established with large sums of money. Methodologies, procedures, and rules were determined. Highly esteemed individuals with many titles began loudly proclaiming that humans descended from monkeys or, more innocently, "from the same ancestor as monkeys." The bones of pigs, monkeys, horses, etc., found in excavations, were widely published as "missing links in the evolutionary chain" in newspapers and magazines they had acquired. With the 20th century, Marxist and Atheist foundations, which emerged from the theoretical platform and took practical form as "Socialist" and "Communist" states, desperately embraced this Theory of Evolution. Darwinism, Atheism, and the Theory of Evolution went hand in hand, crafting a great taboo. Over time, it reached a point where those disguised as "scientists" elevated the issue to "no evolution, no modern science!"

The Underlying Motive

     So, what was the purpose? Why did so many seemingly rational and modern people embrace this theory and the "monkeys" who were unaware of what was happening? Let's try to answer that:

     If a complex-ridden individual, posing as a "scientist," claims that "the cell, the building block of living things, spontaneously came into existence in the seas millions or billions of years ago, and over time transformed into marine plants and animals, then land animals, and finally humans. Early humans were ignorant, lived in caves, wrapped themselves in undressed animal skins, humanity developed from scratch... Stone Age, Bronze Age...", this is a clear denial that the first human was Prophet Adam and an assertion that the Al-Quran Al-Kareem and other sacred books are nonsense, and that there was no Creator who created that first cell. Islam and other Abrahamic religions repeatedly and definitively state that the first human was created from clay. Believing this is a "necessity of religion." In short, the red lines of Islam (and therefore, all Abrahamic religions in their uncorrupted form) on this matter are:

1. Saying, "The first living thing originated accidentally in the sea or elsewhere." Neither science nor religion accepts such a "perfect coincidence"!

2. Saying, "There are transitions between species," and even more irrelevantly, "humans evolved and developed from animals."

     So, if a "scientist" says things like, "humans evolved and developed from monkeys or another animal, the ancestor of humans is the monkey...", this person is not a "scientist," but an ignorant individual hidden behind the curtain of science, and all rational scientists would laugh at such an ignorant person. If another scientist says, "matters, cells, and beings came into existence later when they did not exist," this statement is accepted in both science and religion. Islamic scholars have mentioned the existence of a "development" in the structure of living things, from simple to perfect, and have recorded these in their books, but this does not mean that there is evolution or development "from one species to another"!

     Our religion does not state how plants and animals were created. After the initial creation, whether they came into existence accidentally in the seas or in another way, these do not harm Islam; on the contrary, they strengthen it.

A short animation about the Theory of Evolution and Islam is also available:

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!

The Magic Word Crafted Through Wordplay: Salafiyyah

     Today's world is witnessing the unstoppable spread and rise of a reformed Salafism, striving to adapt to the modern age in some way. The reaction of youth and new converts to the fragmented, weakened, dependent, and humiliated state of the Islamic world is generally (consciously or not) "Salafi." The way those in the West who seek to preserve their identity and refuse to be oppressed act is "Salafi." The resistance of those who believe their country is under occupation is generally "Salafi"... in short, Salafism is experiencing its golden age. So, who are these people and what are their ways and methods?

Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb

     Essentially, "Salafism" or more accurately, "Salafiyyah," began in the fourth Hijri century, according to Muhammad Abu Zahra's book "History of Islamic Schools", when some individuals who separated from the Hanbali school gave themselves this name. However, in its true sense, it can be said to be the school established by Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah of Harran and his loyal student Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya. Ibn Taymiyyah, whom Imam Abul Hasan Subki described as "one whose knowledge outweighed his intellect," was initially a Hanbali scholar but later went astray and began to follow his own distinct path. He started saying things no one had ever said before, such as "Allah is a body composed of particles, He moves, and He is obliged to create good things," and "Hell is not eternal; it will end one day." He began to deny Sufi scholars and disliked words like "tawassul, istighathah, tashaffu". He even criticized some of the great Sahaba.

     As for the word "Salafiyyah": The word "Salaf," as is known, means "predecessor" or "one who came before." The disinformation and illusion Established by this language have been accepted even in today's most reputable sources. According to those who follow this path and are unaware of the matter, or those who fall under the sway of Salafis, Salafiyyah is "the path Muslims followed until the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools were established." It is even called "Ahl al-Sunnah al-Khassah." This is a very innocent statement for someone with weak or no knowledge of religion and history. However, with a little research, an incredible amount of misinformation and manipulation emerges. Firstly, stating that "the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools were established later" is fundamentally wrong, because Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi did not establish new schools. They merely codified the existing Ahl al-Sunnah creed in books and explained it in a way that even new converts to Islam could understand.

     Another claim of the Salafis is that "Imam Azam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ghazali explained the Salafiyyah path in their books." However, the word or phrase written in the books of these scholars is "Salaf" and "Salaf al-Salihin" (meaning the name given to the Muslims of the first two centuries praised in hadith). In other words, the Salafi group, seeking a legal basis for themselves and wanting to deceive the Islamic world, has displayed a strange example of wordplay by transforming the term "Salaf" and "Salaf al-Salihin" into "Salafiyyah." It is quite clear in the sources that the term "Salaf" was used for the Sahaba and the Tabi'in. Therefore, the mujtahids and imams explained the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah, which is the creed of the Salaf, not a "Salafiyyah" school. There is no such school as Salafiyyah within the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama'ah.

     Let's move on to its historical development: Approximately five centuries after Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim laid the foundation of this path and codified its principles in books, Salafism was revived as a deceptive element of another movement. After the second half of the 18th century, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab emerged from the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula, a region called Najd. He took Muhammad ibn Saud, the tribal chief of a place called Diriyah, with him and opened a completely new path for the Bedouins, who had no share in Islam, whose hearts were hardened, and whose morals were low. The name of the path, quickly established with ample British money and weapons, was seen as "Wahhabism" by those who knew its true nature, purpose, and essence, but as Salafism and the revival of Salafism by those who were unaware and saw it as an innocent movement (the fabricated excuse was: in creed, it was the Salafi school of Ahl al-Sunnah, and in practice, the Hanbali school).

     Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab further advanced the principles established by Ibn Taymiyyah, such as hostility towards Sufism, istighathah, and intercession. He also tried to criticize the imams of the various schools of thought. He began to declare that people living before his time and principles worshipped tombs and graves and were polytheists. He accused both Ahl al-Sunnah and Shia of polytheism. This label most pleased the desert Bedouins. For the desert people who had never seen the light of day, "Dolce Vita" was beginning! Since a legal basis had now been provided, marauders plundered settlements, shared women as concubines, and goods as spoils of war. Due to internal unrest and problems with Russia within the Ottoman Empire, the Wahhabi bandits quickly reached the Haramayn-i Sharifayn (Mecca and Medina). As a result, after conflicts, intrigues, and so on, Saudi Arabia, considered by many to be the first Salafi state, was founded in 1932.

     Over time, the Saudis reduced their harshness and reliance on sword and shield. They saw that besides the money from Hajj and Umrah, oil revenues were also increasing, so they began to spread their books with gilded, coated paper, and luxury prints all over the world, establishing centers everywhere. They tried to establish a theoretical framework for their cause and influence young people... and time worked in their favor! The religions of pure and unadulterated Wahhabi-Salafi states were presented as "Sunni" in sources. With the involvement of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Rashid Rida, Sayyid Qutb, and Hasan al-Banna, who emerged from Egypt, the center for producing discord and innovation in the 20th century, the scope further expanded.

     Then... Communism and Socialism collapsed worldwide (leaving a few dysfunctional remnants). As soon as the Cold War ended, a new enemy needed to be formed, and this enemy immediately presented itself in a - supposedly - "green" color: Al-Qaeda, terrorist acts, attacks in Kenya and Tanzania, the Taliban, September 11th, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen... the situation quickly became chaotic!

     The golden age of modern Salafism was about to begin... The struggle against Russia, the remnant of the USSR, in Chechnya, in Bosnia under Serbian oppression, in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in the lands of Iraq against the US and its allies, was the most preferred scene for the Salafi-looking Wahhabi movement, because it involved defending a homeland, and naturally, the simplistic logic of "one person is one person" applied. However, innocent defensive struggles in some places gradually degenerated, ranging from the killing of innocent civilians to terrorizing areas as suicide bombers. Furthermore, in places where Salafis settled, theoretical dissemination also accelerated with abundant Saudi money and aid. Concepts like homeland defense and jihad caused hot-blooded young men eager to do something to easily fall into this trap.

     Additionally, Salafis played an active role in the rapid spread of Islam in the West. They caused the young people they contacted to learn Islam in this way and to experience difficulties with their living environments.

     So, how do you recognize a Salafi, or someone who unknowingly falls into this path, or at least is somehow influenced by the Salafi mentality? Here are a few clues: If a person constantly talks about "taghut" (a word used in the Al-Quran Al-Kareem in a few places meaning things or people worshipped besides Allah, or things that distance one from Allah) and describes taghut as the regimes and forms of administration in many of the countries in the region called the contemporary Islamic World, and if they refer to Sayyid Qutb, Hasan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Jordanian Khattab, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, and the book "Milestones, and if they try to subtly criticize Sufism, Muhyiddin ibn Arabi, Wahdat al-Wujud, and the four imams of the schools of thought, and if they speak of the door of "ijtihad" not being closed and that it should not be closed, and if they try to derive meaning from the Quran according to their own understanding, and if they say that shaving the beard is forbidden, and if they claim that voting in Turkey or similar countries leads to shirk (polytheism), and if they call Ibn Taymiyyah "Shaykh al-Islam" and a great imam, and if they say that actions are a part of faith... if they hold such claims, which an average Anatolian person or someone who has studied in a madrasah, read the books of the four imams of the schools of thought and their students, and has been exposed to Sufism, or at least loves great Sufi figures, would not hear, then it can be understood that this person is at least unconsciously inclined towards the Salafi mentality!