In Defense of the Miraculous Creation of Prophet Adam

A Review of The Provenance of Man: A Sunni Apologetic of the Original Creation of Ādam (‘Alayh Al-Salām) by Tahseen N. Khan

---

The theory of evolution has always been perceived as a challenge to Muslim beliefs. Research conducted by Yaqeen Institute exploring the sources of doubt in Islam notes, “By far, the topic of evolution is most commonly brought up in these conversations [scientific and philosophical concerns].”¹ The notion of common ancestry of all species — including humans — appears to be irreconcilable with the traditional account of Adam’s miraculous creation without ancestors.

However, in recent years a trend has emerged in the Muslim world. Scores of modern scholars have attempted to reconcile Islam and the theory of evolution by resorting to alternative readings of the sacred text supporting the existence of biological parents for Adam — a trend dubbed by Dr. Muzaffar Iqbal as the “Muslim evolutionists.”² Against this backdrop, the author attempts to show that a careful reading of the Qur’ān reveals that the creation of Adam without any biological parents is decisive (qaṭ‘ī) — contrary to the Muslim evolutionists.

The author begins by lamenting the intellectual scenery of Islam and evolution today. It is as if accepting evolution is a sign of intellectual maturity, whereas the standard view of human origins is seen as dogmatic. This is backed by the battalion of modern scholars attempting to align Islam with the theory of evolution (not the other way around), suggesting that it is possible for Adam to have biological parents. Nidhal Guessoum is often mentioned in the book as one of the main advocates. He accuses Muslims who hold the original creation of Adam employ a “literalistic reading of the Qur’ānic verses.” Claiming to base his stance on Ibn Rushd, Guessoum proposes that the Qur’ānic verses relating to Adam’s creation should be understood allegorically and subjected to the view of modern science.

Guessoum’s view lies under a weak foundation that science should be given the final words in understanding the true meaning of the scripture. For this reason, the second chapter — the longest and arguably the most important one — is dedicated to demonstrating the incoherence of this stance. The author outlines two rational principles to be adopted as a framework: the principle of identity (PI) and the principle of non-contradiction (PNC) (p.14). Furthermore, he also mentions the Sunni rational judgments of the category of beings: necessary (wājibāt), possible (mumkināt), and impossible (mustaḥīlāt) (p.16). As free-willing agent and omnipotence are attributed to Allāh, it follows that: 1) all things that have come into existence must require Allāh (a necessary being) for their initial origination and their continued existence; 2) any miraculous event is possible so long as it does not violate PI/PNC.

From the above category, it follows that the creation of Adam without any biological parents falls into the realm of possible being. This is because the need of parents is not an intrinsic necessity for humans, thus no violation of PI or PNC. Drawing from the works Muṣṭafā Ṣabrī, it is shown that Guessoum and the likes are mistaken in conflating rational judgments and empirical/nomic judgments. This is because nomic judgments deal with actualized existence (wuqū‘) and nonexistence (lāwuqū‘); they cannot be used to deny rationally possible beings. Put into context, just because humans generally have biological parents, it does not follow that it must be the case that Adam also has biological parents.

In the next two short chapters, the author rebukes two more points by Guessoum: 1) past Muslim scholars have not considered the ideas of Adam’s biological parentage; 2) the lack of consensus by the Muslim scholars on the nature of Adam. For the first point, the author proves that early Muslim scholars have engaged with the early proto-evolutionists view, i.e. Dahriyya, that believes no man (including Adam) is created without parents. Despite this view, it is still a scholarly consensus (ijmā‘) that Adam was created without any parents. For the second point, the author notes that Guessoum mostly relies on misconstrued and ahistorical readings of figures such as Rūmī, Ibn Khaldūn, Ibn Miskawayh, and Ikhwān al Ṣafā into believing that a glimpse of Darwin’s evolutionary ideas was already adhered by Muslim scholars.³

Having proven the rational possibility of Adam being created without any parents, the next step is to prove its actual occurrence. For this, the author dedicates the remainder of the book to establish the argument, as “whenever the Qur’ān relates a specific supernatural event in unequivocal (qaṭ‘ī al-dalāla), this would then qualify as a “stronger evidence” than a universal, nomic judgment provided by science and would further be counted as a departure from it.” The verse of Ali-ʿImrān (3):59 is highlighted, as the author believes that it is “the single-most important verse in decisively proving the original creation of Ādam.”

“Indeed, the example of Jesus in the sight of Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be!” And he was!”

Quran (3):59

The author reports a scholarly consensus among exegetes (mufassir) that the first 80 verses of Ali-ʿImrān were revealed concerning the debate about the paternity of prophet ‘Īsā A.S. that took place upon the arrival of the Christian delegation of Najrān to al-Madīna (pp.75,86-87). As for the context (siyāq) of the verse, by analyzing the verses before and after Q.S. Ali-ʿImrān (3):59 the author concluded that it is to deny the divinity of ‘Īsā, for it belongs to Allah alone.

What is the relevance of ‘Īsā in the context of Adam’s miraculous creation? As already mentioned, the context of the verse under scrutiny is to negate the divinity of ‘Īsā during the debate with the Christian delegation of Najrān. Therefore, the comparison of ‘Īsā and Adam in Q.S. Ali-ʿImrān (3):59 can be understood in the sense that Adam’s lack of biological parent(s) is no proof of his divinity, just like ‘Īsā’s lack of father is no proof of his divinity. This analogy would only make sense if the Christian of Najrān already concedes that Adam was created without biological parents. This suggests that the Christians and Muslims back then already held shared beliefs about Adam’s original creation. Interestingly, this point is backed even by Christian scholars. During the author’s correspondence with numerous Christian scholars, all of them agreed that prior to the advent of the theory of evolution, Christians believed that Adam was an original creation without biological parents.

The author also responds to some of the possible objections posed by the Muslim evolutionists. For example, it is claimed that it is possible for Adam, just like ‘Īsā, to have a biological mother. This is a weak argument, as “had Ādam [A.S.] possessed a mother, then using him as the vehicle [for comparison] would not be a strong form of argument against the polytheists, for there lies no rationally-guiding principle that truly prevents them from affirming yet another divine in addition to ‘Īsā [A.S.].” Thus, Adam lacking full parentage provides a stronger argument to deny any relationship between divinity and parentage.

This book successfully provides a traditionally grounded defense of Adam’s miraculous creation against the Muslim evolutionists. As the author remarks, “the arguments put forth for Ādam [A.S.] possessing biological parentage reflect ignorance of a variety of subjects.” The forceful reading of the Qur’ān in support of Adam’s biological parentage just shows the lack of consideration for the traditional Islamic methodologies, if not an acute sign of scientism.

On the more cosmetic side, the footnotes are carefully constructed for further research by advanced readers. Unfortunately, Arabic quotations are not translated by the author except for the Qur’ānic verses. There is also no index, which makes it difficult to locate names or key terms in the book. However, the minor weaknesses do not lower the exceptional display of scholarship shown by the book.

Needless to say, even with the contributions put forth by the book, the discourse of Islam and evolution is far from over. For instance, the position of Adamic exceptionalism⁴, i.e. Adam is unevolved but our lineage might have been a result of intermingling between Adam’s progeny and pre-Adamic “humans,” is not yet addressed. Both theological and scientific fronts must be addressed. If today’s humans are a result of intermingling between Adam’s progeny and pre-Adamic “humans,” how would this affect our understanding of the Hadith narrative mentioning Adam as the “father of mankind” (abu al-bashar)? If Adam (and Eve) were the single progenitor of mankind, how would it explain the genetic variability⁵ possessed by humans today? Along with other issues on the theological, scientific, ethical, and metaphysical fronts, Islam and evolution is still an open field waiting for thoughtful minds to engage.

---

Photo by Dawid Zawiła on Unsplash

Disclaimer: Material published by Traversing Tradition is meant to foster scholarly inquiry and rich discussion. The views, opinions, beliefs, or strategies represented in published articles and subsequent comments do not necessarily represent the views of Traversing Tradition or any employee thereof.

1. Youssef Chouhoud, “Modern Pathways to Doubt in Islam,” Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research (2016), p.12. Texts in brackets added by the author. [↩]
2. Muzaffar Iqbal, “Engaging New Muslim Evolutionists,” Islamic Sciences vol. 16, no. 1 (2023). [↩]
3. For further details, see Shoaib Ahmed Malik, “Old Texts, New Masks: A Critical Review of Misreading Evolution onto Historical Islamic Texts,” Zygon, 54.2 (2019):501-522 [↩]
4. See David Jalajel, “Tawaqquf and Acceptance of Human Evolution,” Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research (2018 [↩]
5. For a brief account of the problem of genetic variability with regards to the descendants of Adam and Eve, see Shoaib Ahmed Malik, Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm (London: Routledge, 2021), pp.328-329. [↩]